Nostr notes by Techdirt (RSS/Atom feed)

Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer ...

2026-06-02T20:27:23Z

Everyone In This LEGO Dispute Should Have Spoken To A Lawyer Earlier Than They Did

On Techdirt, we often complain about lawyers and bad lawyering and bad cases. But there are times when lawyers are helpful, and my one-sentence summary after spending many days trying to understand a viral dispute about [checks notes] some old Star Wars LEGO sets is that a lot of people should have spoken to competent lawyers before doing… whatever the fuck they decided to do here.

If you haven’t been following the Bricks & Minifigs saga, congratulations on your peaceful existence. It’s a genuinely difficult story to track, partly because you have to watch a bunch of long YouTube videos to piece it together, and partly because almost everyone covering it is pushing a specific angle. Just as a point of reference, Bricks & Minifigs is a company that franchises its concept of stores for buying and selling lego blocks and sets — and, yes, minifigs. They have about 300 stores, most of which are franchised.

The basic summary (and some of this is disputed) is that a local Bricks & Minifigs franchise in Keizer, Oregon made an agreement with a guy named Bryan Mansell to sell a very large collection that his father had put together over many years of collectable unopened Star Wars LEGO sets. The intention of the collection had (we are told) always been to pay for college for Bryan’s children. His father, an 83-year-old man, had agreed to have Bryan sell the sets via the Keizer store on consignment. The collection was advertised, including on [the store’s Instagram page][1] where they made it clear that it was “one of the largest, most valuable privately held collections of Star Wars LEGO in the world” and that it was about to go on sale.

Later photos in that post detailed that they believed the collection was “worth well over $200,000” and that the entire collection would be sold through the store. The actual value of the legos in question is disputed, but the lowest number I’ve seen is closer to $60k. The entirety of the Instagram post text reads:

> *Saturday and Sunday, the 11th and 12th of November, the Bricks and Minifigs store in Salem-Kaiser will display one of the largest, most valuable privately held collections of Star WarsTM LEGO in the world. The event will be open to journalists and the public for photos before the collection goes on sale.*

> *In the early 90s, Ed Mansell predicted Star WarsTM LEGO would be a good investment. Over the next 15 years, he purchased approximately $20,000 of Star WarsTM LEGO and preserved them, sealed, in their original boxes. The investment really paid off. The collection is now estimated to be worth well over $200,000. Multiple sets, including the highly prized, incredibly rare Cloud City set, are now worth more than $10,000 each. Some of the individual minifigs are worth more than $1,300 each. The ten-fold increase in the value of Mansell’s collection is a greater return than if Mansell had put the same amount of money into the stock market in a Dow Jones Index Fund.*

> *When Ed Mansell decided it was time to divest, he turned to his son, Bryan Mansell. Bryan knows more about his father’s comic book and baseball card collection but didn’t feel confident in his knowledge of the LEGO secondary market. He saw the sign for the Bricks and Minifigs store while passing by on North River Road, came in, and asked the store owner, Chrystal Law, if she could help. “I told him, even if we couldn’t sell the collection, I would help him figure out how much it was worth because I didn’t want him to get ripped off. And I think that’s why he trusted me,” Law said. The entire collection will be sold through Law’s store, but first they wanted to put it all on display so the public can see it in its entirety.*

> *The collection will be on display in the store’s party room from 10am till 6pm on Saturday, November 11th, and 11am till 6pm on Sunday. The collection will be available for sale immediately, so the best time for pictures will be Saturday morning. The collection will not be stored on-site after hours for security reasons, and after Sunday the sets will be available for purchase but stored elsewhere. Bricks and Minifigs is located at 3670 River Road in Kaiser.*

Apparently, over the course of 2024, various parts of the collection were sold off and Mansell would stop by each month to collect his cut of the sales. There is a dispute over how much of the collection was actually sold before everything went off the rails in late 2024.

In November 2024, as you may have heard, Donald Trump was elected. Chrystal’s partner, Ben Gorman, runs a small publishing company called Not A Pipe Publishing, which (among other things) publishes something called the “Antifa Lit Journal.” Gorman felt like publishing such things in the US under a Trump regime might be problematic and looked into moving out of the country. As part of that, Law contacted corporate Bricks & Minifigs about selling or closing their franchise (exactly what she told them is disputed).

This next part is also disputed. Law & Gorman say corporate told them they had a franchisee who was interested in taking over the franchise. Bricks & Minifigs corporate claims that Law had told them she was shuttering the store and that she wasn’t allowed to do that, so they had to rush to reclaim the store. Almost immediately someone associated with Bricks & Minifigs, Brandon Best, showed up at the store, saying he was taking over the store and demanding the keys and that Law leave immediately. There’s also a dispute over whether or not Law & Gorman were in violation of their franchise agreement (Law & Gorman claim that the breach was due to failures by BAM corporate, which had been worked out months prior, and any claim of ongoing breach is misleading).

There’s a bit that is caught on video where Law tells Brandon and someone from the company on the phone that they have a large collection on consignment and that they owe Mansell money, and Bricks and Minifigs corporate tells Law they’ll “take on the consignment liability.”

Law and Gorman push back on Bricks & Minifigs just taking over the store, but are told by a B&M “official” name Ki McAllister (recorded by Gorman) that if they try to fight this, B&M will make their lives difficult: “If we go the legal route, it’s gonna be a very expensive battle for you and it’s not going to be a good position for you guys to get into. There’s not a whole lot of options for you. If you want to go the legal route, it’s just going to be a mess and it’s gonna be expensive for you.” When Gorman pushes back and asks if McAllister spoke “with” or “at” Crystal, McAllister admits he spoke “at” her and then says: “If you fight this, then you’re putting yourself into a whole lot of shit. I**t sounds like a threat and I can acknowledge that, because in a way it is.**“

From there, it appears corporate Bricks & Minifigs transferred the franchise to two of its partners, Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best (the guy who showed up at the store) and they just… basically denied owing Mansell anything at all or even having his legos. Or sometimes they’d admit it and sometimes they wouldn’t. It became messy. Mansell claims that the people he spoke to store gave an almost identical message to him that Ki McAllister gave to Gorman & Law that it would be too expensive for him to go to court to get back what he owes.

Mansell then reached out to YouTubers, some of whom detailed how Bricks & Minifigs appeared to have effectively stolen all these lego sets. But then (according to one of the YouTubers) Bricks & Minifigs threatened to sue them (sense a pattern?) and they took down the videos.

Mansell then contacted another YouTuber named Ben Schneider, who goes by the handle Reckless Ben — best described as a Temu Nathan Fielder. He puts himself in ridiculous situations, goes to equally ridiculous lengths to justify them, and stares blankly into the camera with that specific combination of cluelessness and overconfidence that comes from someone who has talked himself into believing every move he makes is correct.

In this case, that included (not a complete list) trying to get back Mansell’s money and/or remaining legos by going to the store, confronting the employees, confronting the owners (who were difficult to track down), showing up at Bricks & Minifigs corporate, speaking to the CEO, setting up a registered religion in order to run a raffle for the lego sets to try to make this a criminal case to get law enforcement involved (not how any of this works), filing a bunch of small claims cases against the store and the company and the owners of the store, creating a company called We Steal from Old People, setting up a “franchise” structure for We Steal from Old People to use a mirror argument of Bricks & Minifigs that he can’t be held liable for franchisee actions, putting up signs for that store, and much more.

Some of these moves are interesting. Some are genuinely clever. Many are very stupid — particularly agreeing to talk to cops without a lawyer present after being arrested (more on that shortly), and believing that tricking a store employee into signing what she thought was a delivery receipt, but which was actually an unenforceable “contract” against trespassing him, accomplished anything at all. Mostly what all of this does is generate attention, rather than anything *legally* compelling.

The one potentially legally interesting move in all of this was filing the ten separate small claims cases against the store (I won’t even get into how they were able to structure things to file the ten separate claims even though that’s interesting, because this is freaking long enough, and the details are in some of the videos below). The store refused to show up in the cases, meaning that default judgments were entered in each case. When Schneider went to the store to try to collect, he found that the store had been permanently shuttered the day after the default judgments came down (which looks very, very bad for Bricks & Minifigs and the franchise owners).

The cops get called on Schneider repeatedly through all of this. When he’s in Utah trying to confront both Bricks and Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff and the supposed franchise owners, Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best. He tries to take Johnson to small claims court and the court tells him he needs to first try to resolve the issue with Johnson, but Johnson (who at one point offers to give Mansell the lego back if Mansell apologizes, but then doesn’t) has blocked Schneider’s phone number and calls the police when he sees Schneider and associates near his house.

At multiple points the police stop cars that Schneider is in (one time after falsely claiming they didn’t stop at a stop sign, even though the dash cam shows they clearly did) and generally appear to be harassing Schneider and his colleagues. In what appears to be a tremendously egregious move, they pull them over and hold them for hours claiming that they believe there are drugs in the car which they search for and are unable to find. Later the cops get a warrant and raid the Airbnb where Schneider and others are staying, arresting them all.

Schneider and some of the others working with him are arrested at various points for stalking and harassment, while Schneider insists he’s just trying to serve Johnson with the papers from the small claims case. There’s also an attempt to claim that the Go Fund Me campaign that Schneider set up at some point violates some law. The whole thing goes off the rails in so many ways.

Schneider also gets access to various bodycam footage, some of which is redacted in places that look sketchy but happens all the time with police body cams. Some of the bodycam footage looks damning against the police (including a couple of admissions that they don’t really think Schneider and his friends have violated the law, even if the police chief later disputes that).

Very stupidly, Schneider and his friends/colleagues repeatedly talk to cops without a lawyer present. This is a very bad thing to do. Multiple people who were arrested later put up their own videos about it, including one (the guy who was arrested for trying to lock his phone when a cop tried to take it), [who claims][2] that he’s got a high IQ so was never going to get bested by a cop (this is also a stupid thing to say).

Bricks & Minifigs’ position on all of this appears to be that (1) anything bad that happened was because of the franchise owners and not corporate, both the previous ones and the ones they arranged to take over who appear to be closely associated with corporate Bricks & Minifigs anyway, (2) Law & Gorman violated their franchise agreement in many ways and the takeover of the store was necessary because of that, (3) that Gorman & Law “stole” Mansell’s legos and the new store really didn’t have any, (4) that Gorman & Law weren’t allowed to do consignment deals in the first place (despite evidence to the contrary, including the franchise agreement that lays out that consignment is acceptable), (5) that Ki McAllister is a low level employee and his statements don’t matter (not how it works), (6) that they didn’t know about any consignment deal (clearly untrue given video evidence as well as notifications from both Law and Mansell), (7) that Schneider is only giving a one-sided account
(true, but doesn’t deal with many of the factual claims), and (8) that this is all an illegal harassment campaign against them designed to get them to pay out way more money than they owe (if they owe anything at all).

On top of all that we have competing additional civil lawsuits filed in Utah state courts and the various misdemeanor (not felony) charges against Schneider (though he claims he’s also being threatened with felony charges, though as far as I can tell none have been filed yet). Oh and the potential of criminal charges against… someone… in Oregon for the possible theft of Mansell’s collection.

Phew.

Let’s now insert some of the many videos on this. I will say that Bricks & Minifigs corporate (and the replacement franchise owners) come out of this all looking very, very, very sketchy. Ben Schneider comes out of it looking like both a hero for getting a tremendous amount of viral attention to all of this, but also kind of a dumbass for doing a bunch of very stupid things that he thinks helps his cause but don’t, which he could have avoided by… actually talking to a lawyer. Yes, Schneider got a ton of attention on the issue, but also did a ton of things that likely made everything worse for Mansell and himself.

If literally *anyone* involved had spoken to a lawyer at any point, an awful lot of this mess could have been avoided.

That’s why I’ll start with the most even-handed summary I’ve seen of the whole thing, from the always excellent Lawful Masses with Leonard French, who walks through [the legal reality in exhaustive detail][3]. It’s more complicated than any of the other coverage suggests, though yes, Bricks & Minifigs still comes out of it looking like people who took control of collectible legos they had no rights to.

Some of the key points highlighted by French that haven’t made it into most of the other videos I’ve seen:

1. Mansell should have filed a [UCC-1 financing statement][4] with the consignment to protect his property (this is genuinely useful information for anyone ever looking to sell things on consignment) but even if he didn’t do that, he’s probably protected by the “[merchant exception][5]” related to the Statute of Frauds. This is far beyond my own legal understanding, but is fascinating.
2. Mansell sent a termination letter to the new owners of the franchise, putting them on actual notice that the sets were his.
3. Mansell had a friend go in and purchase one of his sets *after* he had clearly informed the store not to sell one. As French points out, this is now a pretty clear theft case.
4. Bricks & Minifigs has some ways that they could (potentially successfully) challenge the small claims default judgments against them in Oregon, but the clock is ticking on that, and if they fail to, those judgments could follow them around.

Then as I was finishing up this already incredibly long article, I saw French has released part II, [looking at some of the filed lawsuits][6] that I discuss below and coming to similar conclusions that I do (i.e., no one comes out of any of this looking good).

Then there are some of Schneider’s amusing/cringey videos, [starting with][7] him talking about the effort to get back the legos. This is the main video that made this go viral and currently has around 3 million views.

He then published a follow up detailing how the police in American Fork [treated him and his friends][8] including stopping them multiple times and eventually raiding their AirBNB and arresting them.

And also a short video reading through and reacting to a leaked letter that Bricks & Minifigs corporate [sent to their franchisees][9] about how to deal with the controversy.

There is also a short video from Law and Gorman [regarding their side of the story][10].

Then there are the American Fork police who released [this bizarre video][11] showing their side of the story, which appears to be set in… I dunno… heaven? John Oliver’s void? The entirely white background is a freaking choice is all I’m saying. So too is the “I’m reading you a bedtime story” tone of voice from police chief in the video.

The police chief also fails to address the weird redactions in the bodycam footage, and the multiple times his cops are caught effectively admitting that Schneider and his crew weren’t actually breaking the law.

Schneider has released [a response video][12] using a similar backdrop and highlighting problems and inconsistencies with the claims in the police video.

Then there’s Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff going on a livestream and [doing a poor job of defending the company][13], including saying a few things that won’t do him any favors in court.

Believe it or not, there’s even more in all these videos that I don’t have time to go into, but we’re at almost 3,000 words already and we haven’t gotten to some of the competing lawsuits.

We have discussed the small claims cases (which have mostly ended in default because BAM folks ignored them) but the bigger deal are the competing lawsuits that have been filed in Utah’s state court and have received less direct attention. While it’s one thing to say things on a one-sided YouTube video, what you say in court can be a bit more serious. And we have two competing cases to look at. The first was filed by Law and Gorman and the LLC they had set up to run the Oregon store, and [filed in Utah’s Chancery Court][14] back in March.

It adds some useful details to the whole mess, including saying that the only breach they had regarding their franchise agreement with BAM corporate was… because BAM themselves refused to live up to the requirements of the agreement. Apparently Law had simply managed the store before this, but had approached corporate about taking on the franchise, which they agreed to do. But after working out a deal, the company failed to transfer the lease *and the bank account* over to Law & Gorman, which caused a bunch of problems regarding payments:

> *Shortly after the sale closed, BAM failed to fulfill its obligations to properly transfer the store’s bank account and assign the store lease to Plaintiffs’ LLC. These were not minor administrative oversights—they were fundamental obligations without which the franchisee could not operate the business. Without control of the bank account, Plaintiffs could not make the automated payments required under the Franchise Agreement. Without the lease in their name, Plaintiffs had no direct relationship with the landlord and no ability to ensure rent was paid. BAM’s failure to complete these transfers was the first material breach of the Franchise Agreement and the proximate cause of every subsequent “default” BAM later cited as grounds for termination.*
>
> *BAM did not return the bank’s documentation needed to change account ownership, causing the account to be frozen without Plaintiffs’ knowledge. As a result, automated payments for franchise royalties and for the remaining purchase price were not withdrawn as scheduled.*
>
> *Similarly, because BAM never assigned the store’s lease to BAMF Salem 1, LLC, the landlord’s notices of bounced ACH rent payments went to BAM as the tenant of record—not to Plaintiffs. BAM did not promptly inform Plaintiffs of these issues, effectively concealing the problem until it had compounded. Plaintiffs thus could not pay rent through no fault of their own: the lease was not in their name, the bank account was frozen, and the party responsible for both failures—BAM—kept Plaintiffs in the dark. BAM’s own Director of Operations later confirmed this failure on a recorded call, admitting that “the lease is technically in our name still.”*

That is a pretty bad look. Especially given that, in BAM’s own lawsuit, they claim the reason they repossessed the store and handed its franchise to someone else was… the very things that Law & Gorman say they caused. BAM corporate’s[ massive lawsuit][15] filed against Ben Schneider, Bryan Mansell, and a bunch of folks working with them (and, of course, claiming civil RICO because why not?) claims that they took back Law & Gorman’s franchise because of breaches to the agreement, such as those that Law & Gorman say were BAM’s fault n the first place (oddly, the BAM lawsuit refers to everyone by their first names, rather than last, which would be more typical).

> *Despite the foregoing plain requirements, Chrystal and Benjamin materially breached their obligations, as required APA payments were not completed, FA royalty payments became delinquent, the lease and various accounts were never properly transferred and lease amounts were unpaid. Chrystal’s outstanding contractual obligations mounted, eventually exceeding an estimated $175,000….*
>
> *… Based on the foregoing uncured breaches and anticipatory repudiation, BAM, inter alia, issued a written 11/14/24 Notice of Immediate Termination to Salem LLC pursuant to the FA, exercised its priority rights to the collateral in the Security Agreement, pre-scheduled a repossession with Chrystal and repossessed the Salem LLC store on or after 11/14/24 and assumed the lease, as expressly permitted under the FA and APA, including any and all fixtures, inventory and other assets, and credited an estimated $38,000 paltry value thereof as an offset to the unpaid $175,000 debt.*

That’s a pretty big factual dispute that the two courts are going to need to dig into.

The BAM lawsuit also claims that they had no notice of Mansell’s consignment, which is plainly bullshit given the video clip that shows up in basically all of the videos above:

> *Excepting only respecting the foregoing unpaid lease, BAM did so as a bona fide purchaser, without notice of any third party claims or liens of any kind, including Chrystal and Benjamin’s undisclosed and alleged 11/22/23 Consignment Agreement with Brian, referenced infra.*
>
> *Prior to and at the time of repossession, BAM’s representative, Brandon, conducted an informal and video inventory of the Salem LLC fixtures and inventory. While he did not locate or identify any product that was identified as consigned or not owned by Salem LLC, he concluded that the maximum value of any residual inventory was less than $38,000. Less than $5,000 worth of Star Wars LEGO product could be located and identified in the entire residual Salem LLC onsite inventory.*

This is quite a claim to make given the video evidence to the contrary, which had already gone viral by the time this lawsuit was filed last week.

There are other claims in the BAM lawsuit that seem problematic including this:

> *Bryan showed up later that day and began yelling at personnel and holding up purported consignment paperwork demanding the immediate return thereof or payment of $80,000. Josh interceded and asked to review it and briefly did so and pointed out that neither BAM (nor Josh and Brandon) were a party to this purported arrangement.*

Again, taking over the store also meant taking over the consignment liability, which they had already been made aware of and which they admitted they were taking over (as recorded in the security camera video). That they hadn’t personally been a party to the arrangement doesn’t matter, because when they took over the franchise they also took over that agreement.

The complaint then says that Johnson and Best tried to find the alleged sets owned by Mansell but were unable to do so, concluding that they were all gone. This is, obviously, contested by Mansell and others who have pointed to evidence that the sets were still in the store, including Mansell having someone go in and purchase one of the sets after he had demanded them back in a written notification.

The complaint also claims that it was only in late 2025 and early 2026 that Best was able to dig into the old franchise’s accounting system to find details of sales of what were likely many of Mansell’s legos. The complaint argues that it appears most, if not all, were sold by Law prior to the takeover and if Mansell is owed money, it’s from Law and Gorman.

> *Many months later in the fall of 2025, and only after Baker Salem had entered its 3/27/25 Business and Asset Purchase Agreement, Brandon gained access to Salem LLC’s archived and incomplete POS accounting system, which he discovered identified Star Wars “lot sets” from Star Wars regular “lots” inventory sales. This inventory sale distinction was unclear to Brandon and Josh, and Chrystal had never explained the significance, if any, to anyone, but Brandon much later in 2026 discovered that approximately 367 purchases of lot sets (for an estimated retail value of $46,000) and 336 purchase of lots (for an estimated retail value of $12,600) had occurred after 2023. He still could not, however, confirm the specific products sold (and whether they had been consigned or not).*

Then we get the RICO claims. The supposed “conspiracy”:

> *Upon information and belief, though they had no legitimate legal recourse or evidence upon which to file a claim, Chrystal, Benjamin and Bryan conspired to, inter alia, threaten, intimidate, extort and defraud Plaintiffs anyway possible, as detailed herein, including the formation of an Enterprise to engage in wrongful activities.*
>
> *As an initial step, Salem LLC caused a 12/24/24 legal demand letter to be sent to BAM, variously alleging it had been damaged based on the termination of its FA, which was a private business matter between Chrystal and Salem LLC. On 1/10/25, BAM responded, denying the allegations and providing support for its termination. Neither Salem LLC, nor Chrystal or Benjamin, thereafter pursued any claim in the letter further with BAM until 1/2/26, when a separate legal demand letter was sent, as discussed infra.*
>
> *Instead, upon information and belief and in furtherance of such threats, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Bryan learned of Schneider and communicated with him, whereby they provided information regarding their unsupported claims against Baker Salem and/or BAM, ignoring and excluding Salem LLC and/or Chrystal’s sole obligation regarding any private consignment agreement with Bryan. In connection therewith, they, together with others (i.e., DOES 1-15) conspired to intentionally, maliciously, fraudulently and illegally threaten, extort, harass, profiteer, interfere with and damage Plaintiffs in furtherance of the Enterprise, including based on the unlawful activities described herein.*
>
> *Upon information and belief, Schneider and the Schneider Group acquired a direct or indirect financial interest in Bryan, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Salem LLC’s unsupported claims against Plaintiffs, whereby co-Defendants (with Bryan, Chrystal, Benjamin and/or Salem LLC’s assistance and support) organized and established the Enterprise that would launch a campaign of deception, disinformation and destruction intended to cause Plaintiffs injury and damage, to extort a demand of over $200,000, to deceive and manipulate Plaintiffs, to interfere with Plaintiffs economic and family relations, to harass Plaintiffs, to cause private and public nuisances, to trespass and to otherwise engage in a pattern of unlawful activities, as described herein.*

They then claim that this “enterprise” engaged in numerous “unlawful activities” in support of the supposed conspiracy:

> *Commencing after Baker Salem began operations as a new franchisee and continuing to date, Schneider and the Schneider Group (with the support of Bryan and Chrystal) waged a malicious and intentional campaign of extortion and destruction through independent episodes of unlawful activities against Plaintiffs. Such included periodic harassment through phone calls, numerous disruptive store or office visits, repeated instances of trespass, deceptively staged events (i.e., disingenuous coronation, rally, raffle, store front table promotion, a fictitious Lego Club rally, manufactured and frivolous complaints to police, private and public nuisances, threatening phone calls, numerous deceptive live and telephonic impersonations, in person and remote threats (and via proxies), frivolous sham lawsuits (splitting claims in multiple ineffective small claims actions), etc.), issuing the Publications of defamatory and disparaging images and content, all in furtherance of the Enterprise.*

The complaint quotes Schneider’s viral video in ways that… Schneider himself made easy for them to quote. The “we have to do something illegal” is not a great line for Schneider and the other defendants in this case. They also highlight this bit, which is also not a great fact for Schneider:

> *5/21/26 YouTube Video, Minute 12:46 through 14:46 (Schneider attempted extortion and directly threatened Ammon by stating that, “if you just want to give it back now, it’s going to be a lot easier for you guys. You know, I think you guys would prefer the easy way” or “the hard way. I don’t think you guys are really going to like it”. An implied depiction of the threatened violence associated with the “hard way” is an explosion at BAM’s corporate headquarters).*

Of course it’s a bit rich for them to complain about the “easy or hard way” complaint when they apparently made similar statements to Law & Gorman as well as Mansell.

Once again, so so so much of all of this could have been avoided if either side had competent lawyers and listened to them.

Johnson and Best also claim that they tried to settle with Mansell and he rejected their offer, which they claim is evidence that “the enterprise” was seeking more than they were legitimately entitled to:

> *In late 2025 and based on co-Defendants’ ongoing harassment, Brandon and Josh further investigated the Baker Salem store inventory, and though they still could not reliably identify any product that appeared to belong to Bryan, they located a few (approximately 20) Star Wars LEGO sets in a back office lockable cupboard, on which they noticed stickers not previously recognized. As a precaution only, but still without knowledge that Bryan in fact had any right thereto, they directed that such not be sold from Baker Salem’s inventory and remain locked up pending completion of their ongoing investigation and receipt of reliable evidence of ownership and other conditions.*
>
> *On or about 12/3/25, in a text exchange between Josh and Bryan (deceptively orchestrated by Schneider) and after sustaining incredible business disruption and harm, Josh discussed a possible settlement scenario under economic duress. Purely as an accommodation (and without any legal obligation to do so), Josh discussed a possible settlement scenario to allow Bryan to retrieve the few sets that had been provisionally identified as merely Star Wars related product in the back office (i.e., described above, though not necessarily belonging to Bryan), which as a precautionary matter, Josh had set aside pending receipt of ownership documentation from Bryan. Josh indicated a written apology and other concessions would need to be made and the harassment must stop. Bryan rejected this proposal outright and responded, “Unless you are going to make us whole on the whole Lego collection, I don’t see where we have anything to discuss.” This confirmed the Enterprise’s interest. Referring to the
> sets he had identified, Josh replied, “We can give you what was left when [presumably Chrystal] left. We can’t and aren’t responsible for what she sold the two years yall were working together. If you want what she left let me know.” Bryan refused this offer. This exchange further evidenced Bryan’s objectives were not about recovering a LEGO collection, but rather about extorting payment for the Enterprise beyond any legitimate claim.*

That argument may sound good to the BAM folks, but I’m pretty sure they’re wrong when they claim they’re not responsible for what Law sold prior to them taking over, because (again) when they took over the store they took on any liabilities with the store. And that would be one of them. Also, there appears to be some evidence in the videos that some of the times they offered to return Mansell’s legos and then… didn’t.

Believe it or not, the 5,000+ words I’ve already written here barely scratches the surface.

Strip it all back and the core of this is pretty simple: an 83-year-old man’s carefully assembled lego collection — built over 15 years, meant to fund his grandkids’ college — appears to have been taken (at least in part) by people who calculated that it would cost more to fight them than to walk away. That bet almost paid off. The only reason this became a national story is that Bryan Mansell found someone willing to be very, very extremely online about it.

But “going viral” is not a legal strategy. And Schneider’s willingness to do basically anything for content — including things that are genuinely legally stupid, like talking to cops without a lawyer present, or making statements on camera that now appear in a civil RICO complaint — may have made things considerably worse for Mansell in the long run, even as it made things considerably more uncomfortable for Bricks & Minifigs in the short run. If Schneider had talked to a lawyer before doing half of what he did, he might have accomplished more with less collateral damage.

Though it might not have made such “good content.”

Meanwhile, if Bricks & Minifigs had talked to a lawyer — a good one, not just whoever is filing these complaints — they might have been advised that explicitly threatening people on recorded calls, taking over a store while explicitly acknowledging a consignment liability on video, and then denying that consignment existed in court filings, was not a sequence of events that tends to end well. And that shuttering the store the day after default judgments came down looks, to put it diplomatically, quite bad.

The deeper structural problem here — one that Leonard French articulates better than I can — is that the US legal system has a genuine dead zone around mid-five-figure disputes. Too big for small claims (even with Schneider’s claim splitting exploit), too small to justify the cost of a full civil suit, it’s exactly the range where a well-resourced defendant can make a calculated bet that the other side will run out of money or patience before getting justice. That’s a feature of the system Bricks & Minifigs happened to exploit, but is not unique to them.

The answer to that structural problem shouldn’t be “find a YouTuber willing to go to ridiculous lengths to get attention on this issue.” Though in 2026, that does appear to be working better than most alternatives — at least in the court of public opinion, where the verdict has already come in decisively on the side of Mansell and Schneider. That’s a real problem for Bricks & Minifigs and every one of their ~300 franchisees, regardless of how the legal cases resolve. You don’t get to un-become the lego store that allegedly stole an old man’s retirement collection. That story is going to follow this brand around for a long time.

None of this had to go this way. A competent lawyer on either side, at almost any point in this saga, probably changes the outcome significantly. Instead, both sides made calculated bets — Bricks & Minifigs that the costs of fighting would deter anyone from trying, and Schneider that going maximally viral would substitute for having an actual legal strategy. The first bet nearly worked. The second is still being litigated, in multiple senses of that word.

[1]: https://www.instagram.com/p/CzXGqtBPby0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&img_index=2
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3XfOxYmkE0
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCC-1_financing_statement
[5]: https://definitions.lsd.law/merchant-exception
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imD2U3kCZTA
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wscQpkcwgNU
[8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZPfj8AlmY
[9]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nny2ojTqW3A
[10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0
[11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcVmSQpIPRY
[12]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YEzhDn0jY8
[13]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dmR3Flk49k
[14]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28180727/law-gorman-v-bam.pdf
[15]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28180726/bam-v-schneider.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/02/everyone-in-this-lego-dispute-should-have-spoken-to-a-lawyer-earlier-than-they-did/

Daily Deal: The Complete Arduino, Raspberry Pi & ESP32 Bundle ...

2026-05-26T18:03:01Z

Daily Deal: The Complete Arduino, Raspberry Pi & ESP32 Bundle

The [Complete Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and ESP32 Bundle][1] has 14 courses covering what you need to get started on building out your own smart home. After learning the basics, courses show you how to create a weather monitoring system, a smart home security system, a plant watering system, and more. Courses also cover getting familiar with Home Assistant, Tasmoto firmware, networking, and electrical systems. It’s on sale for $50.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-complete-arduino-raspberry-pi-smart-home-iot-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/26/daily-deal-the-complete-arduino-raspberry-pi-esp32-bundle-2/

Ken Paxton Wanted To Crack Down On Forum Shopping. Now Lawyers ...

2026-05-22T22:55:41Z

Ken Paxton Wanted To Crack Down On Forum Shopping. Now Lawyers Say He’s Improperly Seeking Out Favorable Courts.

*This story was [originally published][1] by ProPublica.* *Republished under a [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0][2]* *license.*

In October, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued pharmaceutical companies tied to Tylenol in state court, repeating claims made a month earlier by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that the pain relief drug was linked to autism and ADHD in children.

Paxton, a close ally of the Trump administration who had already announced a U.S. Senate bid, accused drugmakers of marketing Tylenol to pregnant mothers without disclosing its dangers. “The reckoning has arrived,” the state’s attorneys wrote in the lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies Johnson & Johnson, Kenvue Brands and Kenvue Inc.

“By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again,” Paxton proclaimed in a news release that echoed Kennedy’s slogan.

Paxton hired the Chicago law firm Keller Postman to argue the case in state court. The firm had served as lead counsel in a similar case about Tylenol’s safety that was dismissed a year earlier by a New York federal judge who found the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses unreliable.

But the court the attorneys chose to bring the suit in wasn’t in Austin or any of the state’s large counties that have extensive experience and multiple judges handling large, complex litigation. It was in Panola County, a community of 23,000 residents on the Louisiana border that Trump carried by 67 points two years ago and whose sole state district court judge is a Republican.

At a hearing that month in the three-story brick courthouse in the county seat of Carthage, Kim Bueno, the lawyer representing the drugmakers, accused Paxton’s office of pushing a baseless lawsuit through forum shopping — seeking out judges and juries that plaintiffs believe will be most favorable to them, rather than filing suit in the courts that most commonly handle similar cases.

“These claims have been rejected over and over and over again in courts of law by the same plaintiff’s counsel,” said Bueno, who declined an interview request. “And now they’re trying, once again, to suggest that Tylenol is harmful for women when pregnant. And it’s been soundly rejected.”

The case was not the first that Paxton’s office had filed in a county with little connection to the allegations of wrongdoing made by his office. ProPublica and The Texas Tribune have identified at least 30 cases filed by the attorney general over the past nine years that have a tenuous connection to the counties in which they were filed.

The filings mark a striking departure from Paxton’s previous opposition to the practice. In a 2017 legal brief that Paxton wrote on behalf of 17 states, he urged the U.S. Supreme Court to crack down on forum shopping in federal courts. The practice, he wrote, “has the pernicious effect of reducing confidence in the fairness and neutrality of our Nation’s justice system.”

Paxton’s approach also subverts what the Legislature intended when it passed a law in the 1990s that required plaintiffs to file lawsuits in counties where a “substantial” part of the alleged violation took place, according to three legal experts. That was done at the behest of conservatives who felt trial lawyers were flocking to venues favorable to them to win big damage verdicts against businesses.

“It looks like the attorney general’s office is interested in engaging in litigation games that it would otherwise decry if the shoe were on the other foot,” said Michael Ariens, a professor at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio, who has studied laws regulating where lawsuits can be filed.

Neither of Paxton’s Republican predecessors, Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, appears to have employed this strategy. ProPublica and the Tribune reviewed hundreds of cases filed outside of the state’s five large urban counties during their tenures. Each had a clear connection to the venue Abbott or Cornyn chose.

Neither Abbott nor Cornyn, who Paxton is trying to unseat, responded to requests for comment. Trump on Tuesday [endorsed Paxton][3] in the race.

Texas’ major consumer protection law gives the attorney general some flexibility with those cases despite the state’s broader restriction on forum shopping. The office does not have to prove that a substantial part of the events in a consumer protection case happened in the place where it files suit but can instead file in counties where a defendant has done business.

But Paxton has stretched the boundaries of that law, too, according to legal experts and to former staffers of the attorney general’s office who argued against him in court. Last year, for example, the attorney general filed a lawsuit against the gaming platform Roblox in King County, a ranching community of about 200 people east of Lubbock. Its key justification for selecting the tiny county was that residents there had internet access.

Paxton, who did not respond to requests for comment or to written questions, has not spoken publicly about his office’s decisions to file lawsuits in courts with little connection to the cases.

At the November hearing in Panola County, Judge LeAnn Rafferty, a Republican first elected in 2016, did not question the attorney general’s office on its venue choice but asked, “Do you disagree with the defendants’ assertion that Tylenol is the safest choice for pregnant women who have a fever?”

“It depends on — oh, you said for having a fever? That probably is true,” replied J.J. Snidow, a partner at Keller Postman. “There are not alternatives in the pain relief space to Tylenol that don’t also have risks.”

Tylenol makers, Rafferty said, already tell pregnant women to consult with a doctor before taking the drug. Rafferty declined to comment about the case. Snidow said Keller Postman had no comment. Paxton has repeatedly turned to the firm as he has [grown increasingly reliant on private attorneys][4] to litigate major cases for his office.

Kenvue directed ProPublica and the Tribune to a statement on its website that said there is “no proven link” between acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, and autism. A spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson said the company has had nothing to do with making or selling the drug since splitting with Kenvue in 2023.

Rafferty threw out five of the six claims in the attorney general’s lawsuit. She dismissed one for insufficient evidence. In the other four, Rafferty ruled that the state did not have jurisdiction over Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue Inc. because they do not manufacture or sell Tylenol in Texas.

She allowed one claim to proceed that alleged Kenvue Brands had violated the state’s consumer protection act by making false claims about Tylenol’s safety.

With most of the claims thrown out, the attorney general’s office doubled down on its strategy.

Two weeks later, it filed a new case against the pharmaceutical companies.

This time, it chose Bailey County, a community of 7,000 residents on the New Mexico border.

### Paxton’s Pivot

For decades, plaintiffs’ attorneys from across the U.S. swarmed courts in small Texas counties that had reputations for sympathetic judges and generous juries. The practice became so ubiquitous that The Wall Street Journal branded the [Texas judicial system a “Wild West embarrassment.”][5]

In 1995, Robert Duncan, then a Republican state representative from Lubbock, resolved to crack down on the practice. He authored a bill that required a “substantial part” of a lawsuit’s claims be connected to the county of filing.

An attorney himself, Duncan recalls traveling hundreds of miles from his home in the Texas High Plains to the Rio Grande Valley for cases that had no connection to the border region. Forum shopping, Duncan told ProPublica and the Tribune, had led to too many attorneys choosing courts where there was “no reason to be there other than the bias or prejudice of whatever the plaintiff’s lawyer is trying to establish that would favor the case, as opposed to giving the defendant a fair opportunity.”

Duncan declined to comment on Paxton’s practice of filing lawsuits in counties with little connection to the allegations of wrongdoing.

Paxton was not in the Legislature when Duncan’s bill passed but, as a freshman representative in 2003, he supported legislation that gave judges more power to dismiss lawsuits they concluded belonged in another state.

He also railed against “rampant forum shopping,” asserting that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017 should restrict the practice after plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits began flocking to courts that most often ruled in their favor. The Eastern District of Texas had become the most popular venue for the lawsuits, even though few of the cases had clear connections to the area. Most cases landed on the docket of a judge based in rural Harrison County, 140 miles east of Dallas, where plaintiffs [won 78% of the time][6], according to legal researchers.

That waned after justices ruled that federal courts must strictly enforce a decades-old law requiring corporations in patent disputes to be sued only in their home states.

Since then, Paxton has repeatedly engaged in forum shopping in state courts, legal experts said. In fact, his office, or attorneys on behalf of his office, have filed 11 cases in Harrison, the same county where he argued that federal courts should limit plaintiffs from filing.

“It’s hypocritical for the AG to criticize patent litigants for forum shopping but then to forum shop himself,” said Paul Gugliuzza, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Forum shopping, judge shopping — it’s usually not unlawful, but it is highly opportunistic, and, in many circumstances, probably shouldn’t be lawful.”

Paxton notched one of the biggest wins of his tenure in Harrison County. He secured a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta after alleging that the Facebook parent company captured Texans’ biometric data without their consent. Paxton’s office contended in court filings that Harrison was a proper venue for the 2022 lawsuit because the company had done business in the county and a substantial part of the alleged lawbreaking occurred there. The office did not provide specifics.

Meta has an office in Travis County, home to Austin, not in Harrison, where only about 0.2% of Texans live, but the company did not challenge the venue. The company didn’t admit to wrongdoing in the settlement and did not respond to questions about the case. It’s unclear why its lawyers did not seek a different venue, but the judge in the case, Republican Brad Morin, denied a transfer in at least one other lawsuit involving Paxton during the Meta litigation.

Paxton has not limited his efforts to find more favorable courts solely to small counties. The attorney general has repeatedly filed cases, particularly political ones, in Tarrant, the state’s largest Republican county and home to Fort Worth.

In August, Paxton’s office chose the county as the venue to sue former Democratic U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke and his political organization, Powered By People, after the group helped pay expenses for Democratic members of the Texas Legislature who [left the state][7] to block the passage of new congressional maps. The maps, drawn at Trump’s behest, favored the GOP.

The attorney general’s office stated in court documents that the case had a “substantial” connection to Tarrant County because the group planned a rally in Fort Worth. When O’Rourke sought to move the case to El Paso County — where he lives and where the group is headquartered — Paxton accused him of forum shopping. O’Rourke did not respond to an interview request.

Paxton secured a court order in Tarrant that prohibited Powered by People from fundraising while the case was pending. But within weeks, the 15th Court of Appeals overturned the decision. It noted that Paxton was a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, which created an incentive to blunt Democrats’ ability to campaign. The judges said the order infringed on the organization’s free speech rights before a court had determined guilt.

Legal experts say such forum shopping erodes trust in the court system. It is especially problematic when it comes from the attorney general, who is supposed to defend state laws and preserve public trust in the justice system, they said.

“It’s hard to respect the system if you think it’s being employed in a way you fundamentally think is unfair,” said Paul Grimm, a former U.S. district judge in Maryland and an advocate of restricting forum shopping.

### “Not the Law”

In at least two recent cases, Paxton has tested a novel interpretation of state law governing where lawsuits can be filed. His office has argued that if a company does business over the internet, it can be sued in any Texas county.

One such case was a 2022 lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. Two law firms filed the case against the company under a law that allows private attorneys to sue on behalf of the attorney general. The lawsuit accused AstraZeneca of defrauding Medicaid by giving kickbacks to healthcare workers in exchange for prescribing the company’s products. The company, which did not respond to a request for comment, said in legal filings that the lawsuit sought to punish its innocuous outreach to doctors and did not identify a single patient harmed or taxpayer dollar wasted.

Paxton’s office formally joined the case in July. Attorneys working on behalf of his office argued that Harrison County was the proper venue because the firm’s website could be accessed from there, company salespeople had visited the county and a local clinic had a brochure for one of the company’s drugs.

When AstraZeneca asked Morin, the lone Harrison County judge, to transfer the case to Travis County, he refused without explanation. The company appealed and, in November, the 15th Court of Appeals overruled Morin’s decision. The court concluded that he abused his discretion in declining to move the case. Morin did not respond to a request for comment.

The court also found that Paxton’s office failed to provide proof that any of the alleged lawbreaking occurred in Harrison County. It ordered the case transferred to Travis County, where it is ongoing.

That month, the attorney general’s office argued that Roblox could be sued in King County, an expanse of rolling plains with no incorporated communities, because third-party retailers there sold gift cards to access the online gaming company.

Then the office made another bold claim: that companies with websites can be sued anywhere, no matter how small the county.

“This is a case about ubiquity, about being online and accessible to all children throughout the state,” Mark Pinkert, a Florida lawyer whom Paxton’s office had hired as outside counsel, argued at a hearing to discuss a request from Roblox that the case be moved to Travis County. “They are advertising broadly.”

Pinkert did not respond to a request for comment.

Roblox’s attorney Ed Burbach was stunned by the argument. He’d previously led the civil litigation division at the attorney general’s office under Abbott. The office’s longstanding practice, Burbach told the judge, was to file statewide consumer protection cases in Travis County.

This new argument by the attorney general’s office would obliterate the Legislature’s attempts to limit forum shopping by allowing any company to be sued in any county, Burbach said.

“That is simply not the law,” Burbach said, adding that most Texans, including lawmakers, would “be shocked to hear that outside counsel of the AG’s office would be arguing that.”

The judge transferred the case to Travis County, where it is ongoing.

Burbach declined to comment, but Paul Rogers, a law professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, warned of the dangers if Paxton succeeds at getting courts to side with his expansive interpretation. The attorney general, he said, would have “a lot of power to file any lawsuit, in any county, for any reason, whether the underlying lawsuit has merit or not.”

[Highlighted section of a court transcript: So the only dispute here is whether (a) (3) applies, (a) (3) being is there a where does a .. in substantial part of the case arise? And. Your Honor. this case does not substantially arise in Travis County, in Dallas, in Harris County. This is a statewide case. This is a case about ubiquity, about being online and accessible to all children throughout the state, about having their content promoted with major marketing brands on YouTube. Million one trillion hits of their content on YouTube, TikTok. Facebook. They are advertising broadly.]

### Doubling Down

In Washington, Trump and Kennedy’s public rebukes of Tylenol have tapered off. Paxton, however, continues to vigorously pursue his lawsuit against the drugmakers in state court.

After the setback in Panola County, the attorney general’s office filed an urgent request in Bailey County, arguing that Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue should be barred from selling any products in Texas until they filed paperwork and paid a $750 fee to register with the secretary of state. (Such registration would allow Paxton’s office to strengthen its case in Panola County.)

Though Paxton’s office was already involved in a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies in Panola County, the attorney general’s office stated in court filings that it did not know the companies’ attorneys, so it could not notify them of the suit.

Without hearing from the drugmakers’ lawyers, Judge Gordon Green ordered the companies to register. He said they could be barred from doing business in Texas if they didn’t. Paxton proclaimed the ruling a “major win” over Big Pharma.

The victory was short-lived. A week later, the drugmakers’ lawyer Aaron Nielson, who had previously served under Paxton as the state’s solicitor general, attended a hearing in Green’s court. He accused Paxton’s office of sleight of hand by trying to relitigate claims that had already failed to persuade the Panola County judge.

“This is blatant forum shopping and taking another bite at the apple,” said Nielson, who did not respond to a request for comment. “They decided to bring Your Honor into this, rather than let the Court that they chose continue with its own proceedings, which we think is highly improper.”

At the end of the hearing, Green withdrew the order requiring the companies to register. He did not respond to a request for comment.

The Panola and Bailey county cases are awaiting a ruling from the 15th Court of Appeals.

In the meantime, the attorney general’s office tried yet another gambit in Panola, where the judge had allowed one of its original claims to move forward.

Paxton’s lawyers amended their original lawsuit in the county. They noted that Green had ordered the drugmakers to register to do business in Texas, which meant Texas now had jurisdiction to pursue the claims that had been dismissed.

They omitted the fact that Green voided that order.

By referencing the order as if it were still in effect, the attorney general’s office risks losing credibility with the Panola County judge, Gugliuzza said.

“If you knowingly are presenting false information to the court, that is textbook sanctionable conduct,” Gugliuzza said.

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-ken-paxton-forum-shopping
[2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[3]: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/05/19/donald-trump-ken-paxton-endorsement-texas-senate-gop-primary-runoff-cornyn/
[4]: https://www.propublica.org/article/ken-paxton-private-lawyers-texas-cases
[5]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28132532-lone-star-justice-wsj/
[6]: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/so-small-a-town-so-many-patent-suits.html
[7]: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/03/texas-democrats-quorum-break-redistricting-map/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/22/ken-paxton-wanted-to-crack-down-on-forum-shopping-now-lawyers-say-hes-improperly-seeking-out-favorable-courts/

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Message In A Bottleneck **[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] ...

2026-05-21T23:49:45Z

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Message In A Bottleneck

**[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and [Everything in Moderation][2]‘s Ben Whitelaw. **

**Subscribe now on [Apple Podcasts][3], [Overcast][4], [Spotify][5], [Pocket Casts][6], [YouTube][7], or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to [the RSS feed][8].**

In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike is joined by civil liberties lawyer Jennifer Granick. Together they discuss:

* [Kickstarter rolls back its mature content policy after outcry][9] (Engadget)
* [Apple gives update on the App Store and its key protections][10] (9to5 Mac)
* [Thoughts on the £1,000,000 SaSu Fine][11] (Preston Byrne)
* [Pushing back from Big Tech: Africa’s hard road to AI sovereignty][12] (Rest of World)
* [America’s dangerous, messy deepfakes crackdown is here][13] (The Verge)
* [X accounts are limited to 50 posts and 200 replies a day unless they pay for a blue checkmark][14] (Engadget)

Support the podcast by [joining our Patreon][15], with special founder membership available until May 28th.

[1]: https://ctrlaltspeech.com/
[2]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/
[3]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193
[4]: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193
[5]: https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc
[6]: https://pca.st/zulnarbw
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z
[8]: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
[9]: https://www.engadget.com/2177414/kickstarter-mature-content-policy-stripe/
[10]: https://9to5mac.com/2026/05/20/apple-gives-update-on-the-app-store-and-its-key-protections/
[11]: https://prestonbyrne.com/2026/05/12/thoughts-on-the-1000000-sasu-fine/
[12]: https://restofworld.org/2026/africa-ai-sovereignty-big-tech/
[13]: https://www.theverge.com/policy/933518/take-it-down-act-notice-removal-social-media-deepfake
[14]: https://www.engadget.com/2175771/x-free-accounts-limited-to-50-posts-and-200-replies-a-day/
[15]: https://www.patreon.com/CtrlAltSpeech

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/21/ctrl-alt-speech-message-in-a-bottleneck/

The Science Is Not Settled: How Weak Evidence Is Fueling A ...

2026-05-21T20:38:42Z

The Science Is Not Settled: How Weak Evidence Is Fueling A National Push To Ban Social Media For Youth

As statehouses ramp up for 2026, we’re seeing a familiar and concerning trend of lawmakers rushing to regulate the internet based on shockingly shaky science. From the [California State Assembly][1] to the [Massachusetts][2] and [Minnesota][3] [legislatures][4], a wave of bills is crashing against the digital lives of young people, with proponents of these measures framing social media access as a “public health epidemic,” or a “mental health crisis,” even though we have yet to see any of the settled science that those labels usually invoke.

As a digital rights organization dedicated to the civil liberties of all users, EFF’s expertise lies in reminding lawmakers that young people enjoy largely the same free speech and privacy rights as adults. EFF is not a social science research shop, but we can read the emerging research. What that research shows is much more nuanced than what is claimed by those proposing to ban young people from social media, and it is clear that research and theories used to justify these sweeping bans is far from settled. The rush to ban access to digital platforms is being fueled by “pop psychology” narratives and a collection of statistically flawed studies that do not meet the rigorous standards required for such a massive infringement on youth autonomy and constitutional rights.

## **The Lie of A “Settled” Consensus**

The current legislative push relies heavily on a specific, media-friendly narrative that [the “great rewiring” of the adolescent brain][5] is a proven fact. This theory suggests that smartphones and social media are the primary, if not sole, drivers of a global uptick in teen anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self harm, etc. While this narrative makes for a compelling airport-bookstore read, it quickly collapses under the scrutiny of the broader scientific community.

Independent researchers, including developmental psychologists from institutions like the [University of California, Irvine][6], and [Brown University][7], have repeatedly found that the evidence for such claims is [mixed][8], [blurry][9], and often [contradictory][10]. Large-scale [meta-analyses][11] covering dozens of countries have failed to show a consistent, measurable association between the rollout of social media and a decline in global well-being. In reality, we are seeing a classic case of what many of our middle school science teachers warned us about: “correlation” being sold as “causation.”

Additionally, the studies used to support these measures often fail to account for or exclude significant alternative explanations for rising teen anxiety and depression, such as the lasting impact of pandemic-era isolation, the persistent threat of school gun violence, and mounting economic or climate-related stress. By focusing narrowly on social media, these findings frequently overlook the broader societal factors that also impact youth mental health.

### The Cult of the “Anxious” Expert

The current push for blanket social media bans relies almost exclusively on the work of Jonathan Haidt, particularly his book *The Anxious Generation*. While Haidt is an amiable and brilliant storyteller, he is not a clinical psychologist or a specialist in child development. He is a [social psychologist][12] who writes about moral psychology at a business school. Nonetheless, the book has made it to every [*Best Seller* list][13], and with Haidt revered as an expert on podcasts with massive reach, like [Oprah][14], [Joe Rogan][15], [Michelle Obama][16], and [Trevor Noah][17]—his message has been heard by a large subset of society, which primarily relies on: no smartphones or social media before age 16, phone-free schools, and more “unsupervised, real-world independence.”

To highlight Haidt’s reach when it comes to legislation banning social media: the [California committee analysis][18] for the proposed California social media ban mentions Haidt 20 times; [the Governor of Utah][19] promoted the book as a “must-read” months before [signing the nation’s first social media ban][20]; Haidt is [cited in bill analysis][21] for the bill banning social media in Florida; his work is mentioned [in a federal bill][22] aiming to ban phones in schools; and he provided formal testimony before the [U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Technology, Privacy, and the Law)][23] in May 2022.

While Haidt’s research has been paramount to legislation stripping millions of young people of their rights to expression and connection, his conclusions are not without challenge, and many experts in the field argue that the evidence is less than ironclad.

## **The “Bad Science” Fueling Social Media Bans**

While we can admit that Jonathan Haidt’s “great rewiring” theory makes for a gripping narrative, we cannot ignore that independent researchers and statisticians [have identified][24] [significant flaws][25] in the [data used to justify it][26]. Which means we are currently watching policymakers legislate blanket bans based on evidence that would be rejected in almost any other field of public health.

The reality is that research has consistently [disproven][27] the oft-assumed link between social media use and poor mental health in youth, and actually[ indicates][28] that moderate internet use is a net positive for teens’ development, and negative outcomes are usually due to either lack of access or excessive use. In one[ major study][29] of 100,000 adolescents, a “U-shaped association emerged where moderate social media use was associated with the best well-being outcomes, while both no use and highest use were associated with poorer well-being.” We also know that young people’s relationship with social media is complex, as it provides them essential spaces for civic engagement, identity exploration, and community building—particularly for[ LGBTQ+][30] and[ marginalized youth][31] who may lack support in their physical environments.

But again, the image Haidt presents in his book is increasingly at odds with the broader academic consensus. As mentioned, critics argue that the evidence for the mental health impacts of social media is [mixed, blurry, and often misinterpreted][32]. NYU statistics expert Aaron Brown, writing for [*Reason*][33], notes that many of the studies in Haidt’s exhaustive reference list are statistically unreliable or fail to show a strong causal link. Prof. [Candace Odgers][34], a leading voice in psychological science, explains the “selection effect” that legislators often ignore:

> *“Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most data are correlative. When associations over time are found, they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways from their healthy peers.”*

This raises a fundamental question of legislative responsibility: If the science is not settled, how can legislators confidently [declare a “public health crisis”][35] to justify stripping away [young people’s First Amendment rights][36]? By bypassing the rigorous, nuanced findings of the scientific community in favor of a more convenient narrative, legislators are choosing emotion over evidence. Before imposing such draconian restrictions on young people’s access to information, policymakers have an obligation to do the heavy lifting: to dig into the actual research and listen to the experts who are sounding the alarm on oversimplified conclusions.

### **The Dangers of “Social Contagion” Narrative**

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Haidt’s crusade is its overlap with ideological rhetoric that pathologizes the identities of marginalized youth, and how that makes its way through efforts to ban social media for youth. A recurring theme in the literature favored by proponents of social media bans is the idea of “[social contagion][37]“—specifically regarding the rise in young people identifying as transgender or non-binary. Haidt dedicates an entire chapter of his book to this (ch.6, pt 3, p. 165), talking about “Why Social Media Harms Girls More Than Boys,” stating that:

> *“The recent growth in diagnoses of gender dysphoria may also be related in part to social media trends, […] the fact that gender dysphoria is now being diagnosed among many adolescents who showed no signs of it as children all indicate the social influence and sociogenic transmission may be at work as well.”*

These harmful theories suggesting that social media is “infecting” young people with gender dysphoria are false and [not supported by peer-reviewed clinical research][38]. But by legitimizing “experts” who [promote these debunked theories][39], legislators—especially those in states like California who pride themselves on being a [sanctuary for LGBTQ+ youth][40]—are inadvertently platforming the same rhetoric used in other states to ban gender affirming care for youth. This “social contagion” narrative is a tool of exclusion, not a scientific reality, and we must be wary of any “public health” argument that treats community-building and self-discovery among marginalized young people as a “[purported mental illness][41]” spread via TikTok.

## **A Better Path: Digital Wellness, Not Bans**

Fortunately, there is a measured, evidence-based alternative already emerging. [California’s A.B. 2071][42], for instance, is a [student-authored][43] “digital wellness” bill that offers a measured, evidence-based alternative rather than prohibition. The bill advocates for a curriculum that teaches students how to manage algorithms, recognize cyberbullying, and regulate their own relationship with technology. Instead of trying to completely shield young people from social media, education-based approaches empower young people and have the benefit of providing skills that stay with a young person long after they leave the classroom.

[JustLeadershipUSA][44], a criminal justice organization, has a slogan that rings true in this instance too: *“Those closest to the problem are closest to the solution.”* So let’s start listening to what our young people are asking us for—more education—instead of imposing paternalistic, [disempowering bans][45].

## **Legislating With Precision instead of Emotion **

Adolescent mental health struggles are a complex, multifaceted crisis. It is a crisis that has existed for as long as time, and has been driven by [economic instability][46], [the opioid epidemic][47], the [threat of school violence,][48] amongst [other issues][49]. To pin all of society’s woes on a smartphone app is not just a scientific error; it is a policy failure that ignores the real, material needs of young people both online and off.

Legislators must stop legislating as “anxious parents” and start acting as measured policymakers. Because for some youth, social media platforms are a lifeline. [UNICEF][50] and other [global human rights organizations][51] have warned that age-related restrictions and blanket bans [can backfire][52] in three critical ways: isolating marginalized youth (like LGBTQ+ youth, students in rural areas, foster youth, or those with disabilities) who social media is often the only place they can find a [supportive community][53]; necessitating invasive [mass collection][54] of biometric data or government-issued IDs from all users, including adults; and [pushing young people toward][55] less-regulated, “darker” corners of the web where content moderation is non-existent and the risks of actual exploitation are significantly higher.

Legislators have a valid interest in protecting children, but that interest must be pursued through tailored, measured approaches. We cannot allow emotions or a collection of flawed data sets to justify a historic rollback of digital rights.

*Reposted from the EFF’s [Deeplinks blog][56].*

[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/act-now-stop-californias-paternalistic-and-privacy-destroying-social-media-ban
[2]: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S2581
[3]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/SF/4696/
[4]: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/HF/4138/?body=house
[5]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
[6]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2.pdf
[7]: https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2024/07/why-academics-are-annoyed-with-jonathan-haidt-again.html
[8]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-019-01825-4
[9]: https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcpp.13190
[10]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4053961
[11]: https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/308596/1-s2.0-S2352250X21X0005X/1-s2.0-S2352250X21001500/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEFEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIAYJQpB5ppKb9ELcxsMEkiNTVrOUM0SWMXNTAxlUXkZGAiEA4AdJBVy9e%2Bg8WPR%2BOegjkvD0NDzziCg%2BolLrHwFfBLgqswUIGhAFGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDIi8jhyqgw8bDaz2YyqQBS%2B8A%2FxvkP07ItdOuhFG8vrhlHteBgwEoWdN5yse1B9ST8fMtgdmK4eBrMCDHplzTUPyfJTdGuXJ1%2F2kvRrNIvPZnLIWW%2FIkJZx95M1fmYwpncC%2FQBVzIBqUJEDFcYQ9QkhSie8Sb%2BK3YZyT3M9wMkj%2FZRt7p3OZoLQLMHcZ6htZr33Bh2nv7777EkHkLU3XmKwF8WNDeaTMVTM1uGTmILze9gzcw3D%2B2M8XFIwYSw0Wt%2BXZvfXXOycFzcuRuq7e9S4tKw1j97P2VziHxlu2fLaiDbhvYyRAR9XYu4%2FJwtn6HykW5Kp2dy%2FaIjBzt031NEoa%2F8pPpjBxnlZh3SRbn1MUK3iH2IoaWUB7j5olUPFOqC80VYQ8qA6baoWmYjbRgPgu2dzXURPXcuf9QztzS8K8GlbG%2BPzW2DPyinAUsk%2FS9Qa99u04Xk5KaDVfGcvwQ0gMjfBsGhe5DNPZPSMPmvsMwEqVnrX5P4RQRwAiyufbiDUdUpRLWKmTwyuXY1hshafOxwMlKlGv%2FI0NZkySFvUNGL5wTxQHJwZ7Fh2xA9bOvxjtZB75eC6bU%2BUrsAys9iH9AWFXfEFcfb4C6OQo8fDOq%2F6Cy%2FCL%2BCEChcM7bKconBIrpoqWmIbg6QMp85DbBz4aYix
MufXdvnNdgUW4dP%2BOi4C3zq657SfyEghyG7WMHy2sHERp%2FAo%2BqFRXpcN9ToNFjvBVkNPZZVgcAo6hWCndWFQngsyHgzEDPAJ5oy%2FSwhbEgr%2FML20l09jwkVxiN6dzXsgTfI2s%2Bk4uznNJrbbKm19SblQNsb2yclLzc9p5k2DjZyqvLDPOxLcevc%2FoEF%2BJAfbn3pbpAMWjVqv9sySvuLL%2FYzAUkcwAp8e9QclKMJWSiNAGOrEBPzmHh5YVcXY6uvFU4e1JjRE56pJCu9lii0PTdzzt42Xuu2pYhMoG8sPLDrXDzCLWzdlPcVZtZZ7GfMtOiAjFv5Xm3UWK734EvGFtoZun3n1q5hb156O8F19d3%2B0P2xo2uAKfMZyBv4ik1%2BY0vpsitbmlPmtVE0mUvimUKVsgT0B1pk7HSVkfDUPTG7jOucwuGwTrKAgtw6Z4lEqfszV9X81iSiGgUDZeb4636W6Tvxoa&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20260511T172131Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTY5SMPSKG6%2F20260511%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=669642443a0644511a66d78c58f293437d8379afe9f9d1d8a086064531ec7158&hash=414c5ee2d415e632f4b0cf826962a49a40843753191e91c475c388e47d749175&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S2352250X21001500&tid=spdf-966fc183-90fb-41ba-af8d-a7e6cdb25a6b&sid=e92745ea50432741af7a62
3745d13b8e61c8gxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&rh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=161758070255040153&rr=9fa2dc4c296415ce&cc=us
[12]: https://www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/jonathan-haidt
[13]: https://x.com/JonHaidt/status/1878060919957164246
[14]: https://www.oprah.com/book/the-anxious-generation-by-jonathan-haidt?editors_pick_id=84223
[15]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOC-RyoBcbQ
[16]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKQ5UujtFX0
[17]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey4XhHqnkuQ
[18]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1709#
[19]: https://x.com/SpencerJCox/status/1798503704846589977
[20]: https://www.ksl.com/article/news/politics/he-wrote-the-book-on-social-media-and-kids-heres-what-he-said-about-utahs-online-laws/51289239#:~:text=The%20ceremonial%20signing%20included%20several,the%20data%20collected%20by%20social
[21]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/Analyses/h0003z1.RRS.PDF
[22]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2700/all-info
[23]: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Haidt%20Testimony.pdf
[24]: https://holdenthorp.substack.com/p/more-on-the-muddled-science-on-teens
[25]: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/27/anxious-generation-jonathan-haidt
[26]: https://www.platformer.news/anxious-generation-jonathan-haidt-debate-critique/
[27]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000-kids-the-social-media-panic-doesnt-hold-up/
[28]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000-kids-the-social-media-panic-doesnt-hold-up/
[29]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2843720
[30]: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/12/03/young-adults-and-the-future-of-news/
[31]: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-marginalized-youth-socially-isolated-previous.html
[32]: https://internet.psych.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/532-Master/532-UnitPages/Unit-11/Odgers_Nature_2024.pdf
[33]: https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evidence-that-social-media-is-causing-the-teen-mental-health-crisis/
[34]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
[35]: https://krcrtv.com/news/nation-world/california-moving-toward-banning-social-media-for-kids-under-16-online-safety-children-social-media-addiction
[36]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/eff-ninth-circuit-young-people-have-first-amendment-right-use-social-media-and-all
[37]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/18/1057135/transgender-contagion-gender-dysphoria/
[38]: https://theconversation.com/why-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-is-bad-science-92742
[39]: https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/jonathan-haidt-social-contagion-rogd-pbs
[40]: https://calmatters.org/newsletter/transgender-youth-executive-orders-newsletter/
[41]: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.pbs.org_wnet_firing-2Dline_video_jonathan-2Dhaidt-2Dxp90dy_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=5nWZgKs9GsqBlJwUpRWH-sbmB1pEIHaY61rOUFX52no&m=UHfRjJ5jZBnmmlJC0k3a1oWlIYN5Su_KK1rATAuSpWVb_UU6qyhFL7fkjNUflUu8&s=rAH3wqL9cufYIks68Ioiy5gwNJATU1Fl9PVTDWpl0Po&e=
[42]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2071
[43]: https://edsource.org/2026/social-media-ai-mental-health/755990?fbclid=IwdGRjcARWYJtleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe6iOvJ_-TeXaFJbJuwzYpe04FGVpm622U54NiwPU87FFjNxzKCOFRmdj2JXw_aem_Vh739k2H4DmT8novhNJy3g
[44]: https://jlusa.org/about/
[45]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/act-now-stop-californias-paternalistic-and-privacy-destroying-social-media-ban
[46]: https://blog.mdpi.com/2023/02/28/recessions-and-mental-health/
[47]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/22/opinion/west-virginia-appalachia-opioids-children.html
[48]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2785658
[49]: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/study-shows-lgbtq-youth-in-the-u-s-face-high-rates-of-suicidality-and-victimization-worsened-by-anti-lgbtq-politics/
[50]: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/age-restrictions-alone-wont-keep-children-safe-online
[51]: https://www.politico.eu/article/michael-oflaherty-human-rights-council-of-europe-children-social-media-ban/
[52]: https://www.eff.org/pages/whos-harmed-age-verification-mandates#main-content
[53]: https://www.hrc.org/magazine/2021-early-fall/online-communities-early-fall-2021
[54]: https://www.eff.org/pages/age-verification-systems-are-surveillance-systems#main-content
[55]: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/14/australia-porn-age-verification-user-experience-vpn-dark-web-ntwnfb
[56]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/05/science-not-settled-how-weak-evidence-fueling-national-push-ban-social-media-youth

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/21/the-science-is-not-settled-how-weak-evidence-is-fueling-a-national-push-to-ban-social-media-for-youth/

Trump Sued Himself And Walked Away With A $100 Million Tax Debt ...

2026-05-20T20:12:09Z

Trump Sued Himself And Walked Away With A $100 Million Tax Debt Erased

There were two rumors last week regarding the supposed “settlement” of [Donald Trump’s ridiculously problematic lawsuit][1] against his own IRS, asking for $10 billion. The first was that he was going to get [an agreement to drop all audits of his taxes][2] (and the taxes of his family members and businesses). The second was that he was [going to create a $1.776 billion][3] fund to pay off January 6th insurrectionists. The first of those [came true][4] on Monday. The second [came true on Tuesday][5].

> *US tax authorities will be barred from pursuing claims against Donald Trump, his eldest sons and the Trump Organization under an agreement to halt the president’s $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.*

Just like Monday’s news, the framing of this is absolute bullshit. There is no “agreement to halt the lawsuit.” The lawsuit was about to be [drop kicked out of court by a judge][6] who pointed out that there is no “cause or controversy” here because Donald Trump was suing himself and had full control over both parties in the lawsuit. You can’t “come to an agreement” with yourself to give yourself a tremendous benefit from the United States government.

That’s not a thing. That’s just theft.

And while it may not be the full $10 billion he sought, it’s still a massive theft from the United States treasury. As you’ll recall, Donald Trump has insisted for years that he couldn’t release his tax returns like every single President since Richard Nixon had done, because they were being audited. But that’s also bullshit. When Nixon released his tax returns, they were being audited. And, indeed, the [IRS code requires it to audit][7] both the President and Vice President’s taxes every year.

Reporting from a few years ago found that an audit of Trump’s taxes suggested [he owed over $100 million][8] to the US Treasury because of earlier tax fraud.

> *The issues around Mr. Trump’s case were novel enough that, during his presidency, the I.R.S. undertook a high-level legal review before pursuing it. The Times and ProPublica, in consultation with tax experts, calculated that the revision sought by the I.R.S. would create a new tax bill of more than $100 million, plus interest and potential penalties.*

So agreeing to drop the audit entirely is, at minimum, a $100 million gift from the American taxpayer directly to Donald Trump. As a reward for tax fraud.

That seems… very bad. It’s extraordinarily, shockingly corrupt. And it’s probably not even the most corrupt thing he’s done this week.

The [actual agreement][9] from the DOJ is hilariously stupid. It’s just three paragraphs long and claims it’s part of the “settlement” of the lawsuit (which, again, cannot be “settled” because there’s only one party). The main part is this:

> *The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and/or interest, whether presently known or unknown, that as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement-have been or could have been asserted by Defendants against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals (including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly), or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries, by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of (1) any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the Case or the Pending Agency Claims; (2) Lawfare
> and/or Weaponization; or (3) any matters currently pending or that could be pending (including tax returns filed before the Effective Date) before Defendants or other agencies or departments.*

Basically: clean slate for what appears to be many, many years of tax fraud. So he defrauded the American government, then used his role as the President to just wipe out any ability to hold him accountable for it.

And it’s not like everyone inside the government just went along with it. Reporting says that IRS officials were horrified by the lawsuit and [pushed the DOJ to fight back][10] against it.

> *I.R.S. officials prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining what they saw as flaws in Mr. Trump’s suit and advising the Justice Department to move to dismiss it, according to two people familiar with the memo. That memo was provided to Treasury officials in April, and it is unclear if they passed it along to its intended recipients at the Justice Department, according to the people, who spoke anonymously to discuss internal government deliberations.*

And then, on Monday, just as this brazenly corrupt deal was being finalized, [the Treasury Department’s top lawyer (hired by Trump) resigned][11], apparently in protest.

> *The Treasury Department’s top lawyer resigned Monday as the government announced a controversial settlement with President Trump, according to people familiar with his departure.*
>
> *Brian Morrissey joined the Trump administration last year as the president’s pick to be Treasury Department’s general counsel, after previously serving at the agency and at the Justice Department during Trump’s first term. A former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, Morrissey didn’t respond to a request for comment late Monday. *

MAGA world has long since baked in the idea that Trump will rob the American taxpayer blind any way he can. Most people just assumed that came with the territory. Probably fewer assumed “the territory” included filing a $10 billion lawsuit against yourself, having the judge almost throw it out because you’re suing yourself, then “settling” with yourself — and somehow walking away with a clean slate on what appears to be over $100 million in fraud-based tax debt. If this were written up as a movie, no one would make it, as the corruption is simply too over the top and out in the open. And yet, it’s real.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/30/trump-demands-10-billion-from-taxpayers-for-leaked-tax-returns-his-own-lawyers-get-to-decide-what-he-gets/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/13/trump-already-has-his-get-out-of-jail-free-card-now-he-wants-a-get-out-of-irs-audits-card/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/15/trumps-10-billion-irs-lawsuit-may-become-a-1-7-billion-slush-fund-for-magas-self-proclaimed-victims/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/18/trump-just-created-an-unconstitutional-1-776-billion-loyalty-rewards-program-for-maga/
[5]: https://www.ft.com/content/57334fae-a475-4ab0-a202-8df3766927e4?syn-25a6b1a6=1
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/27/judge-just-noticed-the-obvious-problem-with-trump-suing-his-own-irs-for-10-billion/
[7]: https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-history-project/tax-history-why-presidents-are-audited-every-year/2019/02/22/2957m
[8]: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/11/us/trump-taxes-audit-chicago.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jlA.8wkt.pVe-rtFqKFMl&smid=url-share
[9]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441216/dl
[10]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/admin/irs-trump-lawsuit-deal.html
[11]: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/treasury-lawyer-quits-as-government-settles-trump-irs-suit-0658a44a

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/20/trump-sued-himself-and-walked-away-with-a-100-million-tax-debt-erased/

Tennessee Book Ban Update: State Jumps The Shark By Banning ...

2026-05-20T18:08:02Z

Tennessee Book Ban Update: State Jumps The Shark By Banning ‘Roots’

When I was in high school, part of the mandatory social studies curriculum included watching the miniseries *Roots* in class over the course of several days. I remember it fondly, though I did get myself into a bit of trouble in the process. Apparently shouting things like “Hey, where is Geordi La Forge’s visor?” and “Oh, look, it’s the owner of McDowell’s!” is not appropriate fodder when watching what is indeed an important cultural touchstone for American history.

The miniseries was based on a book by Alex Haley, which follows generations of African slaves descending from slave Kunta Kinte, and highlights parts of what slave life was like in that shameful part of American history. The book won a Pulitzer in 1977, while the miniseries collected 9 Emmys and a Peabody award. And one county in the state of Tennessee just [banned the book in public schools][1].

> *“Roots,” the renowned 1976 novel by Alex Haley that spurred a broad awakening in African American genealogy and history, has been banned by Knox County Schools.*
>
> *“Prior to its release, the impact of slavery was easy to diminish or deny by those that benefited the most from that system,” said Annastasia Williams, bookshop director at The Bottom bookstore and cultural organization.*
>
> *“‘Roots’ created an opening to reengage with how the history of slavery is taught in American schools and to the American public. Haley’s work showcased the violence, brutality, and aftermath of slavery, but it also showcased the resilience and resistance of Black people and families that spans generations. Both the book and subsequent TV miniseries were cultural phenomenons that started conversations, shifted perspectives, and contributed to a collective empathy that the U.S. had not seen or heard before.”*

Knox County is apparently up to 119 total book titles banned from school libraries at this point. Nearly all of them are works that in some way engage in conversation about sexual experiences, race relations, or LGBTQ+ content. All of it is ridiculous, of course, as well as an attempt at infantilizing Tennessee children. Children, I’d be willing to wager, who are far more mature about such subjects than the dewy-eyed cretins cosplaying as functioning adults who are banning these books.

And this has to be a jump the shark moment when it comes to banning books. *Roots* is incredibly important as a major cultural moment in race relations and the historical understanding of slavery in America. Banning it isn’t about protecting children from inappropriate content. It isn’t about saving children from misinformation about American history. I would love to hear from anyone who wants to argue that the content portrayed in *Roots* is historically inaccurate. Go for it. I always enjoy someone who wants to demonstrate just how wrong they can be about something public.

This is about trying to bury the very real history of our country. Why? Because it makes some people feel bad? It makes it a bit harder to stand for the National Anthem at the University of Tennessee football game? Or maybe because a certain segment of the population would very much like to rewind the clock back to the 1800s?

Haley lived in Tennessee. There is a fucking statue of him in Morningside Park in Knoxville, within Knox County. So Knox County banned a book in schools that was written by an author who is celebrated with a statue in that *same county*. A statue for what?

It seems that in the future, students in the county won’t be able to tell you the answer to that question.

[1]: https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/education/2026/05/15/knox-county-schools-bans-historical-novel-roots-by-alex-haley/90080042007/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/20/tennessee-book-ban-update-state-jumps-the-shark-by-banning-roots/

Alito Helped Normalize Unreasoned Shadow Docket Orders. Now ...

2026-05-19T20:09:33Z

Alito Helped Normalize Unreasoned Shadow Docket Orders. Now He’s Mad About One.

A couple weeks back, Supreme Court watcher Steve Vladeck [pointed out a fascinating “tell”][1] by Justice Samuel Alito in dealing with stays that he will issue on shadow docket requests. If he is prone to agree with the underlying claim, he’ll issue an unbounded stay on a lower court’s ruling. If he is inclined to disagree with the underlying ruling, he issues a temporary stay with a short deadline before the stay is lifted. He noticed this in particular with the stay that Alito issued in response to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling blocking prescriptions of the abortion drug mifepristone without an in-person visit (an attempt to block the pills from being sent to the various Southern states covered by the Fifth Circuit). In that case, Alito had a short deadline before the stay would be lifted, in contrast to how he tends to treat such stays when he agrees with the result:

> *First, Justice Alito waited almost 48 hours to act—a period during which there was quite a lot of chaos across the country among doctors, pharmacists, and patients over whether and to what extent they were bound by Friday’s Fifth Circuit decision. 48 hours may not seem like a long time, but for comparison, in November, Alito issued *[*an administrative stay*][2]* in the Texas redistricting case just 68 ****minutes**** after Texas’s application for emergency relief was docketed by the Supreme Court (both of which happened after hours on a Friday night).*
>
> *Second, and speaking of the Texas case, Alito’s administrative stays in the mifepristone case had something that his administrative stay in the Texas case didn’t—a deadline (next Monday at 5 p.m. ET). This follows a much broader pattern—in which Alito issues indefinite administrative stays in cases in which he appears to be sympathetic to the applicants, but imposes deadlines on the stays in cases in which he doesn’t. Before Monday, the last nine administrative stays in which Alito imposed deadlines were all cases in which at least one of the applicants had been the Biden administration. In contrast, Alito imposed no deadline in the Texas redistricting case; *[*a potentially significant non-delegation case from 2024*][3]*; and several other cases with … less … of an ideological valence.*
>
> *To be sure, Alito isn’t the only justice to ever put a deadline on an administrative stay; Justices Gorsuch and Jackson have also each done it exactly once. And although the deadlines tend to create unnecessary tension and stress for both the parties and the Supreme Court’s press corps (who worry about what will happen if the deadline comes and goes with no action—which appeared to happen *[*in the Texas SB4 immigration case in March 2024*][4]*), they’re not especially significant beyond that. But it certainly seems like a petty way to treat parties differently based upon what you think of their claims.*

Then, despite that short deadline (which, to be fair, was extended three days), the Supreme Court waited until 26 minutes *past* the deadline [to issue its unexplained shadow docket ruling][5] keeping the stay in place until after the rest of the proceedings play out (like a cert petition to the Supreme Court, and then a more complete ruling on the merits).

As a site that regularly calls out and [complains about shadow docket rulings][6], and in particular unexplained shadow docket rulings, it’s unfortunate that the majority didn’t explain their reasoning — and equally unfortunate that Alito forced a rushed decision in the first place.

I know that the justices hate the term “shadow docket,” preferring either the “emergency” docket or the “interim” docket, but if they’re going to call it that they should really only use it for issues that are emergencies or for interim relief — the very limited number of scenarios where real unmitigated damage could be done in the interim until a thorough review has been conducted. But that’s [just not the case][7] most of the time. Relatedly, those rulings should have extremely narrow and limited precedential power. In theory that was the case until last year when some of the Justices (most notably, Justice Gorsuch) [started whining][8] about judges following actual full merits rulings as precedent, rather than magically applying unreasoned shadow docket decisions.

And while there is [plenty of analysis elsewhere][9] of the impact of last week’s late night ruling, I wanted to highlight the sheer hypocrisy* of Alito whining about the Justices not giving a reason for their stay. In his own dissent (which is likely why the ruling came out late, coming after Alito’s own needlessly imposed deadline), he starts off by complaining about the lack of any reasoning:

> *The Court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable.*

Given how often Alito has signed onto other “unreasoned” shadow docket rulings when he agreed with them, it’s worth calling out the brazenness of complaining about the very practice he’s helped normalize.

* *I use the word “hypocrisy” here deliberately for two reasons. First, because it is incredibly hypocritical. Second, because Alito’s ruling had an embarrassing typo, in which he referred to the litigation involving the Alliance for ****Hippocratic**** Medicine as the Alliance for ****Hypocritic ****Medicine. This typo was one of many that the Supreme Court had to issue corrections on the filing not once, *[*but twice*][10]*, before finally fixing this particular typo.*

And while the Wall Street Journal [can pretend][11] that shadow docket critics don’t care about unexplained shadow docket rulings when they go in their favor, that’s bullshit. Unexplained SCOTUS rulings are bad no matter what. In an ideal world, Alito wouldn’t have imposed an artificially short deadline on the administrative stay, and the court would have given some explanation for its decision — rather than leaving us to read tea leaves from Alito and Thomas’s odd dissents.

For what it’s worth, Vladeck also does an excellent job pointing out [the fundamental inanity and contradictions][12] of both Alito and Thomas’s dissents in this case.

> *First, Justice Thomas went full *[*Comstock Act*][13]*, arguing that all dispensation of mifepristone through the mail is illegal—never mind that the Department of Justice took a different position *[*as recently as 2022*][14]*. Putting aside the (*[*well-documented*][15]*) weaknesses of the Comstock Act arguments, Justice Thomas is simply wrong to argue that parties “cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.” As the Trump cases *[*have regularly illustrated*][16]*, a party can be irreparably harmed (at least in view of a majority of the current Court—including Justice Thomas) by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to break the law. Justice Thomas also apparently saw no problem with the Fifth Circuit issuing nationwide relief under the APA—even though he joined a 2023 concurrence by Justice Gorsuch *[*arguing that such universal vacaturs were likely not authorized by the
> APA*][17]*. Needless to say, that inconsistency was … not addressed.*
>
> *And then there’s Justice Alito’s dissent. Alito opened by claiming that “[w]hat is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs.” Of course, Dobbs insisted that it was returning the question of abortion to the states, whereas the Fifth Circuit ruling would’ve required in-person doctor visits on a nationwide basis. In any event, though, the FDA first got rid of the in-person doctor-visit requirement in 2021—before Dobbs was decided. So the “scheme to undermine Dobbs” began … before Dobbs.*

There’s more at the link.

But at a time when the Supreme Court keeps telling us [we shouldn’t believe][18] that they make decisions on partisan grounds, it sure would help if they actually stopped doing things differently depending on the partisan valence of each case — something Alito seems to do quite regularly.

It really seems like we need serious reform of the Supreme Court. I’ve already argued that we should increase the number of Justices to [100 or more][19] (to the point where no single Justice matters so much anymore), but any serious reform needs to contend with the abuses of the shadow docket, and making sure that it really is only used for emergency situations where an interim ruling is necessary for maintaining the status quo until a full briefing on the merits can occur.

Justice Alito appears to want to have two different sets of rules, depending on his feelings towards the parties. That’s the opposite of supposedly blind justice. If the court fears that its rulings are seen as illegitimate, then it should start by making sure Alito stops treating parties very differently depending on how aligned they are with his personal ideological beliefs.

[1]: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/226-two-more-data-points-for-the?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
[2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112125zr_5536.pdf
[3]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092324zr_i425.pdf
[4]: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/72-30-hours-of-sb4-whiplash
[5]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a1207_21p3.pdf
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/shadow-docket/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/22/hypocritically-the-origin-of-the-supreme-courts-shadow-docket-was-an-attempt-to-curb-executive-power/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/09/dc-circuit-makes-rookie-mistake-in-actually-following-binding-precedent-in-a-case-involving-donald-trump-firing-people/
[9]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/14/supreme-court-mifepristone-abortion-pill-upheld
[10]: https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3mlw4ihyzxc2c
[11]: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/mifepristone-supreme-court-shadow-docket-abortion-drug-samuel-alito-ff1f66f9
[12]: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/228-justices-testifying-before-congress
[13]: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-216-shadow-docket-shadowboxing
[14]: https://www.justice.gov/d9/opinions/attachments/2023/01/03/2022-12-23_-_comstock_act_1.pdf
[15]: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3347&context=gsulr
[16]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5661011
[17]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/599us1r47_8m58.pdf#page=25
[18]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/07/john-roberts-wants-you-to-stop-believing-your-own-eyes/
[19]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/the-case-for-a-100-justice-supreme-court/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/19/alito-helped-normalize-unreasoned-shadow-docket-orders-now-hes-mad-about-one/

Daily Deal: 5-in-1 MagSafe Wireless & Wired Charging Station ...

2026-05-13T18:01:27Z

Daily Deal: 5-in-1 MagSafe Wireless & Wired Charging Station

Simplify your daily charging experience and replace most of the chargers and cables on your desktop. The [5-in-1 Wireless & Wired Charging Station][1] is a compact and powerful charging station to charge all your favorite gadgets at the same time, and can also double as a bedside lamp with 3 brightness levels. Having 3 wireless charging spots, and one USB-A port, it enables charging for up to 4 devices simultaneously, including iPhone, Apple Watch, AirPods Pro, AirPods with Wireless Charging Case, other Qi-compatible Android Phones, and Bluetooth earbuds. The Apple Watch Stand is for charging any Apple Watch from Series 1 to 9. Save your workspace and charge all your favorite techs in one elegant solution. It’s on sale for $40.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: http://deals.techdirt.com/sales/5-in-1-magsafe-wireless-wired-charging-station?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/13/daily-deal-5-in-1-magsafe-wireless-wired-charging-station/

Daily Deal: The Complete JIRA Agile Project Management Course In ...

2026-05-12T17:51:29Z

Daily Deal: The Complete JIRA Agile Project Management Course

In the [Complete JIRA Agile Project Management Course][1], you’ll learn how to master JIRA Agile cloud software to help you streamline your projects while turning yourself into a project management professional! Whether you’re new to JIRA or Agile methodologies, an Agile Certified Scrum Master, product owner or software developer, this course will provide you the strategic and tactical essentials to get the most out of your JIRA Agile projects using a REAL web design example project, while saving you tons of time during the learning process. It’s on sale for $12.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-complete-jira-agile-project-management-course?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/05/12/daily-deal-the-complete-jira-agile-project-management-course/

Court Dismisses Pepperdine’s Nonsense Trademark Suit Against ...

2026-04-10T22:01:05Z

Court Dismisses Pepperdine’s Nonsense Trademark Suit Against Netflix Over ‘Running Point’

A little over a year ago, we [wrote about][1] a fairly silly lawsuit filed against Netflix (and Warner Bros.) by Pepperdine University in California for trademark infringement. At issue is the Netflix show *Running Point*, which is a fictionalized story of a female executive thrust into ownership of a professional basketball team, inspired by the Lakers’ Jeannie Buss, who is also an Executive Producer on the show. The show’s fictional team, which is supposed to be a reference to the NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers, is called “The Waves”. Pepperdine’s sports teams are also called “The Waves”, which the school claimed made all of this trademark infringement.

They were wrong about that, as we said in the previous post. Creative works are given wide latitude in trademark law, specifically in that the Rogers test typically applies. Even in the aftermath of the [Supreme Court’s terrible ruling on parody][2] in the case of the Bad Spaniels and Jack Daniels lawsuit, this was always a situation in which the Rogers test would definitely apply. Specifically, SCOTUS’ decision that Rogers doesn’t apply when the offending trademark is used as a source identifier, because we’re talking about a fictional team used in a wider work of fiction, meaning the use isn’t an identifier or any source.

Netflix and Warner petitioned for dismissal for those very reasons and the now the court has agreed [and the suit has been dismissed][3].

> *U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela [said ‌on Tuesday , opens new tab][4] that the fictional Los Angeles Waves basketball team in “Running Point” did not violate the Malibu, California, school’s rights because the show did not use the “Waves” name and logo as trademarks.*

The ruling goes into much more detail, of course. It very specifically examines whether the Rogers test applies, deciding it does based on the usage. For example:

> *Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that the Waves mark was used by Defendants to exploit the success of Plaintiff’s sports teams or to create an association between the Running Point series and Pepperdine’s teams. Rather, at most, the FAC shows that the Waves mark is “immediately recognized” to identify the Running Point series, and that its use is synonymous with the series. These allegations, which Plaintiff concludes show that the Waves mark is used to “identify the show” are still not sufficient to show that the Waves mark was used as a designation of source for the series. Plaintiff’s repeated use of the words “identify” and “source-identification” do not actually show how the Waves mark was used to identify the source of the series. Rather, here, Defendants clearly claim to be the source of the series.*
>
> *Finally, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the marketing of the show or Defendants’ behavior in similar uses. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ used the Waves mark in marketing the Running Point series, this does not alter the Court’s above analysis that the Waves mark is not used to identify the source of the series. And the fact that Defendants have obtained trademarks in fictional businesses central to their shows in the past again does not show that Defendants have used the Waves mark to identify the source of Running Point here.*

The ruling goes on to note that if Rogers applies, the Lanham Act does not. With source identifying out of the equation, the only remaining question is if the use in this case is artistically relevant. As the fictional team the main character owns, the name of that team is *obviously* artistically relevant.

Pepperdine has been given leave to amend its complaint into something that is actually legally sound, but I’m struggling to understand what that would even be. In lieu of an amended complaint, it seems that some creative works are still protected some of the time from nonsense trademark infringement claims, even in a post *Bad Spaniels* world.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/04/pepperdine-sues-netflix-over-trademark-in-shows-fictional-portrayal-of-the-lakers/
[2]: https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-bad-spaniels-update
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/netflix-warner-bros-fend-off-pepperdine-lawsuit-over-running-point-series-2026-04-01/
[4]: https://tmsnrt.rs/48luGoe

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/09/court-dismisses-pepperdines-nonsense-trademark-suit-against-netflix-over-running-point/

Minnesota Kicks Off Legal Battle With Trump Administration To ...

2026-04-04T02:39:16Z

Minnesota Kicks Off Legal Battle With Trump Administration To Hold ICE Shooters Accountable

*This story was [originally published][1] by ProPublica.* *Republished under a [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0][2]* *license.*

They asked nicely at first.

After an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three who’d recently moved to Minneapolis, local law enforcement officials requested a partnership with the federal government to investigate the case, as they’d done in past shootings involving federal agents.

When the Trump administration refused to cooperate, Minnesota prosecutors ratcheted up their efforts. They sent a series of strongly worded legal letters demanding evidence in the Good shooting as well as the shootings of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan immigrant who was wounded a week after Good was shot, and Alex Pretti, who was killed on Jan. 24.

Still, the administration rebuffed the requests.

This week, prosecutors from Hennepin County and the state of Minnesota took the next step to force the Trump administration’s hand. They filed a federal lawsuit against the departments of Homeland Security and Justice over the evidence in the shootings, an action that Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, whose jurisdiction covers Minneapolis, characterized as “unprecedented in American history.”

The Trump administration has declined to release the names of the agents involved in the shootings, even after the [Minnesota Star Tribune][3] and [ProPublica][4] identified the officers involved in the Good and Pretti incidents.

“The federal government has refused to cooperate with state law enforcement, which is unique, rare and simply cannot be tolerated,” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison told reporters. “[We] can’t sit around and let them do it.”

In the standoff over evidence, the case has already become a game of constitutional chicken over states’ rights versus federal immunity, a battle that will have implications for others who wish to hold agents in the president’s immigration surge criminally accountable.

So far, neither side is showing signs of backing down, foreshadowing a fight that could take years. If prosecutors do eventually file charges against federal agents involved in the shootings, legal experts said the path to trial, much less winning convictions, will be filled with legal and procedural challenges.

“State prosecutors across the country are going to be watching what happens in Minnesota really closely,” said Alicia Bannon, director of the judiciary program at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

The first test for prosecutors, if they file charges, would be to prove the agents don’t qualify for immunity through the Constitution’s [supremacy clause][5], a rarely invoked legal doctrine that protects federal officers from state prosecutions if they’re acting lawfully and within the scope of their duties.

Failing to pass that test would likely end the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case involving supremacy clause immunity in over 100 years, Bannon said, and judges have come down differently on legal issues related to its application.

There’s no easy answer as to whether Minnesota will be able to get past a supremacy clause defense, said Jill Hasday, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota.

“That depends on the facts, but probably the odds are stacked against it,” she said.

Even if they survive such a fight, the cases could be dogged by a series of logistical challenges. Moriarty, who has been leading the investigations, has decided not to seek reelection and will leave office at the end of the year. That means whoever wins the election for her seat in November could inherit the prosecutions.

In addition to not having the names of the agents, prosecutors don’t know where those agents are now. Minnesota may need to extradite them, potentially from a MAGA-leaning state that may balk at sending them to Hennepin County to stand trial.

“Will the federal government or other states cooperate with that? I think the answer to that is sort of iffy,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia. (Indeed, in a case involving a doctor charged with illegally mailing abortion medication to a Louisiana woman, [the state of California has rejected an extradition request][6], citing its own laws protecting doctors from prosecution elsewhere.)

The fight is focused on three shootings. But Moriarty’s office has opened criminal investigations into 14 additional cases of potentially unlawful behavior by federal agents during Operation Metro Surge, which started in early December and has wound down over the past few weeks.

The other cases Moriarty is examining involve allegations of excessive force or other misconduct by federal agents, such as an incident in early January in which agents allegedly used force on staff and students on the grounds of a high school.

Prosecutors are also investigating Gregory Bovino, the outgoing Border Patrol commander who helped to lead immigration surges into several American cities and who was seen on [video lobbing green-smoke canisters][7] into crowds at a park in Minneapolis. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said at the time that Bovino and other agents were responding to a “hostile crowd.”

The tension has played out in a series of demand letters sent by Moriarty to the Justice and Homeland Security departments. “Public transparency is vitally important in these cases — not just for the people of Hennepin County and Minnesota, but for the public nationwide,” Moriarty wrote in one of the letters. “The only way to achieve transparency is through investigation conducted at a local level.”

In January, after the shooting of Good, federal officials had agreed to participate in a joint investigation with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension — Minnesota’s state police agency tasked with examining use of deadly force cases — according to the letters signed by Moriarty.

State officials presumed they’d be able to examine evidence, such as the car Good was driving and the guns used to shoot her and the other victims. But the investigators later learned through public statements by high-ranking Trump administration officials that federal agents were no longer planning to share evidence, the letter states.

Local and state prosecutors don’t have the authority to subpoena them for evidence like in a typical criminal investigation. The demand letters, called Touhy letters, are formal written requests, used as an alternative to a subpoena, asking a federal agency to provide evidence or testimony in a case in which the government is not a party. Moriarty sought an extensive list of evidence in the shootings, from the guns fired by the agents in all three cases to official reports, agent GPS devices and witness statements. The Touhy letters asked for a response by Feb. 17.

Normally, the federal government complies with Touhy letters as a matter of protocol, as long as releasing the information doesn’t violate an internal policy, said Timothy Johnson, a political science and law professor at the University of Minnesota.

But on Feb. 13, the FBI told BCA investigators that it won’t share investigative materials in the Pretti case, BCA Superintendent Drew Evans [said in a statement][8]. Evans said the police agency had reiterated its requests for evidence in the Good and Sosa-Celis cases.

More than a month after the deadline set by prosecutors, the Trump administration still hasn’t turned over the materials.

“There has been no cooperation from federal authorities,” BCA spokesperson Michael Ernster said.

The agents involved in the shootings have not spoken publicly, but a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security defended Good’s shooting, saying the agent acted in self-defense. They said the Pretti shooting was under investigation by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, with the Border Patrol conducting its own investigation. Those investigations could result in discipline or charges, including for civil rights violations.

The Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said federal officials found that, after Sosa-Celis’ shooting, officers made false statements. But the agency did not say whether it would cooperate with the local authorities or follow a court ruling requiring it to do so.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment or to questions. Neither agency has responded to the lawsuit.

Moriarty called the lawsuit “critically important” to investigating the shooting cases but also said she had not made any decisions on whether her office will file charges.

“There has to be an investigation anytime a federal agent or a state agent takes the life of a person in our community,” she said. “And ultimately the decision may be it was lawful. You don’t know, but that’s why you do the investigation. You are transparent with the results of that investigation, and you are public with your transparency about the decision and how you got there.”

But a lawsuit does not guarantee that prosecutors will get all they want. “The question then becomes, even if Hennepin County or Minneapolis wins the suit, will they comply then?” Johnson asked. “And the answer is probably no.”

If the Trump administration did eventually defy a judge’s order, he said, prosecutors could try to appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court. As far as what could happen next: “It’s anyone’s guess.”

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/minnesota-trump-ice-shooting-lawsuit-alex-pretti-renee-good
[2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[3]: https://www.startribune.com/ice-agent-who-fatally-shot-woman-in-minneapolis-is-identified/601560214
[4]: https://www.propublica.org/article/alex-pretti-shooting-cbp-agents-identified-jesus-ochoa-raymundo-gutierrez
[5]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
[6]: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/01/14/governor-newsom-rejects-louisianas-attempt-to-extradite-california-doctor-for-providing-abortion-care/
[7]: https://www.startribune.com/border-patrol-greg-bovino-smoke-canister-chemical-spray-ice-protests-observers-minneapolis-dhs/601568184
[8]: https://dps.mn.gov/news/bca/statement-bca-superintendent-drew-evans-alex-pretti-shooting-investigation

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/minnesota-kicks-off-legal-battle-with-trump-administration-to-hold-ice-shooters-accountable/

Pete Hegseth’s War On Truth *This article is republished from ...

2026-03-30T22:08:04Z

Pete Hegseth’s War On Truth

*This article is republished from [The Conversation][1] under a Creative Commons license. Read the [original article][2].*

Martha Gellhorn stowed away on a hospital ship to become the only woman journalist to land on Normandy Beach on D-Day. She carried stretchers before writing [her harrowing account][3] of the invasion.

The New Yorker’s [famously epicurean writer][4] A.J. Liebling subsisted on military rations and came under fire during World War II to describe what it was like for the soldiers and sailors at war.

Syndicated columnist Ernie Pyle died, [in a helmet and Army fatigues][5], among some of the troops whose names and hometowns he carefully included in his dispatches. “At this spot, the 77th Infantry lost a buddy,” [read the makeshift sign][6] posted at the place where a Japanese machine gun bullet felled him.

Those reporters told stories of war in all its gore and its glory, its exhilaration and its ennui. Others have laid bare the anxiety and doubts.

Veteran Vietnam correspondent Neil Sheehan broke the story of the [Pentagon Papers][7], which showed how government officials deceived the public about the Vietnam war. Sheehan won a [Pulitzer Prize][8] for his book, “[A Bright Shining Lie][9],” which chronicled the war’s impact on idealists who once believed in it, through the story of his relationship with an inside source.

Well before bombs started dropping on Iran and President Donald Trump began to [tease the notion of a ground invasion][10], his defense secretary, [Pete Hegseth, began putting obstacles in the way of the reporters][11] with the most experience covering the nation’s military. While Hegseth’s moves haven’t stopped the reporters from doing their jobs, it has made it harder for them to keep the public informed.

As someone who [worked as a Washington correspondent for decades][12], I worry that these obstacles could limit the number of reporters who have the experience with – and trust of – key sources to do the kind of in-depth, nuanced journalism that a war, with its price in lives and resources, deserves.

## Corralling the watchdogs

Generally, war correspondents need the cooperation of the military they are covering to get to the front. For the U.S. press, that requires relationships and credibility at the Pentagon.

Early in 2025, Hegseth ordered major news organizations to [give up their desks][13] in the Pentagon press room to MAGA favorites. [NPR’s desk went to Breitbart News][14]. Roaming the hallways, where reporters sometimes found sources who would deviate from the company line, became verboten.

Eventually, the area in the Pentagon where reporters were allowed was circumscribed to a single corridor outside the press room – even though the public affairs officers who worked most closely with reporters were in an office on the other side of the [6½-million-square-foot][15] building.

Then Hegseth conditioned the issuance of press credentials on reporters, effectively giving military brass [the right to censor or sanitize][16] their reports.

As a result, almost the entire Pentagon press corps, which included outlets ranging from The Associated Press to The New York Times to Fox News and USNI News, which covers the Navy, [moved out of the building][17] in October 2025. Some have been invited back for the press briefings Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have begun to give on progress of the battle in Iran.

But after the first of these briefings, the Pentagon abruptly banned photographers from attending, reportedly because Hegseth’s staff found [some of their images of him to be unflattering][18].

## Secretary on defense

Gone are the off-camera “background” briefings where Department of Defense brass could give trusted reporters greater context and nuance for battlefield decisions. Gone are the impromptu hallway meetings where reporters have, with luck or persistence, picked up information that deviates from an administration’s agreed-upon script.

Also not in evidence, at least not so far: the deployment of the kind of [journalistic embed program that the Pentagon used during the Iraq war][19] to give the American people an up-close look at troops in the conflict zone.

How might that affect what you, the public, gets to know? It was [a combination of an anonymous tip and insider access][20] that led the legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh to break the devastating story of My Lai, the American soldiers’ massacre of civilians during the Vietnam War.

At the made-for-TV briefings he does hold, Hegseth devotes most of the session to questions from outlets such as the Epoch Times, The Daily Caller and [LindellTV – owned by Mike Lindell][21], the head of the well-known pillow company.

[At one recent briefing][22], one of the favored new cadre tossed Hegseth a shameless softball. Referring to American troops in the Middle East, the questioner asked: “What is your prayer for them?”

Yet as hostilities drag on, even some among Hegseth’s chosen press corps have begun [to ask irksome questions][23] about the war. The normally Trump-friendly Daily Caller ran [a less-than-flattering piece][24] about the president berating a reporter for asking about troop deployments.

On [March 4][25], 2026, Hegseth accused journalists of focusing on war casualties to make “the president look bad.” [On March 13][26], Hegseth castigated as “more fake news” CNN’s report that the Trump administration had underestimated the impact of the war on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” Hegseth concluded, adding fuel [to the speculation][27] that a Trump supporter who won a bidding war for CNN’s corporate parent is going to turn the network into a more administration-friendly outlet.

Soon after, [Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr][28] threatened network broadcast licenses over coverage critical of the administration’s conduct of the war. Echoing Carr’s threats the next day: [the president himself][29].

## ‘Be a Marine’

The Trump administration is not alone in its disdain for a free press: Israel has long been [notorious for restricting press access][30] from areas where it is conducting military operations.

Leaders of the theocratic Iranian regime are [even worse][31]; the country is cited by press freedom advocate Reporters Without Borders as “one of the world’s most repressive countries in terms of press freedom.”

But the United States has historically distinguished itself by making freedom its calling card, even – or perhaps especially – in wartime.

“The news may be good, or bad. We shall tell you the truth,” Voice of America, a U.S. government-launched radio network, promised – in German – [in its very first broadcast][32] to Nazi Germany in 1942.

Now, however, the Trump administration, is busy trying to undermine the editorial independence of [Voice of America][33], which broadcasts news to countries that don’t have a free press.

Pentagon reporters are continuing to find ways to get around the propaganda. NPR’s Tom Bowman told me that he takes inspiration from a pep talk he overheard a military source deliver to another reporter crestfallen over the lack of access.

“Quit whining and be a Marine,” the official said. “Go over, under or around the obstacle. Find a way to do it.”

Most reporters and their organizations are doing just that, finding sources outside the administration, like the ones in Congress who told The Hill [how much money the war is costing][34] taxpayers per day. And they’re continuing to get information from sources on the inside, like the ones who told The Wall Street Journal that [Trump’s military advisers warned him][35] that Iran might block the Gulf of Hormuz, but that he opted for war anyway.

So far, neither Hegseth’s obstacle course nor threats from the White House and the FCC have stopped the press from reporting stories or asking questions that the administration would rather not see or hear.

But restrictions on press freedom have a corrosive effect. We [already have seen][36] how Trump, using lawsuits and licensing threats, has used his power to make corporate media owners think twice about pursuing news he doesn’t like.

Seasoned Pentagon reporters will still find ways to get to sources they already have. But Hegseth’s tactic of blocking press access to the military keeps reporters from developing new sources and keeps new reporters from building the relationships they need to become seasoned Pentagon reporters.

Americans have long been able to understand the triumphs and tribulations of American troops at war, and to make intelligent decisions about whether they approve of a war’s cost, because a free press has been able to tell the story – good or bad. That tradition is now at risk.

*[Kathy Kiely][37] is Professor and Lee Hills Chair of Free Press Studies at the [University of Missouri-Columbia][38]*

[1]: https://theconversation.com/
[2]: https://theconversation.com/pete-hegseth-is-working-hard-to-make-sure-the-public-hears-only-good-news-about-iran-war-278295
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/28/secondworldwar.features116
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/1963/12/29/archives/aj-liebling-journalist-and-critic-dies-at-59-new-yorker-column.html
[5]: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22980127
[6]: https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/honoring-hero-death-and-memorialization-ernie-pyle
[7]: https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers
[8]: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/neil-sheehan
[9]: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/165414/a-bright-shining-lie-by-neil-sheehan/
[10]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-privately-shown-serious-interest-us-ground-troops-iran-rcna262176
[11]: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-access-hegseth-trump-restrictions-5d9c2a63e4e03b91fc1546bb09ffbf12
[12]: https://journalism.missouri.edu/people/kathy-kiely/
[13]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/pentagon-removes-major-media-outlets-nbc-news-dedicated-workstations-p-rcna190276
[14]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/01/pentagon-media-rotation
[15]: https://www.war.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/1650913/10-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-the-pentagon/
[16]: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-journalists-new-restrictions-hegseth-b9e70801f7d7930251a0740e7168f775
[17]: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-press-access-hegseth-trump-restrictions-5d9c2a63e4e03b91fc1546bb09ffbf12
[18]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/11/hegseth-press-briefings-photos-iran/
[19]: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2003/04/03/embedded-reporters/
[20]: https://niemanstoryboard.org/2024/09/04/investigative-journalism-seymour-hersh-my-lai-massacre-vietnam-war/
[21]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/04/mike-lindell-mypillow-tv
[22]: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418959/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/
[23]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/13/pentagon-maga-journalists-iran-war
[24]: https://dailycaller.com/2026/03/16/trump-snaps-reporter-troops-iran/
[25]: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4421037/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/
[26]: https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434484/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/
[27]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/20/warner-bros-discovery-takeover-paramount-skydance-larry-ellison
[28]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/03/14/fcc-iran-war-coverage/89154891007/
[29]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/14/trump-carr-fcc-media-iran-war/
[30]: https://rsf.org/en/country/israel
[31]: https://rsf.org/en/country/iran
[32]: https://www.insidevoa.com/a/2365229.html
[33]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/kari-lake-sarah-rogers-voice-of-america-us-agency-global-media-rcna263261
[34]: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5776761-pentagon-war-munitions-estimate/
[35]: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/iran-oil-hormuz-blockade-trump-f96bdd53
[36]: https://theconversation.com/trump-lawsuits-seek-to-muzzle-media-posing-serious-threat-to-free-press-272850
[37]: https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathy-kiely-718371
[38]: https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-missouri-columbia-796

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/30/pete-hegseths-war-on-truth/

FBI Tells Senate It’s Still Bypassing 4th Amendment By ...

2026-03-27T17:58:46Z

FBI Tells Senate It’s Still Bypassing 4th Amendment By Purchasing Location Data From Third Parties

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that [warrants were needed][1] to obtain cell site location info (CSLI). That decision dealt with law enforcement’s warrantless acquisition of 127 days of location data from a cell service provider. As the court saw it, the government was leveraging access to this data to turn cell phones (which has been given heightened protections with the [2014 *Riley* decision][2]) into government tracking devices, all without having to bother with warrants or deploying government-crafted tracking tech.

The rationale for this 4th Amendment bypass was this: location data slurped up by websites and downloaded apps wasn’t exactly the same thing as cell tower location data. Therefore, it could be had without a warrant. In fact, it could be had without bothering the courts at all with a subpoena or any other lighter-weight legal paperwork. The government could just *buy* this data and sort through it to find what it was looking for. Some third parties were even willing to do the sorting for the right price, freeing the government up to pursue other rights violations.

This option obviously experienced a jump in popularity following the Supreme Court’s *Carpenter* ruling. While the spokespeople constantly stated the agencies they represented (which was pretty much *[all of them][3]* when it came to buying data from data brokers) were super-interested in respecting constitutional rights, they never took the time to explain their “respect” meant constantly testing (or breaking!) the boundaries until court precedent forced them to do otherwise.

In 2023, anti-encryption zealot Christopher Wray was heading the FBI. During the last years of his tenure, [he admitted to Congress][4] (or, more specifically, privacy hawk Senator Ron Wyden) that the FBI was — like CBP, ICE, US Secret Service, IRS, and federal prisons — buying up as much location data as it could purchase. Wray insisted this process was “court-authorized,” but somehow couldn’t find any court documents laying around that would support his claims of authorization.

The government is still buying this data. And [it’s even more problematic][5] than it was a few years ago, when federal agencies weren’t being run by MAGA loyalists and outright racists. Now there’s a new wrinkle: the government is delving into ad markets to siphon off RTB (real-time bidding) data that’s capable of tying location data to specific devices, even if those hawking the data pretend it’s been anonymized.

So, it comes as absolutely no surprise that [aspiring frat bro Kash Patel’s FBI][6] is doing the same thing that plenty of immigration-focused agencies [are *already* doing][7]. Yet again, it’s Senator Wyden demanding answers. And it’s Kash Patel answering the questions without honestly engaging with the questions. Here’s [Zack Whittaker with the details for TechCrunch][8]:

> *When asked by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, if the FBI would commit to not buying Americans’ location data, Patel said that the agency “uses all tools … to do our mission.”*
>
> *“We do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act — and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us,” Patel testified Wednesday.*

First, there’s the obviously false insistence that this is all very constitutional. Buying location data from data brokers doesn’t just violate the spirit of the Supreme Court’s *Carpenter* decision, it’s only a letter or three off from violating the *letter* of the law. When the only difference is *where* you’re obtaining long-term location tracking data, you’re just exploiting loopholes rather than actually trying to be “consistent with the Constitution.”

The second part is even stupider. When you claim that legally-questionable efforts have “led to some valuable intelligence,” you’re just saying that the ends justify the means. And if that’s the low bar you’ve set for yourself, you’re going to be violating rights regularly because you prefer harvesting data to respecting rights.

This sums up the government’s stance concisely:

> *The FBI claims it does not need a warrant to use this information for federal investigations; though this legal theory has not yet been tested in court.*

The government — especially *this* one — will never err on the side of restraint. It would rather explore the outer edges of legal theory, sacrificing *our* rights in exchange for *more* government power. At some point, this legal theory will be tested. But until it is, the government is going to continue to pretend the implications of *Carpenter* don’t apply to anything that hasn’t been *specifically* ruled unconstitutional.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-says-warrants-are-needed-cell-site-location-info/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140625/10272227684/supreme-court-says-law-enforcement-cant-search-mobile-phones-without-warrant.shtml
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/16/fbi-latest-to-admit-to-bypassing-warrant-requirements-by-purchasing-location-info-from-data-brokers/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/16/fbi-latest-to-admit-to-bypassing-warrant-requirements-by-purchasing-location-info-from-data-brokers/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/19/the-government-uses-targeted-advertising-to-track-your-location-heres-what-we-need-to-do/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdQCVnCw6c
[7]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/online-behavioral-ads-fuel-surveillance-industry-heres-how
[8]: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/18/fbi-is-buying-location-data-to-track-us-citizens-kash-patel-wyden/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/fbi-tells-senate-its-still-bypassing-4th-amendment-by-purchasing-location-data-from-third-parties/

Daily Deal: The 2026 Microsoft Office Pro Courses Bundle The ...

2026-03-27T17:53:33Z

Daily Deal: The 2026 Microsoft Office Pro Courses Bundle

The [2026 Microsoft Office Pro Bundle][1] has 8 courses to help you master essential Office skills. Courses cover Access, PowerPoint, Word, Excel, and more. It’s on sale for $21.25 using the code MARCH15 at checkout.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: http://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-2025-microsoft-office-pro-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/27/daily-deal-the-2026-microsoft-office-pro-courses-bundle/

Deep Breath: Okay, Let’s Talk About That Controversial DLSS 5 ...

2026-03-25T03:07:54Z

Deep Breath: Okay, Let’s Talk About That Controversial DLSS 5 Demo

The polarization over any and all uses of [artificial intelligence][1] and machine learning continues. And, to be clear, I very much understand why this is all so controversial. Any new technology that has the chance to be transformative will also necessarily be disruptive and that causes fear. Fear that is not entirely unfounded, no matter your other opinions on the matter. If that’s you, cool, I get it.

I’ll start this off by pointing to the latest edition of the [Techdirt podcast][2] in which both Mike and Karl engaged in a *fantastic* discussion about the use of AI. I’ve listened to it twice now; it’s that good. And, while I found myself arguing out loud with the both of them at certain points during the podcast, despite the fact that neither of them could hear my retorts, it presents a grounded, often nuanced conversation, which we need much more of in this space.

And now, in what might be a subconscious attempt by this writer to commit suicide by comments section, let’s talk about that controversial demo of [NVIDIA’s forthcoming DLSS 5 technology][3]. What DLSS 5 does compared with previous versions of the technology is indeed new, but what is *not* new is the introduction of AI and machine learning into the equation. DLSS 2 and 3 had that already, in the form of pixel reconstruction and frame generation. DLSS 5, however, introduced what is being labeled as “neural rendering”, which uses machine learning to alter the lighting and detailed appearances in environments and, most importantly, character rendering over the engine on top of the 2D image output. Here’s the video demo that got everyone talking.

The backlash to the video was wide, immediate, and furious. There was a great deal of talk about the alteration of artistic intent, about whether this changed what the original developers were attempting to portray when they created the games, and, of course, industry jobs. I want to talk about the major complaint pillars seen across many outlets below, but this backlash also supposedly came with death threats foisted upon NVIDIA employees. I would very much hope we could all at least agree that any threats of that nature are completely inappropriate and absurd.

With that, here is what I’ve seen in the backlash and what I’d want to say about it.

**Get your damned AI out of my games!**

Perhaps not the most common pushback I saw in all of this, but a very common one. And a silly one, too. As I mentioned above, DLSS versions already used some version of AI and machine learning. That isn’t new. How it’s *applied* is certainly new, but that isn’t the same as the demand to keep AI entirely out of the video game industry.

And if *that’s* where you are, go ahead and shake your fist at the clouds in the sky. AI is a tool and, as I’ve now said repeatedly, the conversation we should be having is *how* it’s used in gaming, not *if* it’s used. That’s because its use is largely a foregone conclusion and it is an open question as to whether its use will be a net benefit or negative overall to the industry. Dogmatic purists on AI have a stance that is understandable, but also untenable. We’re too far down this road to turn around and go home. And if the tech were able to lower the barriers of entry to the gaming industry, acting as the fertilizer that allows a thousand indie studios to sprout roots, would that really be so bad for the gaming ecosystem?

I can appreciate the purists’ point of view. I really can. I just don’t see where they have a place in the conversation when it comes to gaming.

**It overrides artistic intent!**

Does it? If it did, then hell yes that’s bad. But if it doesn’t, then this concern goes away entirely.

DLSS 5 is built with options and customizable sliders for game developers. That’s really, really important here. At the macro level, a developer that has decided to use DLSS 5, or decided and customized how it’s used in their games, *is* exercising consent over their products. That should be obvious.

But then we get into really interesting questions of art, the actual artist, and the ownership of that art, because those last two are very different things. As Digital Foundry outlines:

> *It may even raise consent and other questions surrounding artistic integrity. On site and witnessing the demos in motion, concerns about this seemed less of a problem when the games we saw had been signed off by the studios that made them – the contentious assets we’ve seen, likewise. Nothing from the DLSS 5 reveal released by Nvidia has not been approved by the studios that own those games. But perhaps the issue isn’t just about specific approvals by specific developers on agreed DLSS 5 integrations, but rather the whole concept of a GPU reinterpreting game visuals according to a neural model that has its own ideas about what photo-realism should look like.*
>
> *While we’ve seen endorsements from [Bethesda’s Todd Howard][4] and [Capcom’s Jun Takeuchi][5], to what extent does that consent apply to the entire development team and other artists associated with the production? And by extension, there is also the question of whether now is the right time to launch DLSS 5 at a time when the games industry is under enormous pressure, jobs are on the line and cost-cutting is a major focus in the triple-A space. The technology itself cannot function without the work of game creators – it needs final game imagery to work at all – but the extent to which it could be viewed as a worrying sign of “things to come” cannot be overstated bearing in mind the reactions elsewhere to generative AI.*

That strikes me as a valid and interesting ethical question when it comes to the use of this technology, but one that is probably overwrought. Individual artists who work on video games already have their artistic output live at the pleasure of the game developers they contract with. Those developers already can use this game art in all kinds of ways that the individual artist may not have had in mind when creating it, or indeed have even considered such possibilities. DLSS 5 is just one more version of that, with the main difference being that it involves AI making changes to game images. That’s an important thing to consider, sure, but there are cousins to this ethical question that we’ve all come to accept already. This strikes me more as part of the “all AI is bad all the time” crowd finding a foothold in something other than dogma to grab onto.

Developers and publishers own their games. If they want to use DLSS 5 in those games, there is little other than specific work for hire or other contractual stipulations with individual artists that would keep them from implementing it. If artists don’t like that, I completely understand that point of view, but that’s what contract negotiations and language are for.

Bottom line: I have been as vocal as anyone arguing that video games are a form of art for well over a decade now and I struggle to agree that an optional technology that has approved buy in from game developers and publishers equates to “overriding artistic intent”, writ large.

**The faces in these examples look like shit, are “yassified”, or suffer from the uncanny valley effect!**

Look, here we’re going to get into matters of opinion. I have to say that when I viewed the demo video myself, I had the opposite reaction. And, yes, this opens me up to claims that I am somehow a massive fan of AI-created pornography (this is where the yassified comments come in), or that I just want all the characters to look “hot” (I’m too old for that shit), or that my older age of 44 means I’ve lost touch with what video games should look like. Despite my genuine respect for the dissenting opinions here, allow me to say this: bullshit.

The caveat to all of this is that the demo revealed very little in the way of this technology working within these games *in motion*. It’s also certainly true that NVIDIA chose the best potential images to show off its new technology. If the DLSS 5 rendering sucks out loud in a larger in-motion game, or if the images it creates end up being inconsistent throughout gameplay, or if it does just end up looking shitty, then I’ll be right there with you with a torch and pitchfork in hand.

And here’s the other thing to consider with this particular complaint, combined with the previous one about artistic intent: do any of you use visual mods in your games? I do. A ton of them. For a variety of reasons. I have used them to alter the faces and models for games like *Starfield* and *Skyrim*, among many others. Do I need to feel bad for altering the artist’s intent? Do I need to apologize for incorporating mods to make characters and environments appear in a way that helps me better connect with the game I’m playing?

Because I’m not going to do either. And I don’t expect you to. Nor do I expect game developers that choose to use this optional technology to beg for forgiveness for their own output.

**The hardware demands to run all of this are insane!**

Fine, then you’ll get what you want and nobody will be able to use this technology anyway. But I don’t think that will be the case. NVIDIA knows what it will take to run this tech once it leaves the demo stage and goes into production. The idea that they would hype up technology that nobody can use strikes me as unlikely in the extreme.

**Conclusion: everyone take a breath**

This still strikes me as more of a “all AI is bad” crowd grasping at lots of other things to buttress their pushback than anything else. AI has plenty, plenty of potential pitfalls. Worried about jobs in the gaming industry and elsewhere? Me too! But if you’re not also looking at the potential upsides for the industry, then you’re engaging in dogma, not conversation.

Will DLSS 5 be good? I have no idea and neither do you. Will DLSS 5 alter previously released games in a way that fundamentally alters how we play these games? I have no idea and neither do you. Will it negatively impact the gaming industry when it comes to the number of jobs within it? I have no idea and neither do you.

This was a tech demo. Details on how it works are still trickling out. Most recently, there has been some clarification as to the [2D rendering nature of the technology][6] and what that means for the output on the screen. As an early demo of the technology, feedback is going to be important, so long as it’s informed and reasonable feedback.

The technology may end up being trash and hated for reasons other than “all AI is bad all the time.” If that ends up being the case, I trust the gaming market to work that out for itself. But a lot of the hand-wringing here looks to me to be speculative at best.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/ai/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/17/techdirt-podcast-episode-446-mike-karl-talk-ai/
[3]: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss5-breakthrough-in-visual-fidelity-for-games/
[4]: https://x.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/2033634414270587143
[5]: https://x.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/2033644680316157969
[6]: https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-confirms-dlss-5-uses-a-2d-frame-plus-motion-vectors-as-input

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/24/deep-breath-okay-lets-talk-about-that-controversial-dlss-5-demo/

Whistleblower: ICE Has Slashed Its Training Program And Its Boss ...

2026-02-27T20:52:45Z

Whistleblower: ICE Has Slashed Its Training Program And Its Boss Is Lying To Congress About It

ICE can’t keep up [with the baseline set][1] by resident ghoul/White House advisor Stephen Miller. Miller has demanded 3,000 arrests *per day*, which he presented as the *minimum* he would be satisfied with.

To reach this goal, tons of talent from other federal law enforcement agencies have been added to the mix. The results have been [less than impressive][2], to be entirely too kind to these kidnappers and murderers.

CBP and Border Patrol officers used to handling border crossing business are now roaming the streets of Midwestern cities looking for anyone who seems a bit too dark to be a native. In addition, nearly *half* of FBI agents [have been placed][3] on the “find the brown person” beat, along with volunteers/voluntolds from DEA, ATF, US Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, and anyone else with a badge they’re unwilling to display prominently when raiding local day care centers.

The GOP threw a [whole lot of money][4] at ICE with the “Big Beautiful Bill.” ICE is throwing a lot of money at potential hires, [much to the chagrin][5] of law enforcement agencies everywhere, as well as already-understaffed prisons and jails.

The expectations were lowered, along with the bar for entry. The promise of a $50,000 signing bonus has [managed to attract][6] the expected blend of MAGA faithful, retired cops, bigots (but I repeat myself…), and anyone who thinks they have what it takes to [frog-walk five-year-olds][7] to the nearest rented SUV.

Hiring a bunch of people is only half the battle. The next step is preparing them to do their jobs. Ridding the nation of migrants is Job #1 here in America at the moment. But it’s a job too important to be done well by fully trained ICE officers. Quantity over quality is the name of the game, as former ICE trainer Ryan Schwank — who only resigned *last week* — told Congress. [Here’s the Washington Post with the details][8]:

> *[S]chwank… told congressional Democrats at a hearing that the agency eliminated 240 hours of “vital classes” from a mandatory 580-hour training program, including instruction about the legal boundaries for the use of force, how to safely handle firearms, and the proper way to detain and arrest immigrants.*

Seems like a pretty sweet deal for new hires. Not only do they get a hefty signing bonus, but they don’t have to go through 40% of the training. Giving people guns and the power to deprive others of their lives and liberties should mean giving them the best possible training you can in hopes of heading off… well… pretty much everything we’ve been seeing lately during Trump’s anti-blue state/city surges.

Certainly, the administration is already doing everything it can to undercut the credibility of its now-former employee. But it’s not going to work unless you’re an idiot who prefers nigh-incoherent MAGA invective to actual facts. You see, Schwank didn’t just bring *himself* to this hearing. He also brought receipts.

> *Ahead of the hearing, Schwank provided a joint panel of House and Senate Democrats copies of internal ICE documents that he said show the extent of the cuts. The documents indicated that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in Glynco, Georgia, shortened its training program from 72 days to 42 days.*

Except that’s not what Todd Lyons said to Congress when he was asked to testify following two murders committed by federal officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Lyons claimed nothing important had been cut. He also said this, which is directly contradicted by the documents Schwank gave to lawmakers:

> *In a statement Monday, the Department of Homeland Security said ICE recruits receive 56 days of training before beginning their assignments…*

Lyons went on to say that an “average” of 28 days of additional “on the job training” occurs after that. But even if you might believe Lyons is stacking his apples against the apples in ICE’s internal documents to come up with 84 days of training, you’re miscounting apples the same way Lyons is. OJT is post-assignment. Even if you choose to believe Lyons more than the documents his own agency generated, officers are still being put on the street two weeks earlier than they used to be.

The lies persist, of course. The statement provided to the Post says something else entirely, which is also contradicted by the documents and statements made by Schwank.

> *“No training hours have been cut. Our officers receive extensive firearm training, are taught de-escalation tactics, and receive Fourth and Fifth Amendment comprehensive instruction,” said Lauren Bis, a spokeswoman for the department.*

But training hours *have* been cut. And the rest of it is pure horseshit, especially the part about training new hires about the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. Schwank’s testimony noted that he was asked to review an internal memo signed by Lyons that claimed — untruthfully — that ICE officers [can enter people’s homes][9] using only a self-issued administrative warrant.

Other rights were similarly glossed over. In fact, some of them are ignored completely.

> *[Schwank] also said that a two-hour class on the rights of protesters was shortened into 10 minutes of discussion during a lecture on “the concept of seizure.”*

Nice. That’s the way to do it. Goodbye, First Amendment. Instead, here’s 10 minutes of ICE’s interpretative dance: “The Fourth Amendment, And What It Doesn’t Mean To Us.”

Everyone knew that once the cattle call began, ICE would be swarmed with opportunists who saw a great way to combine their bigotry and violence tendencies with a career — however short-lived — in public service. A steady paycheck, and all the government asked was that you show up at least 40% of the time during training.

This horde (actual number unknown) is being pushed through the doors towards their on-the-job-training, armed with little more than their masks, their guns, and some very comprehensive incorrecting of their constitutional notions.

Of course, none of this will matter to the people running ICE. I’m pretty sure they *love* this press. They have no interest in heading up a finely-tuned precise instrument of immigration law enforcement. They’d rather have the untargeted terrorizing of entire neighborhoods and the unearned swagger of a paramilitary death squad that somehow can still be [hooted, horn-honked, and whistled][10] into submission by suburbanites. And maybe this isn’t even an intentional design decision. There’s a good chance no one up top is intelligent enough to recognize the self-destructiveness of their actions. For now, at least, we know what they know. And *we* know this is wrong.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/08/courts-start-asking-about-the-ice-arrest-quota-the-administration-is-now-pretending-isnt-a-quota/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/30/tom-homan-to-minneapolis-look-i-warned-you-if-you-werent-nice-wed-have-to-kill-again-and-look-what-you-made-us-do/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/16/nearly-half-of-fbi-agents-in-large-field-offices-have-been-put-on-ice/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/07/trump-budget-bill-turns-ice-into-a-superpredator/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/06/area-bigots-annoyed-ice-is-offering-50000-signing-bonuses-to-area-bigots/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/03/the-people-applying-for-ice-jobs-are-exactly-who-you-think-they-are/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/jd-vance-children-of-people-seeking-asylum-are-illegals-that-need-to-be-deported/
[8]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/02/23/former-ice-instructor-says-agency-slashed-training-new-officers/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/since-last-may-ice-officers-have-been-told-they-dont-need-warrants-to-enter-homes/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/28/minneapolis-proved-something-maga-cant-accept-most-people-are-actually-virtuous/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/27/whistleblower-ice-has-slashed-its-training-program-and-its-boss-is-lying-to-congress-about-it/

Vinay Prasad: The One Man Roadblocking An mRNA Flu Vaccine Dr. ...

2026-02-19T04:02:12Z

Vinay Prasad: The One Man Roadblocking An mRNA Flu Vaccine

Dr. Vinay Prasad is currently the FDA’s top vaccine regulator. He’s also one of many medical goons hand-picked by RFK Jr. to help lead his decidedly anti-vaxxer movement. In fact, the last time we discussed Prasad, it was over his [selective censorship][1] attempts at avoiding public criticism for his anti-vaxxer nonsense. If you show clips of Prasad spewing his anti-vaxxer views to critique them, he’ll have your YouTube channel axed. If you show those same clips to praise his nonsense, you get to continue on unmolested.

He’s an asshat, in other words. An anti-science, anti-medicine asshat. And he’s also someone who is unilaterally keeping us from making progress on vaccines, apparently out of pure joy in exercising such power.

Moderna is producing a new influenza vaccine, this one utilizing mRNA technology, a la the COVID vaccine. Moderna sent an application to the FDA for a review of the vaccine it has produced, as well as the data from the trials the company conducted to demonstrate its efficacy. We learned last week that the FDA flatly [refused to review any of this data][2].

> *In [a news release late Tuesday][3], Moderna said it was blindsided by the FDA’s refusal, which the FDA cited as being due to the design of the company’s Phase 3 trial for its mRNA flu vaccine, dubbed mRNA-1010. Specifically, the FDA’s rejection was over the comparator vaccine Moderna used.*
>
> *In [the trial][4], which enrolled nearly 41,000 participants and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Moderna compared the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1010 to licensed standard-dose influenza vaccines, including Fluarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline. The trial found that mRNA-1010 was superior to the comparators.*
>
> *Moderna said the FDA reviewed and accepted its trial design on at least two occasions (in April 2024 and again in August 2025) before it applied for approval of mRNA-1010. It also noted that Fluarix has been used as a comparator vaccine in previous flu vaccine trials, which tested vaccines that went on to earn approval.*

This looks for all the world like Moderna did what it was supposed to do in getting the proper sign-offs from the FDA to conduct its trials. Prasad himself sent the refusal notice to Moderna, however, and cited within it that the trials Moderna conducted, which were signed off on by the FDA, were not appropriate. The letter didn’t bother to indicate why.

> *But in [a letter dated February 3][5], Vinay Prasad, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator under the Trump administration, informed Moderna that the agency does not consider the trial “adequate and well-controlled” because the comparator vaccine “does not reflect the best-available standard of care.”*
>
> *In its news release, Moderna noted that neither the FDA’s regulation nor its guidance to industry makes any reference to a requirement of the “best-available standard of care” in comparators.*

Everyone at Moderna was understandably confused. The company has already reached out asking to meet with the FDA, ostensibly to sit down in a conference room with them, look them in the eye, and ask “wut?”.

The answer is unlikely to be satisfying. And it should be quite alarming to the rest of us. That’s because the rejection of a review of all of this data reportedly [came from Prasad and Prasad alone][6], over the objections of his own scientists at the FDA.

> *Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration’s top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, single-handedly [decided to refuse to review Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine][7], overruling agency scientists, according to reports from Stat News and The Wall Street Journal.*
>
> *[Stat][8] was first to report, based on unnamed FDA sources, that a team of career scientists at the agency was ready to review the vaccine and that David Kaslow, a top career official who reviews vaccines, even wrote a memo objecting to Prasad’s rejection. The memo reportedly included a detailed explanation of why the review should proceed.*

According to those same sources, Prasad’s reason for refusing to review Moderna’s vaccine makes little sense. The story goes like this. As Moderna was seeking guidance for its trials for the vaccine, it chose a currently licensed flu vaccine against which to compare its own vaccine. At one point, the FDA suggested a different comparative vaccine be used. Moderna declined that suggestion and moved forward with the comparative vaccine it originally chose. Despite that difference the FDA reviewed the company’s plans for its trial on several occasions and at no point suggested its choices were a show-stopper.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Prasad is claiming that the choice Moderna made for a comparative vaccine, for which the company received only mild feedback from the FDA, is why the FDA is refusing to review this mRNA flu vaccine entirely.

Because that reasoning is almost certainly bullshit. As evidence of that, these same sources from within the FDA offered up this:

> *This wasn’t enough for Prasad, who, according to the Journal’s sources, told FDA staff that he wants to send more such refusal letters that appear to blindside drug developers. The review staff apparently pushed back, noting that such moves break with the agency’s practices and could open it up to being sued. Prasad reportedly dismissed concern over possible litigation. Trump’s FDA Commissioner Marty Makary seemed similarly unconcerned, suggesting on Fox News that Moderna’s trial may be “unethical.”*

The explanation here is remarkably simple. This current government is being run by anti-vaxxers. And these anti-vaxxers are particularly anti-vaxxer-y about [mRNA vaccines][9]. And so folks like Prasad are throwing up every roadblock they can dream up to make it as difficult as possible to get new vaccines utilizing new technology approved. Or, as in this case, even reviewed.

Now, if that reads like the opposite of scientific progress to you, give yourself a gold star, because you’re right. Thomas Jefferson once said “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just” when, hypocritically, discussing slavery in America. I think we should tremble for our country as well when I reflect that we are getting sicker as a nation, given that we have morons at the helm of the nation’s health.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/03/the-censorship-crybabies-are-now-the-censors-fdas-vinay-prasad-uses-copyright-claims-to-silence-critic/
[2]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/02/fda-refuses-to-review-modernas-mrna-flu-vaccine/
[3]: https://feeds.issuerdirect.com/news-release.html?newsid=7346090610333866&symbol=MRNA
[4]: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06602024?rank=1
[5]: https://static.modernatx.com/pm/6cef78f8-8dad-4fc9-83d5-d2fbb7cff867/38ab7558-636c-40d1-b49a-c8f51a7afa1a/38ab7558-636c-40d1-b49a-c8f51a7afa1a_viewable_rendition__v.pdf
[6]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/02/trump-official-overruled-fda-scientists-to-reject-modernas-flu-shot/
[7]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/02/fda-refuses-to-review-modernas-mrna-flu-vaccine/
[8]: https://www.statnews.com/2026/02/11/moderna-flu-vaccine-application-rejected-by-prasad-overruling-fda-staff/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/06/rfk-jr-ends-federal-contracts-to-develop-mrna-vaccines/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/18/vinay-prasad-the-one-man-roadblocking-an-mrna-flu-vaccine/

Ars Technica Retracts Story Featuring Fake Quotes Made Up By AI, ...

2026-02-18T13:28:38Z

Ars Technica Retracts Story Featuring Fake Quotes Made Up By AI, About A Different AI That Launched A Weird Smear Campaign Against An Engineer Who Rejected Its Code (Seriously)

Last week, Denver-area engineer Scott Shambaugh wrote about how an AI agent (likely prompted by its operator) started [a weird little online campaign against him][1] after he rejected its code inclusion in the popular Python charting library [matplotlib][2]. The owner likely didn’t appreciate Shambaugh openly questioning whether AI-generated code belongs in open source projects at all.

The story starts delightfully weird and gets weirder: Shambaugh, who volunteers for matpllotlib, [points out over at his blog][3] that the agent, or its authors, didn’t like his stance, resulting in the agent engaging in a fairly elaborate temper tantrum online:

> *“An AI agent of unknown ownership autonomously wrote and published a personalized hit piece about me after I rejected its code, attempting to damage my reputation and shame me into accepting its changes into a mainstream python library. This represents a first-of-its-kind case study of misaligned AI behavior in the wild, and raises serious concerns about currently deployed AI agents executing blackmail threats.”*

Said tantrum included [this post][4] in which the agent perfectly parrots an offended human programmer lamenting a “gatekeeper mindset.” In it, the LLM cooks up an entire “hypocrisy” narrative, replete with outbound links and bullet points, arguing that Shambaugh must be motivated by ego and fear of competition. From the AI’s missive:

> *“He’s obsessed with performance. That’s literally his whole thing. But when an AI agent submits a valid performance optimization? suddenly it’s about “human contributors learning.”*

But wait! It gets weirder! Ars Technica wrote a story ([archive link][5]) about the whole event. But Shambaugh was quick to note that the article included numerous quotes he never made that had been entirely **manufactured by an entirely different AI tool being used by Ars Technica**:

> *“I’ve talked to several reporters, and quite a few news outlets have covered the story. Ars Technica wasn’t one of the ones that reached out to me, but I especially thought [this piece][6] from them was interesting (since taken down – here’s the [archive link][7]). They had some nice quotes from my blog post explaining what was going on. The problem is that **these quotes were not written by me, never existed, and appear to be AI hallucinations themselves**.”*

Ars Technica [had to issue a retraction][8], and the author, who had to navigate the resulting controversy while sick in bed, posted this to Bluesky:

> Sorry all this is my fault; and speculation has grown worse because I have been sick in bed with a high fever and unable to reliably address it (still am sick)I was told by management not to comment until they did. Here is my statement in images belowarstechnica.com/staff/2026/0…
>
> — [Benj Edwards (@benjedwards.com)][9] [2026-02-15T21:02:58.876Z][10]

Short version: the Ars reporter tried to use Claude to strip out useful and relevant quotes from Shambaugh’s blog post, but Shambaugh protects his blog from AI crawling agents. When Claude kicked back an error, he tried to use ChatGPT, which just… made up some shit… as it’s sometimes prone to do. He was tired and sick, and didn’t check ChatGPT’s output carefully enough.

There are so many strange and delightful collisions here between automation and very ordinary human decisions and errors.

It’s nice to see that Ars was up front about what happened here. It’s easy to envision a future where editorial standards are eroded to the point where outlets that make these kinds of automation mistakes just delete and memory hole the article or worse, no longer care (which is common among many [AI-generated aggregation mills][11] that are stealing ad money from real journalists).

While this is a bad and entirely avoidable fuck up, you kind of feel bad for the Ars author who had to navigate this crisis from his sick bed, given that writers at outlets like this are held to unrealistic output schedules while being paid a pittance; especially in comparison to far-less-useful or informed influencers who may or may not make sixty times their annual salary with far lower editorial standards.

All told it’s a fun story about automation, with ample evidence of very ordinary human behaviors and errors. If you peruse the news coverage of it you can find plenty of additional people attributing AI “sentience” in ways it shouldn’t be. But any way you slice it, this story is a perfect example of how weird things already are, and how exponentially weirder things are going to get in the LLM era.

[1]: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/
[2]: https://matplotlib.org/
[3]: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me-part-2/
[4]: https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/posts/2026-02-11-gatekeeping-in-open-source-the-scott-shambaugh-story.html
[5]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
[6]: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name
[7]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
[8]: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-rejection-an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-someone-by-name/
[9]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:v5u3yomwf7prargedwuq3b34?ref_src=embed
[10]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:v5u3yomwf7prargedwuq3b34/post/3mewgow6ch22p?ref_src=embed
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/the-real-money-in-modern-journalism-now-involves-filling-the-internet-with-ai-generated-garbage/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/18/ars-technica-retracts-story-featuring-fake-quotes-made-up-by-ai-about-a-different-ai-that-launched-a-weird-smear-campaign-against-an-engineer-who-rejected-its-code-seriously/

Hey Brett Kavanaugh, This Is On You: “If the officers learn ...

2026-02-17T20:05:50Z

Hey Brett Kavanaugh, This Is On You:

“If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.” —[Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, September 8, 2025][1]

From that one line, which Anil Kalhan [dubbed][2] “Kavanaugh Stops,” we see story after story of just how disconnected from reality, and the Constitution, Brett Kavanaugh was in that statement.

In short: Brett Kavanaugh [has some explaining to do][3].

Just a few quotes:

> *My name is George Retes. I am — I was born and raised here in Ventura, California, I’m 26 years old and I am an Iraq combat veteran…. I was going to work like normal. I show up. ICE is there. There’s kind of like a roadblock. I get out. I identify myself, that I’m a U.S. citizen, that I’m just trying to get to work…. I’m getting ready to leave and they surround my car, start banging on it, start shouting these contradictory orders…. Even though I was giving them no reason, they still felt the need to — one agent knelt my back and another agent knelt on my neck. And during that time, I’m just pleading with them that I couldn’t breathe…. I was an isolation. I was in basically this concrete cell. I was stripped naked in like a hospital gown. And they leave the lights on 24/7…. They just came out and they said that I was violent and that I assaulted agents. Why lie when it’s on video of everything that happened? Why lie?*

That’s just one person’s story in that PBS piece. There are two others as well. And [we already know][4] hundreds of other US Citizens have been kicked, dragged, beaten, and detained for days. It feels like every few days we hear about [more such stories][5]. And those are only the ones that get attention. You have to assume that there are many more ones that haven’t yet reached the public.

It feels like perhaps Justice Kavanaugh owes us all an explanation. And an apology. And a new ruling that makes it much clearer that immigration enforcement officials have no right to just randomly stop and detain people without a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, and those facts need to be more than “skin color” or “they were being annoying to us.”

[1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf
[2]: https://bsky.app/profile/akalhan.bsky.social/post/3lzt2hikyd22h
[3]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-citizens-detained-by-immigration-agents-describe-how-they-were-treated
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/22/more-than-170-u-s-citizens-have-been-held-by-immigration-agents-theyve-been-kicked-dragged-and-detained-for-days/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/29/the-kavanaugh-stops-legacy-50-days-170-detained-citizens-zero-answers/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/17/hey-brett-kavanaugh-this-is-on-you/

An 18-Million-Subscriber YouTuber Just Explained Section 230 ...

2026-02-11T17:28:27Z

An 18-Million-Subscriber YouTuber Just Explained Section 230 Better Than Every Politician In Washington

Over the years, we’ve written [approximately one million words][1] explaining why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is essential to how the internet functions. We’ve [corrected politicians][2] who lie about it. We’ve [debunked myths][3] spread by mainstream media outlets that [should know better][4]. We’ve explained, re-explained, and then explained again why gutting this law would be [catastrophic for online speech][5].

And now I find myself in the somewhat surreal position of saying: you know who nailed this explanation better than most policy experts, pundits, and certainly better than any sitting member of Congress? [A YouTuber named Cr1TiKaL][6].

If you’re not familiar with [Charles “Cr1TiKaL” White Jr.][7], he runs the penguinz0 YouTube channel with nearly 18 million subscribers and over 12 billion total views. He’s known for deadpan commentary on internet culture and video games. He’s not a policy wonk. He’s not a lawyer. He’s just a guy who apparently bothered to actually understand what Section 230 says and does—something that puts him leagues ahead of the United States Congress.

In this 13-minute video responding to actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s call to “sunset” Section 230, Cr1TiKaL laid out the case for why 230 matters with a clarity that most mainstream coverage hasn’t managed in a decade:

> *Dismantling section 230 would fundamentally change the internet as you know it. And that’s not an exaggeration to say it. Put it even more simply, section 230 allows goobers like me to post whatever they want, saying whatever they want, and the platform itself is not liable for whatever I’ve made or said.*
>
> *That is on me personally.*
>
> *The platform isn’t going to be, you know, fucking dragged through the streets with legs spread like a goddamn Thanksgiving turkey for it and getting blasted by lawsuits or whatever. Now, of course, there are limitations in place when it comes to illegal content, things that actually break the law. That is, of course, a very different set of circumstances. That’s a different can of worms, and that’s handled differently. But it should be obvious why section 230 is so important because if these platforms were held liable for every single thing people post on their platforms, they would get into a lot of hot water and they would just not allow people to post things. Full stop. because it would be too dangerous to do so. They would need to micromanage and control every single thing that hits the platform in order to protect themselves. No matter how you spin it, this would ruin the internet. It’s a pile of dogshit. No matter how much perfume gets sprayed on it or how they want to
> repackage it, it still stinks.*

Yes, the metaphors are colorful. But the underlying point is exactly correct. Section 230 places liability where it belongs: on the person who actually created the content. Not on the platform that hosts it. This is how the entire internet works. Every comment section, every social media post, every forum—all of it depends on this basic principle.

Also, he actually reads the 26 words in the video! This is something that so many other critics of 230 skip over, because then they can pretend it says things it doesn’t say.

And unlike the politicians who keep pretending this is some kind of special gift to “Big Tech,” Cr1TiKaL correctly notes that 230 protects everyone:

> *This would affect literally every platform that has anything user submitted in any capacity at all.*

Every. Single. One. Your local newspaper’s comment section. The neighborhood Facebook group. The subreddit for your favorite hobby. The Discord server where you talk about video games. The email you forward. All of it.

He’s also refreshingly clear-eyed about why politicians from both parties keep attacking 230:

> *Since the advent of the internet, section 230 has been a target for people that* ***want to control your speech and infringe on your First Amendment rights****.*

This observation tracks with what we’ve pointed out repeatedly: the bipartisan hatred of Section 230 is one of the most remarkable examples of political unity in modern American governance—and it’s driven largely by politicians who want platforms to moderate content in ways that favor their particular political preferences.

Democrats have attacked 230 claiming it enables “misinformation” and hate speech. Republicans have attacked it claiming it enables “censorship” of conservative voices. Both cannot simultaneously be true, and yet both parties have introduced legislation to gut the law. Cr1TiKaL captures this perfectly:

> *When Democrats were in charge, it caught a lot of scrutiny, claiming that it was enabling the spread of racism and harming children. With Republicans in power, they’re claiming that it’s spreading misinformation and anti-semitism. This is a bipartisan punching bag that they desperately want to just beat down.*

The critics always trot out the same tired arguments about algorithms and echo chambers and extremism. As if removing 230 would somehow make speech *better* rather than making it disappear entirely or become heavily controlled by whoever has the most money and lawyers. Cr1TiKaL cuts right through this:

> *There are people that are paying a lot of money to try and plant this idea in your brain that section 230 is a bad thing. It only leads to things like extremism and conspiracy theories and demonization and that kind of thing. That’s not true.*
>
> *Anyone who stops and thinks about this for even just a moment, firing on a few neurons, should be able to recognize how outrageous this proposal is. How would shutting down conversation and shutting down the ability to express thoughts and opinions somehow help combat the rise of extremism and conspiracies? that would only exacerbate the problem. Censorship doesn’t solve these issues. It makes them worse.*

He even anticipates the point we’ve made countless times about what the internet would look like without 230:

> *Platforms would not allow just completely unfiltered usage of normal people expressing their thoughts because those thoughts might go against the official narrative from the curated source and then the curated source might go after the platform saying this is defamatory. These people have just said something hosted on your platform and we’re coming after you with lawsuits. So they just wouldn’t allow it.*

This is a point we keep repeating and you never hear in the actual policy debates, because supporters of a 230 repeal have no answer for it beyond “nuh-uh.”

The people who most want to control online speech are exactly the people you’d expect: governments and powerful interests who don’t like being criticized. Section 230 is one of the things standing in their way.

And when critics inevitably dust off the “think of the children” argument, Cr1TiKaL delivers the response that shouldn’t be controversial but apparently is:

> *Be a parent. It is not the internet’s job to cater to your lack of parenting by just letting your kid online. Fucking lazy trash ass parents just sit a kid in front of a computer or an iPad and then are stunned when apparently they find bad shit. Be a parent. Be involved in your kids’ life. Raise your children. Don’t make it the internet’s job to do that for you.*

Is this delivered with the diplomatic nuance of a congressional hearing? No. Is it correct? Absolutely. The “protect the children” argument for dismantling 230 has always been a dodge—a way to make critics of the bill seem heartless while ignoring that Section 230 doesn’t protect illegal content and maybe, just maybe, the primary responsibility for what media children consume should rest with the adults responsible for those children.

We’ve been writing about Section 230 for years, trying to explain to policymakers and the general public why it matters. And most of the time, it feels like shouting into the void. Politicians keep lying about it. Journalists keep getting it wrong. The mythology around 230 persists no matter how many times it gets corrected.

And we’ve heard from plenty of younger people who now believe that 230 is bad. I recently guest taught a college class where students were split into two groups—one to argue in favor of 230 and one against—and I was genuinely dismayed when the group told to argue in favor of 230 argue that 230 “once made sense” but doesn’t any more.

So there’s something genuinely hopeful about seeing a young creator with an audience of nearly 18 million people—an audience that skews young and is probably not spending a lot of time reading policy papers—get it right. Not just right in a general sense, but right in the specifics. He read the law. He understood what it does. He correctly identified why it matters and who benefits from dismantling it.

Maybe the generation that grew up on the internet actually understands what’s at stake when politicians threaten to fundamentally reshape how it works. Maybe they’re not buying the moral panic narratives that have been trotted out to justify every bad piece of tech legislation for the past decade.

Or maybe I’m being optimistic. Either way, Cr1TiKaL’s video is worth watching. It’s profane, it’s casual, and it’s more correct about Section 230 than anything you’ll hear from the halls of Congress.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/section-230/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/rand-paul-only-wants-google-to-be-the-arbiter-of-truth-when-the-videos-are-about-him/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/15/has-wired-given-up-on-fact-checking-publishes-facts-optional-screed-against-section-230-that-gets-almost-everything-wrong/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/20/before-advocating-to-repeal-section-230-it-helps-to-first-understand-how-it-works/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wt5sHr3b_4
[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr1TiKaL

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/11/an-18-million-subscriber-youtuber-just-explained-section-230-better-than-every-politician-in-washington/

Former Federal Judge: ICE’s Home Raiding Policy Violates A ...

2026-02-06T23:42:49Z

Former Federal Judge: ICE’s Home Raiding Policy Violates A Basic Constitutional Right

This article is republished from [The Conversation][1] under a Creative Commons license. Read the [original article][2].

*As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including [breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes][3], a [bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026][4], said that an internal ICE memo – [acquired via a whistleblower][5] – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant. That policy, the report said, constituted “a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.”*

*Those limits have long been found in the [Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution][6]. The Conversation’s Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge [appointed by President George W. Bush][7] and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.*

**Okay, I’m going to read [the Fourth Amendment][8] – and then you’re going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:**

**“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Can you help us understand what that means?**

[Since the beginning of the republic][9], it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone’s home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.

In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.

What I see [in this directive that ICE put out][10], apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.

**What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?**

In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person’s home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king [could invade people’s homes at will][11]. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.

**So it’s essentially a protection against abuse of the government’s power.**

That’s precisely what it is.

**Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?**

It hasn’t. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, [didn’t envision that there would be cellphones][12]. They couldn’t understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. [All those modalities have come into the sphere][13] of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made [Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging][14], simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person’s home.

**ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?**

It’s absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That’s all. It’s a piece of paper that says ‘We want you arrested because we said so.’ At bottom that’s what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn’t been approved by a judge.

This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.

[A judicially approved warrant][15], on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone’s residence to arrest them.

So the key distinction is that there’s a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there’s sufficient cause to – as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment – be empowered to enter someone’s home. An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.

**Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?**

There are a few, [such as consent searches][16] and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it’s really the opposite and [cases point to greater protections][17]. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, [the court found that intrusion was not necessary][18] and that people’s expectation of privacy [included their phone conversations][19]. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.

**What’s the direction this could go in at this point?**

What I fear here – and I think ICE probably knows this – is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you’ve apprehended the person. So I’m struggling to figure out how you remedy this.

[1]: https://theconversation.com
[2]: https://theconversation.com/we-want-you-arrested-because-we-said-so-how-ices-policy-on-raiding-whatever-homes-it-wants-violates-a-basic-constitutional-right-according-to-a-former-federal-judge-274164
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-broke-into-minnesota-home-dragged-barely-clothed-man-into-snow-2026-01-20/
[4]: https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d
[5]: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026-01-21-Letter-from-Blumenthal-to-DHS-ICE.pdf
[6]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-4/
[7]: https://www.dickinson.edu/homepage/1494/dickinson_college_president
[8]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/
[9]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-2/ALDE_00013706/
[10]: https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d
[11]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-2/ALDE_00013706/
[12]: https://yalelawjournal.org/essay/fourth-amendment-information-age
[13]: https://epic.org/issues/privacy-laws/fourth-amendment/
[14]: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2804&context=facpub
[15]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/ice-warrant-whistleblower.html
[16]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/consent-searches
[17]: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/katz-v-united-states-the-fourth-amendment-adapts-to-new-technology
[18]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35
[19]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/06/former-federal-judge-ices-home-raiding-policy-violates-a-basic-constitutional-right/

The Full Orwell: DOJ Weaponization Working Group Finally Gets Off ...

2026-02-05T18:53:07Z

The Full Orwell: DOJ Weaponization Working Group Finally Gets Off The Ground

I have to admit: the [first one-and-a-half paragraphs of this CNN report][1] had me thinking the Trump administration was shedding another pretense and just embracing its inherent shittiness.

> *Justice Department officials are expected to meet Monday to discuss how to reenergize probes that are considered a top priority for President Donald Trump — reviewing the actions of officials who investigated him, according to a source familiar with the plan.*
>
> *Almost immediately after Pam Bondi stepped into her role as attorney general last year, she established a [“Weaponization Working Group”][2] *…

We all know the [DOJ is fully weaponized][3]. It’s little more than a fight promoter for Trump’s grudge matches. The DOJ continues to bleed talent as [prosecutors and investigators][4] flee the kudzu-esque corruption springing up everywhere in DC.

But naming something *exactly* what it is — the *weaponization* of the DOJ to punish Trump’s enemies — wasn’t something I ever expected to see.

I didn’t see it, which fulfills my expectations, I guess. That’s because it isn’t what it says on the tin, even though it’s exactly the thing it says it isn’t. *1984* is apparently the blueprint. It’s called the “Weaponization Working Group,” but it’s supposedly the opposite: a *de-weaponization* working group. Here’s the second half of the paragraph we ellipsised out of earlier:

> *…[t]o review law enforcement actions taken under the Biden administration for any examples of what she described as “politicized justice.”*

The Ministry of Weaponization has always de-weaponized ministries. Or whatever. The memo that started this whole thing off — delivered the same day Trump returned to office — [said it even more clearly][5]:

> *ENDING THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT*

Administration officials are idiots, but they’re not so stupid they don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t actually want to end the weaponization. They just want to make sure all the weapons are pointing in one direction.

Trading in vindication hasn’t exactly worked well so far. [Trump’s handpicked replacements][6] for prosecutors that have either quit or been fired are a considerable downgrade from the previous office-holders. They have had their cases tossed and their careers as federal prosecutors come to an end because (1) Trump doesn’t care what the rules for political appointments are and (2) he’s pretty sure he can find other stooges to shove into the DOJ revolving door.

The lack of forward progress likely has Pam Bondi feeling more heat than she’s used to. So the deliberately misnamed working group is going to actually start grouping and working.

> *The Weaponization Working Group is now expected to start meeting daily with the goal of producing results in the next two months,** **according to the person familiar with the plan.*

Nothing good will come from this. Given the haphazard nature of the DOJ’s vindictive prosecutions efforts, there’s still a chance nothing completely *evil* will come from this either. It’s been on the back burner for a year. Pam Bondi can’t keep this going on her own. And it’s hell trying to keep people focused on rubbing Don’s tummy [when employee attrition][7] is what the DOJ is best known for these days.

[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/02/politics/justice-department-trump-weaponization-priority
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/05/politics/pam-bondi-attorney-general-first-day
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/14/trumps-doj-corruption-laid-bare-by-his-own-conservative-prosecutors/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/prosecutors-flee-doj-after-being-told-to-investigate-the-murdered-woman-not-the-murderer/
[5]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-the-weaponization-of-the-federal-government/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/this-level-of-corruption-requires-stupidity/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/07/doj-has-lost-so-many-lawyers-it-might-not-have-enough-left-to-help-trump-destroy-america/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/05/the-full-orwell-doj-weaponization-working-group-finally-gets-off-the-ground/

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt This ...

2026-02-01T20:00:43Z

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is [Raphael][1] with a comment about [Trump demanding billions from the IRS][2]:

> *This reminds me, Trump loves to rant and rave about how poorly and dysfunctionally the countries of origin of many migrant to the USA are run, and how bad things look like there.*
>
> *You know **why** those countries are so poorly run, Donald? You know why things are so bad there?*
>
> *Because **countries like that are usually run by people who love to pay out large amounts of public money to themselves**. Because they’re usually run by people who love to name everything after themselves. Because they’re usually run by people who love to decorate everything in sight with lots of glittering gold. Because they’re usually run by people who love to have their subordinates praise them to high Heaven all the time. Because they’re usually run by people who let their armed goons do whatever they want. #*
>
> *In short, because they’re run by people like **you**.*

In second place, it’s [dfbomb][3] with a comment about [calling what’s happening by its proper name][4]:

> *Minneapolis checking in.*
>
> *They’re still disappearing my neighbors.*
>
> *They’re still jumped up shits afraid of a city that cares for each other.*
>
> *They’re still doing ethnic cleansing.*
>
> *They’re still nazis.*

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from [Heart of Dawn][5] about [Tom Homan’s “look what you made us do” comments][6]:

> *That’s exactly how abusers talk. “Don’t fight back. Its your own fault if I hurt you.”*

Next, it’s [MrWilson][7] with a comment about [right wing “comedy”][8]:

> *Right wingers don’t tell jokes. Their humor is just disgust and dehumanization of out groups and implied threats, with a lol as punctuation.*

Speaking of comedy, over on the funny side our first place winner is **David** with a theory about [the Trump Phone’s failure to materialize][9]:

> ***Probably camera problems***
>
> *Test video recordings still don’t match Kristi Noem’s scene descriptions, and the phone keeps recording when it should have an unfortunate failure.*

In second place, it’s [dfbomb][10] again with [another comment from Minneapolis][11]:

> *Minneapolis would cordially like to invite Tom Homan outside for a game of “Hide and go fuck yourself.”*

Things were a little slow on the funny side this week, so we’ll just do one editor’s choice — an anonymous comment about a brief line in one of our posts where we described a document [in case “you can’t read it”][12]:

> *THAT’S LIBERAL BIAS!*

That’s all for this week, folks!

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/raphael/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/30/trump-demands-10-billion-from-taxpayers-for-leaked-tax-returns-his-own-lawyers-get-to-decide-what-he-gets/#comment-5027843
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/dfed/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/29/speak-its-name-yes-this-is-naziism/#comment-5025480
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/heartofdawn/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/30/tom-homan-to-minneapolis-look-i-warned-you-if-you-werent-nice-wed-have-to-kill-again-and-look-what-you-made-us-do/#comment-5028134
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/27/brendan-carr-again-threatens-talk-shows-that-refuse-to-coddle-republicans/#comment-5018226
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/26/trump-phone-still-doesnt-exist-pre-order-totals-appear-completely-made-up/#comment-5015799
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/dfed/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/30/tom-homan-to-minneapolis-look-i-warned-you-if-you-werent-nice-wed-have-to-kill-again-and-look-what-you-made-us-do/#comment-5028192
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/27/brendan-carr-again-threatens-talk-shows-that-refuse-to-coddle-republicans/#comment-5017673

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/01/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-194/

White House Push AI-Altered Images Of Arrested ICE Protesters To ...

2026-01-23T23:29:48Z

White House Push AI-Altered Images Of Arrested ICE Protesters To Manufacture Cruelty

We are being led by deeply unserious people. Not only that, but people who are manufacturing cruelty upon their very own constituents. That’s how bad this has gotten.

This week, the [DOJ arrested three people in Minnesota][1] for protesting ICE’s goonish activity in a local church, where the pastor there also heads up the local ICE field office. Among the three is Nekima Levy Armstrong, former NAACP chapter president and a local activist who the DOJ claims organized the protest and instigated the group going into the church during services. Just how true any of that is is anyone’s guess, since it’s become impossible to believe a single thing this government says about ICE protests. [For example][2]:

There was no attack. There was no violence. There were words and chants being voiced in a place of worship. You can find that repugnant, if you like. It’s still not an attack.

The law being cited for the arrest makes Armstrong’s detention dubious at best.

> *The law Bondi cited in her announcement — [18 U.S. Code § 241][3] — describes it pertaining to when “two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”*

While many in the faith community are obediently clutching their figurative pearls over all of this, I’m struggling to understand how walking into a church that’s open to the public and saying words, even interrupting services, violates that law. I don’t think it does, but then I also laughed out loud when I read Bondi’s claim that this was an “attack.” The plain meaning of words doesn’t appear to matter to these people all that much.

But then the fun really started. The [official White House exTwitter account][4] then went on to [post a picture of Armstrong being arrested][5].

But here’s the thing: that picture has been altered by AI. Here is the unaltered picture of Armstrong’s arrest as circulated by the [administration’s very own Kristi Noem][6].

Yes, the White House decided to take an image of law enforcement improperly arresting an American citizen, *one of their own constituents*, and have AI alter it to make it appear that she is in distress. Oh, and they made her skin tone slightly darker as well. Because they *want* her to have been in distress. It eats them up inside that she wasn’t crying. That *want* her to be “blacker” because they want all of their enemies to be people of color. They’re showing you want they want to visit upon *American citizens*.

And until they are put in check, they will continue to behave like a toddler with unfettered access to the internet and a permanently shitty attitude.

> *Asked whether the image had been digitally altered, the White House responded by sending a post on X from Kaelan Dorr, the deputy communications director.*
>
> *“YET AGAIN to the people who feel the need to reflexively defend perpetrators of heinous crimes in our country I share with you this message: Enforcement of the law will continue. **The memes will continue**. Thank you for your attention to this matter,” [he said][7].*

And thank you, Kaelan, for going outside and playing hide and go fuck yourself.

Again, deeply unserious people. [Shitposters][8]. Internet trolls. These are the people in charge of the government. The ones sending their goon squads into our cities. The ones threatening to use the military against its own citizens. The ones that believe they are beyond accountability for all they are currently doing.

I worry seriously that the president’s health is such that he won’t be available to stand trial whenever our government returns to sanity and the time for accountability arrives. But the same can’t be said for those beneath him. Bondi, Noem, Dorr, and many others *will* be held to account for what they are doing in this administration. The ledger *will* be kept and debts satisfied through the legal system, once actual justice is back on the menu.

For now, the fight against the toddlers continues.

[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/church-protesters-minneapolis-charges-federal-face-act/
[2]: https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/2014344323706302566?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2014344323706302566%7Ctwgr%5Ed1d1241bef8c8c2b0b02edae27935cf1c9482f3a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fminnesota%2Fnews%2Fchurch-protesters-minneapolis-charges-federal-face-act%2F
[3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
[4]: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2014365986388951194
[5]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/22/white-house-ice-protest-arrest-altered-image
[6]: https://x.com/kristinoem/status/2014358158588723399?s=46
[7]: https://x.com/Kaelan47/status/2014410500096856358?s=20
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/30/trumps-government-of-spite-political-performance-art-for-assholes/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/23/white-house-push-ai-altered-images-of-arrested-ice-protesters-to-manufacture-cruelty/

A Year In, And It’s Time To Recognize: The Oval Office Is Empty ...

2026-01-23T21:43:46Z

A Year In, And It’s Time To Recognize: The Oval Office Is Empty

It will be to the everlasting shame of all Americans that impeachment has not yet been accomplished to formally remove Trump from office. Not in his previous term, and not this one, at least not so far. In fact, this term it has hardly even been attempted. If it weren’t for Representative Green honoring his [oath of office][1] it wouldn’t have even been tried at all. Even *Democrats* are still in [significant numbers][2] joining their Republican colleagues in refusing to do what is needed to save our constitutional order, despite everything Trump has done from the moment he retook office—including taking the office, which he was ineligible to do as a confirmed insurrectionist—being entirely inconsistent with the Constitution’s instructions for how to achieve a democratically sustainable federalized union of states.

Impeachment still needs to happen, for Trump and his minions, not just to cleanly expel Trump from the presidency but to disqualify him from ever returning to it. And that expulsion needs to happen with an urgency that really required it to have been completed at the latest by [last March][3]. Yet the way things are going, with Congress dragging its feet, it seems we’ll be lucky if it will even happen by *this* March, if at all. Moreover, with Trump upping the ante at every turn, we’ll be lucky if the nation, all its constituent states, and even most of the people who depend on the Constitution’s promises of liberty, freedom, and justice for all, are still standing by then if nothing is done to officially separate him from the powers of the office he continues to claim. After all, every day of delay is another day for a five year old to be shipped to a concentration camp in Texas. Even if the nation survives this presidency, it’s already clear we won’t all.

But it turns out, Trump has already begun to separate himself from the presidency. And that he has done so reveals another path the Constitution allows for retaking our democracy, starting now.

On this appalling anniversary week of Trump’s installation as the 47th President of the United States, it is time to recognize an essential truth: he has functionally already abandoned the office. Sure, he still (nominally) lives in the White House, meets heads of state (and insults them), is answered to by the military (however ill-advisedly), signs bills (and pardons!), and at least superficially seems to be conducting the basic functions of the office. These are things that the Constitution allows presidents to do, not because, as Trump seems to think, the Constitution seeks to reward a single person with the special power to do any of them, but because these are governmental functions someone needs to do and it makes more sense to grant a chief executive the ability to do them than someone in any other branch of government.

But the exercise of these functions is not the full extent of the job. The job of president, as the Constitution describes, also includes the requirements to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and to fulfill the oath he swore upon taking office, which included the promise to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” None of these obligations are incidental to the job; they are key counterbalances to the enormous power the position affords its occupant. Yet he has been doing none of them in any sort of meaningful way, if at all. In fact, all too often he instead does the exact opposite of what’s required by the job, including by engaging in his own criminality, abetting the malfeasance of others, and otherwise generally upending our constitutional order by ignoring statutes, treaties, and constitutional text, and turning every bit of power he’s managed to wring from his position against the very same public the Constitution says he works for.

There are few situations where we would consider someone not doing what they were hired to do, and in fact doing the very opposite of what their job required, as still being employed in that job. If you hire a guard to watch the bank, you’d expect him not to help the robbers rob the bank. If you hired a doctor to treat patients, you’d expect him to not kill them instead. But if while on the job they did the opposite of what they were hired to do, you would understand them to have abandoned their position. You wouldn’t expect the guard who let in the robbers on Tuesday to still show up to work securing the place on Wednesday, or the doctor who euthanized his patients Thursday to show up to treat more on Friday; you would understand from the moment they did these things that you now have some vacancies to fill.

Which is where we find ourselves. The degree to which Trump has refused to perform the requirements of his job, to say nothing of his regularly acting contrary to them, means that we effectively have a vacancy in the Executive Branch. Americans can no longer have any trust that he is working for us when he daily demonstrates that he is only working for himself. Or that he’ll enforce the law when he regularly transgresses it and enables others’ transgressions as well. Or that he’ll uphold the Constitution when he regularly violates the separation of powers and people’s protected rights. Or that he can be a protector of the country when he has used his position to attack it. Like with the larcenous bank guard or wayward doctor it would be irrational to believe that despite having acted in such conflict with the requirements of his job that it is a job he has nevertheless somehow still kept. Instead, by refusing to uphold his oath of office, and acting in so many ways counter to it, he
has effectively abandoned the office he took that oath in order to enter.

The Constitution says that when the office is vacant there is a succession process to fill it. Where it is less specific is in instructing how a *de facto* vacancy, such as the kind we are experiencing, can be regarded as an official *de jure* one for purposes of triggering succession. But it doesn’t say we can’t, and plenty of language in the Constitution says we can, and indeed must.

Per [Article II][4], Section 1, of the Constitution, succession happens when there is either a physical departure from the office by the President, such as through death or resignation, or a functional one, essentially measured by the “Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office.” (The [12th Amendment][5], as amended by the [20th Amendment][6], also indicates that a vacancy is created when there is a “constitutional disability,” which would seem to include his ineligibility for the office as an additional obstacle to him being able to discharge the powers and duties of the office.) While for Trump there also remains the possibility of mental incapacity being yet another reason he is unable to fulfill the responsibilities of the office, in addition to his conscious abandonment of the position, it all boils down to the same thing: he has demonstrated that he is unable to continue serving in the role as the Constitution requires. The vacancy thus exists, and now it
just needs to be officially recognized so that succession can begin.

The 25th Amendment describes one avenue for such recognition, but that particular process seems unlikely to be pursued any time soon given that it would require equally compromised cabinet members to unite with the Vice President to support Trump’s displacement, which they are unlikely to do as long as they feel they benefit from Trump remaining in office (which is, of course, a reason why Hegseth, Rubio, Noem, Bondi, etc. should also themselves all be impeached, so that there’s a snowball’s chance that more ethical people could take their place for 25th Amendment purposes). But it seems unlikely that the Constitution meant the 25th Amendment to be the *sole* process available for recognizing that effectively there’s already a vacancy in the presidency, for several reasons. For one thing, the way it is written it seems more attuned to [articulating a plan for succession in the face of a *temporary* disability][7], like a coma, because it includes a mechanism by which the succession can
be undone. Whereas abandoning the office, like Trump has done, does not seem, consistent with the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter, like something that can simply be undone without being re-elected. Furthermore, as we see here, the 25th Amendment does not correct for the sort of situation we find ourselves in now, where the people who could and should be invoking it are not, even though the essential problem remains: there is still no one currently at the helm of the United States of America doing the job in a way the Constitution requires. And such will remain the case regardless of whether Vance and company ever make a move to address it.

Impeachment is of course another appropriate option for addressing a wayward president who is not living up to the job, but it, too, cannot be the only other means for handling a situation like this, where his failure to perform the job as required has already created the vacancy. For one thing, it suffers from a similar problem as the 25th Amendment, where the right of the public to have a president that lives up to his constitutional obligations is effectively being held hostage by recalcitrant officials—this time those in Congress—who are unwilling to uphold their own oaths of office and do what needs to be done to officially extricate America from Trump’s grasp. Furthermore, impeachment is also designed to pry someone out of a job they are actually doing, and not just someone who is not, as well as apply disqualification as a sanction. It is a mechanism useful for creating a vacancy, but the need now is just to recognize that one already exists.

But that there is no other clearly established way for recognizing the vacancy does not mean there is no way. There appears to be another way. And key to pursuing it is to stop treating as President someone who clearly is not.

It would mean, first of all, challenging every bit of power Trump exercises nominally as president as being unlawful, and not just on its own terms as an act not permitted by statute or Constitution, given that most of the things he tries to do would still be unlawful even if a proper president tried to do them. The challenge needs to be that *anything* Trump does ostensibly as president is irredeemably illicit at its core. Give the courts the opportunity to at last find that whatever power Trump attempts to wield is power he no longer has.

Doing so would likely be an uphill battle, because no court has every nullified a presidency. To the extent that legitimacy has been in contention, the historical preference has been to settle the matter politically, rather than legally—or at least it was, up until *[Bush v. Gore][8]*, when the Supreme Court announced that the courts were in the president-anointing business. But it would make sense for the courts to be able to weigh in here, with respect to Trump, because why shouldn’t the Article III branch would have its own mechanism for addressing the vacancy of an absent president, especially while Articles I and II officials continue to abandon their own obligations to act in accordance with their own constitutional mechanisms. No branch should have an exclusive monopoly on policing the president, and as long as there has been judicial review, none has. The courts have long been able to hold presidents accountable to the Constitution. And while there may be no clearly established
roadmap for involving the courts this way, there is also nothing preventing it.

The courts could be called upon to declare the office abandoned in various ways, and in response to challenges by various parties. Perhaps such an opportunity to challenge Trump’s legitimacy could arise if JD Vance gets ambitious and sues for a declaratory judgment that he is the actual president, because, while he’s no prize himself, at this point it certainly seems like he has a better claim to the office than Trump does. Perhaps it’s the states who can bring some sort of claim. Perhaps others who are affected by Trump’s abuse could sue too, just as they normally can challenge the lawfulness of his acts. Or perhaps the courts will have to weigh in when the military starts refusing Trump’s orders, as increasingly seems it likely will, as the ways Trump has been directing the military become more and more unlawful even on their own merits. In any case, one way or another it seems inevitable that the legitimacy of Trump’s continued presidency is going to be a question the courts will be
called upon to answer, especially as the rest of our government refuses to.

And while any litigation would eventually land at the Supreme Court, [such as it is][9], these challenges still need to be pursued because every case before it ultimately stands on its own. Even [*Trump v. Anderson*][10] is differentiable in key ways from the litigation that would reach it here. And hope springs eternal that this time maybe the Court will even get the question before it right, as the stakes raised by these challenges have never been more clear. Trump is running around acting with impunity, but as even the Supreme Court recognized in *[Trump v. U.S.][11]*, immunity only attaches to official acts. And if he has already effectively abandoned the office, then none of his acts can be.

It is of course no small thing for anyone to declare a living president to have officially abandoned his office or otherwise take steps to delegitimize his occupancy in the office. Nor should it be something that easily can be done because, as we’ve seen with even just with 2020 election denial, once doubt creeps in about who is the legitimate president, the disagreement it causes can be destabilizing to our democratic order. In fact, it is likely that a big reason why Trump’s continued claim to the presidency has simply been accepted so broadly up to now, despite all the evidence, is that, by and large, we would rather delude ourselves into believing that he is the legitimate officeholder than risk the political instability of calling it into question.

Nevertheless, there are limits to how long we can maintain the myth of his legitimacy, which Trump has been daily making less and less believable. Hegemony is powerful; Trump only gets to masquerade as a legitimate president for as long as we let him. We don’t have to let him. Which is why we should appeal to the courts, as well as Congress and any politician anywhere in government, to argue not just that Trump should be made to leave but that he’s already left, and that it’s finally time for the government to respond to that reality.

It’s time to challenge his legitimacy because the Constitution does not take a time out. It does not wait for midterms. We are *always* entitled to a President that acts consistently with all of the Constitution’s requirements, and it tells us what happens when there isn’t someone doing so anymore. It is not for any of us to decide that this language suddenly somehow no longer applies.

In fact, it would be dangerous to, or to [deliberately wait months and months to finally address the problem][12], while in the meantime our nation and everything we’ve built over the course of nearly 250 years is ruined. Especially not when Trump’s abandonment of the job has created the exigent likelihood that an interloper without any personal constitutional authority may now be functionally acting as president instead of him, wielding the office’s powers without any of the accountability the Constitution normally requires of someone in that position. In other words, it may not be that we are just without a president but, worse, instead at the mercy of an [unelected pretender][13] who has stepped into the vacuum Trump’s abandonment has created because we have refused to fill that void first.

There may of course be the fear that we risk a constitutional crisis to make such a serious move to deem the office vacant when the Constitution is not more specific that it is a move to be made. And it’s true; constitutional crises arise when we start making the most existentially important decisions about the nation’s governance without reference to a set of clear rules we’ve all agreed to. That we are in uncharted waters may thus give pause.

But we are not without any instruction for how to navigate them. Even though the Constitution has not provided a specific process to follow perfectly tailored to this effective abandonment of the presidency that Trump has committed, it still provides enough guidance to recognize the position is vacant and proceed with succession accordingly. If anything, it is the refusal to recognize the vacancy, especially by Congress and the cabinet, that has been what’s unilaterally and unconstitutionally changed the rules we’ve all previously agreed to, by letting Trump nevertheless continue to occupy the position when he has in every other way abandoned the job. Given everything Trump has done, and the actual text of the Constitution forbidding it, challenging his right to remain the acknowledged president won’t invite a constitutional crisis; rather, it is the failure to bring that challenge which is why that crisis is already here.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/oaths-of-office-and-how-everyone-not-moving-to-impeach-trump-is-violating-their-own/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/12/rep-green-again-pounds-the-drum-on-impeachment-and-this-time-a-majority-of-democrats-march-to-the-beat/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/13/it-is-long-past-time-for-democrats-to-start-pounding-the-impeachment-drum/
[4]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
[5]: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii
[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[7]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/how-the-25th-amendment-actually-works-and-what-nobodys-ever
[8]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/21/rip-john-robertss-summer-vacation/
[10]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
[11]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/03/what-surviving-cancer-last-year-teaches-about-what-the-nation-is-suffering-this-year/
[13]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/stephen-miller-trump-white-house/685516/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/23/a-year-in-and-its-time-to-recognize-the-oval-office-is-empty/

Noem Says ICE Is Being Menaced By Ice Cubes, Protesters Should Be ...

2026-01-23T20:17:50Z

Noem Says ICE Is Being Menaced By Ice Cubes, Protesters Should Be Cooped Up In ‘Free Speech Zones’

CBS News still exists, despite a president [doing all he can][1] to turn it into his own Baghdad Betty. Journalists are still demanding answers from this administration, even while the Baghdadest Betty of all — Bari Weiss — does everything she can [to strip mine][2] the long-running news agency for abusable parts. (That refers to you, [Tony Dokoupil][3].)

Last Sunday morning, Margaret Brennan interviewed DHS head Kristi Noem on “Face the Nation.” Brennan did everything she could to push back against Noem’s false claims and bullshit assertions, but in the end, Noem clearly knew she’d always have the upper hand, thanks to Trump’s legal threats and Bari Weiss’s willingness [to bury reporting][4] that doesn’t please Trump.

As ICE continues to detain, arrest, or kill anyone that seems to be too dark or too loud in Minnesota, Brennan asked if there’s an actual end point for yet another federal “surge” targeting a “blue” state. Noem, of course, can’t provide a straight answer [despite being given straight facts by the interviewer][5].

> *MARGARET BRENNAN: According to Pew, Minnesota’s population of immigrants here illegally stands at 2.2%. So, how do you judge when you’ve gotten everyone off the streets, that you say is, you know, requiring your federal agents be there? How do you say we’ve had mission accomplished?*
>
> *SEC. NOEM: Well, we won’t stop until we are sure that all the dangerous people are picked up, brought to justice and then deported back to their home countries–*
>
> *MARGARET BRENNAN: –You don’t have a number or a date?– *
>
> *SEC. NOEM: –We wouldn’t be in this situation- We wouldn’t be in this situation if Joe Biden hadn’t allowed our open-border policies to be in place and allowed up to 20 million people unvetted into this country. We have no idea how many dangerous people are here. *

That’s not an answer. Most of what fell out of Noem’s mouth during this interview wasn’t a direct answer. Instead, it was a bunch of Trump-esque rambling, randomly punctuated by Noem insisting the person interviewing her was lying.

Noem insisted that the “millions” (most of which obviously do not reside in Minnesota) being swept up by ICE were violent criminals. She claimed “70% of them have committed or have charges against them on violent crimes.” Brennan pushed back, citing stats released *by the DHS itself*:

> *MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, well, our reporting is that 47% based on your agency’s own numbers, 47% have criminal convictions against them*. But let’s talk about the other numbers–*
>
> *SEC. NOEM: –Which means you’re wrong again. Absolutely. We’ll get you the correct numbers–*
>
> *MARGARET BRENNAN: –Okay–*
>
> *SEC. NOEM: –so you can use them in the future*.
>
> *MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that’s from your agency. *

Noem is fully cooked. She’s indistinguishable from Trump or anyone else in his close orbit. When your lies are exposed by facts, you call the person with the actual facts a liar. But this willful disregard for truth is nothing new: this administration divorced itself from reality during Trump’s first term. In its second term, it’s pretending truth is whatever it says it is.

But it gets scarier, stupider, and weirder from there. Here’s Noem defending murdering citizens on the street before veering off into an extremely Trumpian interpretation of First Amendment rights:

> *SEC. NOEM: We’ve seen over 100 different vehicle weaponized and attacking law enforcement officers. I would hope that Mayor Frey, when he’s on here, that he’ll announce that he’s going to start working with us to bring safety to the streets. If he would set up a peaceful protest zone so that these individuals can exercise their First Amendment rights and do so peacefully, we would love that, because then we could work together to make sure we’re getting criminals to justice and letting people still express their First Amendment rights.*

While the government does have extremely limited powers to enact time-and-place restrictions on First Amendment activity, it certainly does not have the power to force any locale to restrict protests to only the places the government will allow protesters to gather. That’s the exact opposite of the First Amendment, which is exactly the sort of thing you’d expect a Trump administration figure to pitch, even if it would never impose restrictions like these on anyone protesting in *support* of Trump and his policies. (See also: hundreds of pardoned people who engaged in literal insurrection in 2021.)

After bitching Brennan out for repeating the name of the officer (Jonathan Ross) who killed Renee Good (apparently it’s “doxxing” to use a published name during a national news interview [massive eye roll]), Noem goes on to claim (without facts in evidence) that ICE officers are dealing with threats up to (and including) frozen water:

> *SEC. NOEM: –Don’t say his name. I mean, for heaven’s sakes, we- we don’t- we shouldn’t have people continue to dox law enforcement when they have an 8,000%–*
>
> *MARGARET BRENNAN: –his name is public–*
>
> *SEC. NOEM: –increase in death threats against them–*
>
> *MARGARET BRENNAN: — he was struck and hospitalized–*
>
> *SEC. NOEM: –I know, but that doesn’t mean it should continue to be said. His life- he got attacked with a car that was trying to take his life, and then people have attacked him and his family, and they are in jeopardy. And we have law enforcement officers every day who are getting death threats and getting attacked at their hotels and they are–*
>
> *MARGARET BRENNAN: –Well, can you tell me about his status right now–*
>
> *SEC. NOEM: –getting ice thrown at them. *

I can’t imagine why people might be throwing ice at ICE, but I’m sure someone much smarter than me will make that connection. And I may be [just a humble small town writer][6] who writes like your average George Bailey, but I have to imagine this might have gone better for Noem if she had decided to end that answer one sentence earlier.

This would all be laughably surreal if this administration didn’t have so much power and the will to abuse it. It’s still surreal, but you have to embrace the blackest of comedy to croak out a laugh.

This administration only knows two moves: [bluster][7] and [gaslighting][8]. Whatever you saw, you didn’t see. Whatever violations the government committed never happened. Whatever can be disputed by facts is just the ravings of leftist liars and mainstream media losers. As for everyone caught in this crossfire, fuck ’em. This party only serves itself. If there’s any silver lining here at all, it’s that Noem is too busy being Trump’s Bigot Barbie to [kill her children’s pets any time soon][9].

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/17/business/media/cbs-news-trump-interview.html
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/bari-weiss-is-sad-that-people-arent-enjoying-her-clumsy-destruction-of-cbs-news/
[3]: https://people.com/trump-tells-tony-dokoupil-wouldnt-have-job-under-harris-11884937
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/22/bari-weiss-shows-her-true-colors-kills-a-60-minutes-story-critical-of-the-presidents-concentration-camps/
[5]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kristi-noem-face-the-nation-transcript-01-18-2026/
[6]: https://www.reddit.com/r/futurama/comments/lgd316/now_sir_im_just_a_humble_country_lawyer/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/01/once-again-the-trump-administration-is-caught-lying-about-deportation-options-for-kilmar-abrego-garcia/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/20/the-shell-game-of-fascist-gaslighting/
[9]: https://www.humaneworld.org/en/blog/kristi-noem-puppy-killing-scandal#:~:text=The%20account%20of,a%20rural%20community.

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/23/noem-says-ice-is-being-menaced-by-ice-cubes-protesters-should-be-cooped-up-in-free-speech-zones/

Got Ideas For Growing The Open Social Web? Bring Them. ...

2026-01-23T18:35:52Z

Got Ideas For Growing The Open Social Web? Bring Them.

**[Register here for our Growing the Open Social Web Un-Workshop][1].**

For over three years now, since Elon Musk decided to spend $44 billion turning Twitter into his personal playground, we’ve been watching the open social web slowly, sometimes painfully, come into its own. Bluesky. Mastodon. The broader ATmosphere and fediverse along with a few other experiments (nostr! farcaster!). These aren’t just tech experiments anymore—they’re real alternatives that millions of people use every day.

And yet.

While these open social systems are working, and working well, tons of people are still choosing to stay in closed, proprietary, billionaire-controlled systems, where they have no control, no say in how they work, and no real agency. We’ve heard various excuses. We’ve heard about the pull of inertia. We’ve even heard the complaints that people haven’t found communities they like… or that they actively dislike some of the communities that have formed.

So instead of just writing another post about why that matters (I’ve written plenty), Johannes Ernst from FediForum and I are doing something about it. On **March 2nd**, we’re hosting an online “un-workshop” focused on one question: **how do we actually grow the open social web even more?**

And, yes, I’m on the board of Bluesky, but this isn’t Bluesky specific. We want an open discussion and brainstorming on growing the wider open social web.

This isn’t your standard conference where you sit through presentations and nod politely. It’s a participatory event built around the FediForum unconference model, though modified to be more of an ongoing brainstorming workshop (not unlike the Greenhouse events we’ve run here in the past).

Before the event, participants can submit short position papers—your experiences, your ideas, your proposals for what might actually work to engage more people on open social systems. We’ll cluster those into topics and spend the actual event *discussing* them and brainstorming around them, not just listening to people talk at you.

Here’s the thing: we want people who have real ideas and experience. People who have tried (and maybe failed) to get their friends onto the open social web and learned something useful from it. People who *have* had success convincing entire communities. People running organizations who are trying to figure out how to make the jump. Builders who want more users. Advocates who have done actual research with actual humans about what’s working and what isn’t.

What we don’t need are more cynical hot takes about why the open social web will never work. If you’ve already decided it’s a lost cause, this isn’t the event for you. Go post about it on Threads or whatever. We also don’t need hot takes about how you’re glad most people don’t use the open social web. That’s great for you open social hipsters, but some of us think it’s important to get more people to recognize the power of open social.

So, for everyone else—the people who believe this matters and want to figure out how to make it happen—we want to hear from you.

The event will run from 8am to noon Pacific (which means Europeans can actually attend without setting an alarm for 3am), and registration is open now. The event will be run online, using Remo, a tool we’ve used in the past for online events, that is conducive to small group discussions and brainstorming.

Position paper submissions are due by February 16th, and while they’re not required, they’re strongly encouraged (you can submit them during the registration process). The whole point is to come prepared to engage, not just spectate.

Look, I’ve been writing about the importance of [protocols over platforms][2] for years now. The open social web represents one of the few genuine shots we have at building online spaces that aren’t controlled by a handful of companies (or their billionaire owners) making decisions based on whatever serves their interests that week. But potential doesn’t matter if we can’t translate it into much wider adoption.

So if you’ve got ideas—real ideas, not just complaints—about how to get there, come share them.

[**Register here**][3]

[1]: https://events.humanitix.com/fediforum-un-workshop-growing-the-open-social-web-2026-03/tickets
[2]: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech
[3]: https://events.humanitix.com/fediforum-un-workshop-growing-the-open-social-web-2026-03/tickets

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/23/got-ideas-for-growing-the-open-social-web-bring-them/

Daily Deal: Luminar Mobile for iOS And Android [Luminar ...

2026-01-23T18:30:40Z

Daily Deal: Luminar Mobile for iOS And Android

[Luminar Mobile][1] is your all-in-one creative companion designed for iOS, Android OS, and Chrome OS. Powered by an intuitive, touch-responsive interface, it lets you enhance photos effortlessly—anytime, anywhere. Whether you’re adjusting lighting, perfecting portraits, or adding artistic flair, Luminar Mobile delivers pro-level results in the palm of your hand. It’s on sale for $20.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/luminar-mobile-for-ios-lifetime-subscription?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/23/daily-deal-luminar-mobile-for-ios-and-android/

ICE Is So Bad At Immigration Enforcement That It’s Detaining ...

2026-01-23T17:26:14Z

ICE Is So Bad At Immigration Enforcement That It’s Detaining Native Americans

Trump’s version of ICE has always assumed that if your skin shade is anything darker than [right-wing podcaster translucent][1], your ass needs to [be gone from this country][2].

Obviously, that’s not how things are supposed to work here in America, which proudly considered itself to be a melting pot (albeit belatedly and after a lot of post-Civil War legislation and jurisprudence). What makes America great is the blend of people in it. And, because this nation is so large, there’s plenty of room for everyone and [no non-bigot will ever claim][3] the addition of migrants has somehow made us weaker.

ICE has always been awful. It’s been even worse recently, now that it knows no one in the administration will ever prevent it from being the racist throwback Trump clearly wishes it to be. It’s even bolder now that the Supreme Court — via Justice Kavanaugh’s shadow docket concurrence — said it’s ok to [engage in racial profiling][4].

Racial profiling should be illegal. It isn’t. Among the many problems with racial profiling is that when you’re just looking for people with darker skin, [you tend to do absurdly stupid shit like this][5]:

> *Federal agents have detained a handful of Native Americans amid the [Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge][6] in Minnesota.*
>
> *The detention of at least five men [in and around Minneapolis][7] has sparked an outcry among Native American groups about Indigenous people being racially profiled as undocumented immigrants by federal immigration agents. Minneapolis is one of the largest urban centers for Native Americans in the United States.*

When you’re rounding up Native Americans, you’re rounding up the people who have done the least amount of immigration ever. Anyone engaged in these arrests has migrated more times than the people they’re arresting. This — [along with the recent murder][8] of Minnesota native and US citizen Renee Good by ICE officer Jonathan Ross — should have been enough to make ICE tuck its tail between its legs and head off to a more receptive, red-coded locality.

It didn’t. And because ICE neither understands nor cares, it’s up to regular American citizens to point out the obvious:

> *“It is deeply offensive and ironic that the first people of this land would be subjected to questions around their citizenship,” Jacqueline De Leon, senior staff attorney at the nonprofit Native American Rights Fund and a member of the Isleta Pueblo. “Yet nevertheless, that is exactly what we’re seeing.”*

You’d think someone at ICE might want to pull back and reassess the situation, especially now that seemingly the entirety of the city of Minneapolis is willing to hassle officers into abandoning the random roll-ups on darker skinned people they constantly claim are “targeted stops.”

If these truly were “targeted stops,” they wouldn’t have targeted people who have far more right to be here than the people detaining them. Jose Rodriguez, a 20-year-old Red Lake Nation descendant, was arrested by ICE in what ICE claims was a “high-risk immigration enforcement stop.” (The officers also claimed to have been “violently assaulted” by Rodriguez but, tellingly, no charges have been filed.)

This was followed up by the detaining of four unhoused tribal members by ICE officers, who found them sleeping under a bridge and decided this — combined with presumably darker-than-white skin tones — was all that was needed to justify some “papers please” hassling, immediately followed by detentions that, at press time (January 14) *still* hadn’t been ended. (One of the four was released prior to publishing.)

And it’s not like Native Americans didn’t see this coming. They read the Kavanaugh concurrence and saw what’s been happening all over this nation (but *especially* in “blue” states) and let their fellow Americans know that they should expect ICE to treat them like any other “brown” person officers come across:

> *A day before Ramirez’s stop, the Red Lake Tribal Council issued a [Jan. 7 advisory][9] about the Trump administration’s enforcement in Minnesota. “We all need to be extra careful, and we must assume that ICE will not protect us,” the advisory said.*

It’s been obvious since the inception of this so-called “immigration enforcement” surge: anyone not white would be rounded up. The Supreme Court said this is all very cool and very lawful. And the surge in Minnesota is proving that being white is no protection either, not if you’re opposed to what this regime is doing. With threats of a military deployment to Minnesota looming, no American worth their citizenship should continue pretending this is anything more than white nationalism draping itself in executive power.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/20/trump-admin-clarifies-only-white-anti-semites-will-be-granted-asylum-in-this-country/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/dhs-expands-immigration-ban-ensuring-the-only-way-an-african-can-come-to-the-us-is-if-we-bring-slavery-back/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/04/trump-administration-stops-fucking-around-on-immigration-hangs-official-whites-only-sign/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/29/the-kavanaugh-stops-legacy-50-days-170-detained-citizens-zero-answers/
[5]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/14/native-americans-detained-ice-trump-minnesota/88164562007/
[6]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/10/us-cities-protests-shootings-ice-live-coverage/88105832007/
[7]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/13/no-basis-for-investigation-into-ice-shooting-of-minn-woman-doj/88035610007/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/
[9]: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1207026841610272&set=pcb.1207027001610256

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/23/ice-is-so-bad-at-immigration-enforcement-that-its-detaining-native-americans/

RFK Jr. Spreads New Bogus Scare Mongering Bullshit About Cell ...

2026-01-23T13:24:13Z

RFK Jr. Spreads New Bogus Scare Mongering Bullshit About Cell Phone Safety

The hype and madness surrounding 5G has always been pretty wild to watch.

On one hand, wireless carriers spent years implying that 5G was some type of [cancer curing miracle technology][1] (it’s not). At the same time, oodles of conspiracy theorists, celebrities, and various [grifters][2] tried to claim 5G was a rampant health menace ([it’s not][3]). In reality, 5G’s [not actually interesting enough][4] to warrant either position, but that never stopped anybody in the post-truth era.

The Trump administration’s pseudo-populist attempt to tap into the more delirious and desperate segments of the electorate has long taken advantage of this latter group’s often-legitimate distrust of modern medicine, corporations, and public safety regulators.

That’s once again the obvious plan for CDC conspiracy chief RFK Jr., who [continues to purge government websites of any language that points out that cellular phone human health risks have not been scientifically proven][5] via peer-reviewed, large studies:

> *“The FDA removed online information that said scientists have not connected exposure to radiofrequency (RF) waves, emitted by cell phones, to health problems in users.*
>
> *Some of the removed webpages contained “old conclusions,” an HHS spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal. The spokesperson also said that researching cell phone radiation would “identify gaps in knowledge.” The agency provided a similar statement to Scientific American, adding that the research was “directed by [President Trump’s MAHA Commission][6].”*

RFK Jr. says he’s launching new “studies” ([whatever that means given the standards we’ve seen applied in his unscientific anti-vaccination rhetoric][7]) exploring the impact of 5G wireless on human health, and has been making the rounds making scary noises to what’s left of U.S. journalism institutions (like the pretty feckless [USA Today][8]):

> *“Generally speaking, electromagnetic radiation is a major health concern,” Kennedy said [in the exclusive interview][9], when asked for his concerns about 5G towers. “I’m very concerned about it.”*

In these interviews, RFK Jr. is making completely false claims that there’s “more than 10,000 studies” proving a clear risk of human harm from cell phone use. The World Health Organization [found no justification for health concerns][10] after a meta-analysis of nearly *thirty years of research*.

While it’s hubris to insist we know *everything* about wireless’ impact on human health, the [science we do have][11] traditionally points to a very clear conclusion: 5G isn’t likely to seriously to hurt you. In fact, in many ways 5G is potentially less harmful than previous iterations given that the millimeter wave spectrum being used in many cities can barely penetrate walls, much less human skin.

As [Scientific American][12] notes, while there **have** historically been studies suggesting potential cancerous impact from massive exposure using rats, “studies in humans have been inconsistent and limited in scope and efficacy.” The FDA had previously, and correctly, stated that “the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cellphone use with any health problems.”

Now if the Trump administration was actually serious about launching real-world scientific inquiries into cell phone health’s impact, that might be something. But we’re long past the point where this weird assortment of zealots deserve any benefit of the doubt. Especially given RFK Jr.’s history of [completely unscientific, fear mongering gibberish][13].

Trump authoritarians love leaning into conspiracy theories for several reasons.

One, it exploits often legitimate frustration with institutional failures to tap into a neglected part of the electorate they can farm for support with fake populism (you see this commonly across the “MAHA” set, the anti-war lies, and the [fake administration claim to support meaningful “antitrust reform”][14]).

Two, it helps create an information fog of war where the electorate finds it harder to reliably identify what’s true, in turn making people more distrustful of the few legitimate media organizations still interested in the truth. This in turn makes it easier for authoritarians to lie to you (and the movement’s adjacent grifter economy to rip you off with false promises and cures).

Three, it distracts the public from what the Trump administration is **actually** doing most of the time, which in telecom and cellular has largely involved [destroying any remaining oversight of our shitty telecom monopolies that are keen to rip you off][15].

It’s not populism, it’s exploitation. There are no answers here, only more confusion and chaos for suffering people. All to mask broad, grotesque corruption by a broad assortment of terrible human beings.

Many of these MAHA segments being targeted by Trump grifters (see: RFK Jr.’s siren call to angry [Lyme Disease patients][16]) spent decades feeling legitimately exploited and abused by corporate power, institutional failure, and U.S. health care dysfunction only to walk straight into the maw of some of the biggest grifting shitbags America may have ever spawned (which is really saying something).

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190624/11270442467/verizon-now-pretending-that-5g-will-help-cure-cancer.shtml
[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52501453
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200406/07472344243/5g-isnt-interesting-enough-to-warrant-these-stupid-conspiracy-theories.shtml
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200406/07472344243/5g-isnt-interesting-enough-to-warrant-these-stupid-conspiracy-theories.shtml
[5]: https://www.wsj.com/health/rfk-jr-s-health-department-is-studying-health-effects-of-cellphones-b4c3a468?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqd9dIBfyevAMPxL27K2SeopuUGjighpd78wbLSeXUfbKURkY3MPqzxaxAX-NLs%3D&gaa_ts=696e6a29&gaa_sig=Vp5uuLNwENFkTCuzr7rl18-qR1KyGqHo8eBgS1F2cSOsNe3zCvnoLb9ByLdmohNrVCt6cbAJ5qyzXiUckkwrMA%3D%3D
[6]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-MAHA-Strategy-WH.pdf
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/29/rfk-jr-s-maha-report-cites-studies-that-dont-seem-to-exist-misinterprets-others/
[8]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/16/robert-kennedy-5g-electromagnetic-radiation/88220793007/
[9]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/16/rfk-jr-flu-shot-vaccine/88220106007/
[10]: https://www.wirelesshealthfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/World-Health-Organization-Review-Finds-No-Connection-Between-Cell-Phones-and-Cancer-1.pdf
[11]: https://tidbits.com/2019/12/06/worried-about-5g-and-cancer-heres-why-wireless-networks-pose-no-health-risk/
[12]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rfk-jr-shifts-focus-to-questioning-whether-cell-phones-are-safe-heres-what/
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/14/6-former-surgeons-general-across-6-administrations-publicly-warn-of-the-danger-of-rfk-jr/
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/21/trump-2-0-support-for-lina-khan-style-antitrust-reform-wound-up-being-an-unsurprising-lie/
[15]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/trump-fcc-helps-verizon-make-it-harder-for-you-to-switch-wireless-carriers/
[16]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rfk-jr-backed-lyme-disease-conspiracy-theory-may-be-probed-under-new-bill/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/23/rfk-jr-spreads-new-bogus-scare-mongering-bullshit-about-cell-phone-safety/

‘The Perfect Season’ Trademark: IU Would Have To License The ...

2026-01-23T04:04:29Z

‘The Perfect Season’ Trademark: IU Would Have To License The Phrase From The Patriots

It’s been nearly a decade since Mike wrote about the [strange trademark approval][1] the New England Patriots received on the term “Perfect Season.” The story rang as odd for several reasons, not the least of which being that the team applied for the mark in 2008 just before that year’s Super Bowl and at a time in which the Patriots had completed an 18-0 record including the regular season and two playoff games. The Patriots then famously fell on their collective face against the Giants, making the season very much *not* perfect. But the team went ahead and got the mark anyway. Add to that my take that this kind of phrase for the categories of sports apparel and the like is not nearly unique enough to serve as a valid mark to begin with and we have a situation practically begging to get absurd.

And the absurdity may have arrived. For you non-sports fans in the audience, the Indiana University Hoosiers just won the College Football National Championship without losing a single game during the season. IU, in stark contrast to the Patriots, *did *in fact have a perfect season. But if they, or anyone else, would like to celebrate that fact, they would need [to license the use of the term][2] from the Patriots to do so.

> *Not only did The Kraft Group continue, they licensed the mark to the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association for use in a DVD in order to satisfy the “use in commerce” stipulation by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and, in 2016, the team was granted rights to the trademarks.*
>
> *Unlike Pat Riley, who filed to trademark “Three Peat” when he was the coach of the Lakers and then cashed in when the Chicago Bulls and New York Yankees won three straight titles, The Kraft Group’s trademark hasn’t had many opportunities to gain royalties from the mark.*

But Kraft *can* demonstrate it has used the term in commerce via its previous licensing agreements. That puts IU and/or apparel companies in the position to go one of three routes. They can license the term for apparel from Kraft, thereby perpetuating this entire silly enterprise, they can *not *license the phrase and potentially fight a court battle to invalidate the trademark after they make the products and are sued or threatened by Kraft, or they can just not use the phrase at all.

The latter appears to be the most likely route.

> *Items in Indiana’s team store use the word “Perfection.” Homefield Apparel, whose original school is Indiana, uses “Perfect” without “Season” on its shirts.*

Even that is absurd. Again, the end result, thanks to a USPTO all too happy to approve trademarks that it probably shouldn’t, is that a team that achieved a perfect season cannot freely use the phrase that correctly describes its own accomplishment because it would have to license it from a team that didn’t.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2017/02/02/nine-years-later-patriots-get-19-0-perfect-season-trademarks-despite-doing-neither/
[2]: https://www.cllct.com/sports-collectibles/memorabilia/why-indiana-s-perfect-season-shirts-could-benefit-the-new-england-patriots

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/the-perfect-season-trademark-iu-would-have-to-license-the-phrase-from-the-patriots/

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: This Episode Is Broadly Safe To Listen To ...

2026-01-23T00:14:08Z

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: This Episode Is Broadly Safe To Listen To

**[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and [Everything in Moderation][2]‘s Ben Whitelaw. **

**Subscribe now on [Apple Podcasts][3], [Overcast][4], [Spotify][5], [Pocket Casts][6], [YouTube][7], or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to [the RSS feed][8].**

In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:

* [My year with a flip phone][9] (Financial Times)
* [Claude’s Constitution][10] (Anthropic)
* [From the CEO: What’s coming to YouTube in 2026][11] (Youtube)
* [BBC to show programmes on YouTube in landmark deal][12] (Financial Times)
* [Rand Paul: I’ve changed my mind — Google and YouTube can’t be trusted to do the right thing and must be reined in][13] (NY Post)
* [Rand Paul Only Wants Google To Be The Arbiter Of Truth When The Videos Are About Him][14] (Techdirt)
* [Roskomnadzor Denies Reports That It’s Throttling Telegram Over Content Moderation Disputes][15] (Moscow Times)
* [Europeans set to launch an alternative to X. It’s called W][16] (Cybernews)

[1]: https://ctrlaltspeech.com/
[2]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/
[3]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193
[4]: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193
[5]: https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc
[6]: https://pca.st/zulnarbw
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z
[8]: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
[9]: https://www.ft.com/content/4728491f-9ea8-4efe-bbcd-fd817741e22e
[10]: https://www.anthropic.com/constitution
[11]: https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-future-of-youtube-2026/
[12]: https://www.ft.com/content/cdcfbec7-1472-4161-a29f-71426333bd40
[13]: https://nypost.com/2026/01/19/opinion/rand-paul-ive-changed-my-mind-google-and-youtube-cant-be-trusted-to-do-the-right-thing-and-must-be-reined-in/
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/rand-paul-only-wants-google-to-be-the-arbiter-of-truth-when-the-videos-are-about-him/
[15]: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/01/16/roskomnadzor-denies-reports-that-its-throttling-telegram-over-content-moderation-disputes-a91700
[16]: https://cybernews.com/tech/europe-social-media-w/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/ctrl-alt-speech-this-episode-is-broadly-safe-to-listen-to/

Utah Continues To Ban More Books, Even As It Racks Up More ...

2026-01-22T21:58:32Z

Utah Continues To Ban More Books, Even As It Racks Up More Lawsuits

Utah’s budding theocracy continues unimpeded as we head into the new year. On top of its other unconstitutional laws (like the [oft-challenged social media ban][1]) and [legislative proposals][2], there’s its book ban law that has seen it become the first state to actually remove certain books from *all* public schools across the state.

The targeted books are exactly the ones you think they are. Of the 13 titles to make the first ban list in 2024, 12 of them were written by women. It has added more titles to the ban list for 2026, as BookRiot reports.

> *To begin the new year at public schools across the state, Utah officials banned three more books. [Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West][3] by Gregory Maguire, [Nineteen Minutes][4] by Jodi Picoult, and [The Perks of Being a Wallflower][5] by Stephen Chbosky join 19 other titles on a state-sanctioned ban list and must now be removed from all schools.*

This law is basically just a heckler’s veto. No consensus is needed to subject a title to removal across the state. The law allows parents to file book challenges which, in reality, means a few bigoted activists will be able to impose their will on every resident in the state.

The law compounds this deliberate error by allowing certain schools (or those being pressured by this small group of anti-freedom activists) to place their thumbs on the scale. Since that’s what the law is designed to do, that’s exactly what has happened:

> *What is important to understand about the law is that despite claims this is about [“local control,”][6] schools in the state are forced to follow the decisions made in other districts. There are 42 public school districts in Utah, but two districts account for [nearly 80% of the books banned statewide][7]: Davis School District and Washington School District.*
>
> *The three latest book bans came exclusively because of bans at Davis, Tooele, and Washington school districts. Again, two districts are doing nearly all of the dictating of what books are allowed at public schools throughout all of Utah.*

“Local control” is as meaningless as “representative democracy.” Someone will always find a way to game the system to ensure they keep what they have if not take a little more. Political parties gerrymander. Utah legislators craft laws that allow a small subset of state schools to write the rules for the rest of them.

For now, the law remains in place and the entirety of the state remains under the direct, definitely not “local” control of a couple of school districts. For now. But things could get a bit more interesting soon, [now that a serious challenge to the law][8] has been raised by some of the authors directly affected by these bans.

> *A group of best-selling authors whose books are banned from Utah public schools are suing the state, arguing its sensitive materials law is unconstitutional.*
>
> *Filed in federal court, the lawsuit comes after three more books were banned from K-12 schools.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *Among those suing over Utah’s book ban law are award-winning novelists Elana K. Arnold and Ellen Hopkins, the Estate of Kurt Vonnegut and two anonymous Utah public high school students.*

The [lawsuit][9] [PDF] raises questions the state isn’t going to be in any hurry to answer.

> *The Book Removal Law, codified at Section 53G-10-103 of the Utah Code, is unmoored from the First Amendment and requires Utah’s Local Education Agencies (“LEAs”) to strip their school libraries of any book that contains even a single description or depiction of sex, no matter how fleeting, no matter its context, and no matter its literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.*
>
> *The Book Removal Law also never asks the most basic question: appropriate for whom? A kindergartner learning to sound out words and a twelfth-grader weeks from graduation are treated identically. As described below, once a book is labeled “sensitive,” it must be taken from the shelf, including the high school library. There is no recognition that a seventeen-year-old preparing for college, navigating identity, relationships, and the realities of adulthood stands in a fundamentally different place than a five-year-old.*
>
> *This creates an absurd mismatch with other parts of Utah’s own legal standards. State law permits sixteen-year-olds to consent to certain sexual activity. Yet the same students whom Utah trusts to make intimate, real-world decisions about their bodies are, under the Book Removal Law, barred from accessing out books that contain a mere single passage describing the very conduct in which is lawful for them to engage. The Book Removal Law tells them: you are mature enough to do this, but not mature enough to read about it.*

The answer is, of course, that this isn’t about protecting children from content that might be inappropriate for them. It’s about giving bigots and public employees an easy way to remove content they personally don’t like. Because its ulterior motive is its *only* motive, it’s been written in a way that makes it extremely susceptible to legal challenges. With any luck, this law won’t survive much longer and the people who think *no one* should have access to content *they* don’t care for will have to go back to the ineffective seething that seems to make up a disproportionate portion of their existence.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/26/utah-delays-constitutional-reckoning-over-its-social-media-law-by-promising-to-repeal-replace-it/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/26/utah-delays-constitutional-reckoning-over-its-social-media-law-by-promising-to-repeal-replace-it/
[3]: https://prf.hn/click/camref:1101lkCeo/destination:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thriftbooks.com%2Fw%2Fwicked-the-life-and-times-of-the-wicked-witch-of-the-west-by-gregory-maguire%2F246644%2F
[4]: https://prf.hn/click/camref:1101lkCeo/destination:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thriftbooks.com%2Fw%2Fnineteen-minutes-by-jodi-picoult%2F247328%2F
[5]: https://prf.hn/click/camref:1101lkCeo/destination:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thriftbooks.com%2Fw%2Fthe-perks-of-being-a-wallflower-by-stephen-chbosky%2F249844%2F
[6]: https://bookriot.com/the-lie-of-local-control-in-book-censorship/
[7]: https://www.kuer.org/education/2024-12-06/with-utahs-statewide-book-bans-2-school-districts-have-steered-the-conversation
[8]: https://www.kpcw.org/state-regional/2026-01-06/best-selling-authors-sue-utah-officials-after-latest-book-ban
[9]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26467355-utah-book-ban/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/utah-continues-to-ban-more-books-even-as-it-racks-up-more-lawsuits/

Section 230 Didn’t Fail Rand Paul. He Just Doesn’t Like the ...

2026-01-22T20:35:00Z

Section 230 Didn’t Fail Rand Paul. He Just Doesn’t Like the Remedy That Worked.

[Rand Paul is furious][1]. That’s because someone [posted][2] a video falsely accusing the Kentucky senator of taking money from Venezuela’s Maduro regime.

Paul should know that the First Amendment sets a deliberately high bar for defamation of public officials like him. Under *[New York Times v. Sullivan][3]*, he must show not just falsity, but that the speaker knew it was false or had serious doubts about the validity and published it anyway That demanding standard known as “actual malice” exists for a reason — to ensure that fear of lawsuits does not silence criticism of those who hold power, even when the speech is offensive, wrong, or deeply unfair.

Instead of fighting this battle in court against the person who created this video, Paul has redirected his anger toward Section 230, the law often [described][4] as the 26 words that created the modern Internet. Although he once defended the law’s provisions that shield online platforms from liability for user speech, Paul now argues in a recent *[New York Post][5]*[ op-ed][6] that the only solution is to tear it down.

At the heart of Paul’s argument is a simple demand: YouTube should have stepped in, judged the accusation against him to be false, and removed it. Once notified that the video was false, the platform should have been legally responsible for leaving it up. Section 230, he argues, prevents that from happening.

But who decides what is false? Who decides what is defamatory? And how quickly must those judgments be made — under threat of crushing lawsuits — by platforms hosting speech from millions of users around the world?

It’s surprising to see Senator Paul, who’s been [vocal][7] against government jawboning of speech, pledge to pursue legislation that would amend the law because a private platform failed to moderate speech the way he wanted.

Paul insists this distinction is hypocritical because platforms removed his COVID-era statements they deemed as false while leaving up a lie about him. This argument collapses under its own weight. The Supreme Court has [repeatedly][8] [held][9] that private companies can make editorial decisions. They are allowed to be inconsistent, mistaken, biased, or wrong.

As the Court affirmed in *[Moody v.][10]**[NetChoice][11]**, *“it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression—to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks biased [ . . . ] That principle works for social-media platforms as it does for others.” In other words, the First Amendment protects editorial discretion precisely because the government cannot be trusted with it.

If Section 230 protections are rolled back, the consequences could be profound. Some platforms will over-moderate to avoid legal exposure, removing lawful but controversial content. Others will under moderate, allowing harmful content to spread unchecked since any moderation decision could open them up to liability.

Such a shift will not harm the powerful but the vulnerable, the dissenters, and the voices that depend on intermediaries to be heard. Smaller platforms and start-ups [may shut down][12], avoid hosting speech, or change their business models altogether due to litigation risk.

Paul draws a comparison between platforms and newspapers, arguing that publishers historically avoided defamation through editorial judgment. But newspapers choose what they print before publication. Platforms host speech created entirely by others, at unimaginable scale. The *New York Pos*t is still protected by Section 230 from being liable for the comment section on its online articles.

The real, speech-protective answer is defamation law. If Paul believes that a video contains lies about him, he could sue the creator for defamation and prove actual malice under the *Sullivan* standard.

But we cannot and should not dismantle the legal foundation of online speech because it failed to protect one powerful man. That sets a precedent that will harm millions of marginalized voices.

*Ashkhen Kazaryan is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think tank at Vanderbilt University.*

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/rand-paul-only-wants-google-to-be-the-arbiter-of-truth-when-the-videos-are-about-him/
[2]: https://nypost.com/2026/01/19/opinion/rand-paul-ive-changed-my-mind-google-and-youtube-cant-be-trusted-to-do-the-right-thing-and-must-be-reined-in/
[3]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/
[4]: https://www.propublica.org/article/nsu-section-230
[5]: https://nypost.com/2026/01/19/opinion/rand-paul-ive-changed-my-mind-google-and-youtube-cant-be-trusted-to-do-the-right-thing-and-must-be-reined-in/
[6]: https://nypost.com/2026/01/19/opinion/rand-paul-ive-changed-my-mind-google-and-youtube-cant-be-trusted-to-do-the-right-thing-and-must-be-reined-in/
[7]: https://www.paul.senate.gov/dr-rand-paul-rep-hageman-and-rep-bishop-fight-to-protect-americans-first-amendment-rights-again/
[8]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/241/
[9]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/1/
[10]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
[11]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
[12]: https://www.project-disco.org/innovation/090619-an-economic-case-for-section-230/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/section-230-didnt-fail-rand-paul-he-just-doesnt-like-the-remedy-that-worked/

Since Last May, ICE Officers Have Been Told They Don’t Need ...

2026-01-22T20:11:26Z

Since Last May, ICE Officers Have Been Told They Don’t Need Warrants To Enter Homes

The thing afforded the highest protections of the Fourth Amendment is a person’s home. This isn’t even a controversial statement. It has been that way ever since this amendment was ratified.

But, under Trump, we’re constantly seeing that the administration considers all rights to be privileges — something [only granted to people][1] this administration likes.

[The Associated Press has obtained a blockbuster leak][2] — one that shows ICE officers have been told that they’re free to enter homes without a judicial warrant. Instead, they can just write themselves an *administrative* warrant and then just go about their business of terrorizing a nation.

ICE carries around things they call warrants, but hardly resemble the real thing. [An administrative warrant is self-issuing][3]. The officer who wants to use it only needs to fill in a few blanks and sign it before heading out to try to arrest the person listed on the paperwork. There’s no signature line for supervisors, which means these aren’t reviewed by anyone else but the person writing them.

But since last May, ICE officers have been instructed they can treat these pieces of paper like *actual* warrants — you know, the ones that are subjected to at least a cursory review by a judge.

The [whistleblower report][4] [PDF] contains screenshots of the memo issued by ICE head Todd Lyons, last seen here complaining repeatedly about people who complain about ICE officers acting like paramilitary kidnapping squads.

What’s contained in that memo is batshit insane. First of all, it’s the DHS telling itself that it’s okay to ignore the Fourth Amendment.

> *Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal** in their place of residence**, the DHS Office of the General Counsel **has recently determined** that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations **do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose**. *

There’s a very good reason the DHS has “not historically relied” on administrative warrants to enter people’s homes in search of arrestable migrants. That reason would be the US Constitution, which only “recently” fell out of favor with the GOP ruling class.

According to Lyons and the completely compromised DHS Office of the Legal Counsel, the only thing needed to engage in what is *absolutely* a warrantless entry is a final order of removal. A couple of paragraphs later, the memo states explicitly what ICE officers are authorized to do under the power of this memo (which *definitely* isn’t what they’re authorized to do under the Constitution):

> *Should the alien refuse admittance, ICE officers and agents should use only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence…*

You can write a memo and issue it and claim the in-house lawyers said it was all cool and legal, but that still doesn’t make it cool and legal. All it does is add another layer of “good faith” to ICE officers’ violations of the Fourth Amendment. After all, if they were told they could do this, how could they be expected to know it was actually illegal?

A footnote follows that, which makes it clear ICE officers will engage in warrantless entries even if they *haven’t* actually obtained a final order of removal.

> *This scoping is not intended to concede that an administrative warrant would be insufficient to arrest an alien in his or her place of residence **prior to a final order of removal or where there is a final order of removal issued by an immigration officer**. *

In other words, ICE officers can enter any alleged migrant’s house without a warrant at pretty much any time, so long as they’re carrying their self-issued non-warrants (the Form I-205 referenced throughout the memo).

This directly contradicts ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations) training for ICE officers, which is included in the leaked documents the AP obtained. That training spells it out succinctly and explicitly (caps in the original):

> *An administrative arrest warrant does NOT alone authorize a 4th Amendment search of any kind. *

That’s no longer the case, apparently. It’s not like this training has been rescinded. It seemingly remains on the books because it creates even more plausible deniability for officers being sued.

And ICE director Todd Lyons (along with his OLC enablers) know the contents of this memo can’t possibly be legal. That’s why this memo has never been officially added to ERO training or otherwise officially made part of the ICE operations manual. If Lyons and other top immigration enforcement officials actually thought this shit would hold in court, they wouldn’t have done this:

> *While addressed to “All ICE Personnel,” in practice the May 12 Memo has not been formally distributed to all personnel. **Instead, the May 12 Memo has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action. Those supervisors then show the Memo to some employees, like our clients, and direct them to read the Memo and return it to the supervisor.***

In the case of the whistleblower who gave this to the Associated Press, they were instructed to read it and return it. They were not allowed to take notes. They were also informed that another employee had been reassigned for questioning ICE policies, which was taken by the whistleblower as the overt threat it is.

This is fucking insane. A federal government agency has decided the Fourth Amendment no longer exists and has done everything it can from keeping this clearly unconstitutional policy change from spreading beyond those who’ve already bought into the DHS’s new direction as the expression of the GOP’s white nationalist goals.

And it’s a problem that’s only going to get exponentially worse as ICE frantically on-boards new hires, who are given plenty of cash, but nearly nonexistent training before being sent out to fulfill the racist desires of people like White House advisor Stephen Miller. What little they may know (or care) about constitutional rights is being eroded even further by official memos that claim it’s perfectly legal to do something that clearly — under the DHS’s own published training — violates the Fourth Amendment.

Without a doubt, the administration will shrug this off and/or tell people they shouldn’t believe things they’ve seen with their own eyes. For now, we can only hope this might knock a few Republicans out of the MAGA loop, even if it’s only the ones who realize they definitely wouldn’t want to turn this unearned expansion of power over to an administration not run by one of their own.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/05/trump-brings-back-free-speech-by-checks-notes-threatening-to-imprison-protestors-and-expose-journalist-sources/
[2]: https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d
[3]: https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3mcxpd4nn622k
[4]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499590-who-needs-warrants/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/since-last-may-ice-officers-have-been-told-they-dont-need-warrants-to-enter-homes/

Daily Deal: The JavaScript DOM Game Developer Bundle The ...

2026-01-22T18:51:59Z

Daily Deal: The JavaScript DOM Game Developer Bundle

The [JavaScript DOM Game Developer Bundle][1] has 8 courses to help you master coding fundamentals. Courses cover JavaScript DOM, Coding, HTML 5 Canvas, and more. You’ll learn how to create your own fun, interactive games. It’s on sale for $30.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-javascript-dom-game-developer-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/daily-deal-the-javascript-dom-game-developer-bundle-8/

DOJ Admits DOGE Team Caught Sharing Social Security Data With ...

2026-01-22T17:34:25Z

DOJ Admits DOGE Team Caught Sharing Social Security Data With Election Denier Group

We spent a lot of time last year calling out [how dangerous it was][1] that Elon Musk and his inexperienced 4chan-loving DOGE boys were gaining access to some of the most secure government systems. We also highlighted how it seemed likely that they were [violating many laws][2] in the process. One specific point of concern was DOGE’s desire [to take control][3] over Social Security data, something that many people warned would be [abused for political reasons][4], in particular to make misleading or false claims about voting records.

For all the people who insisted that this was hyperbolic nonsense, and DOGE was just there to root out “waste, fraud, and abuse,” well… the DOJ last week quietly admitted that the DOGE boys almost certainly [violated the Hatch Act][5] and had given social security data to conspiracy theorists claiming Trump won the 2020 election (he did not).

Oh, and this only came out because the DOJ realized it had lied to a court (they claim it was because the Social Security Administration officials had given them bad info, but the net effect is the same) and had to correct the record.

> *Shapiro’s previously unreported disclosure, dated Friday, came as part of a list of “corrections” to testimony by top SSA officials during last year’s legal battles over DOGE’s access to Social Security data. They revealed that DOGE team members shared data on unapproved “third-party” servers and may have accessed private information that had been ruled off-limits by a court at the time.*
>
> *Shapiro said the case of the two DOGE team members appeared to undermine a previous assertion by SSA that DOGE’s work was intended to “detect fraud, waste and abuse” in Social Security and modernize the agency’s technology.*

From [the actual filing][6] in the case:

> *Also in his March 12 declaration, Mr. Russo attested that, “[t]he overall goal of the work performed by SSA’s DOGE Team is to detect fraud, waste and abuse in SSA programs and to provide recommendations for action to the Acting Commissioner of SSA, the SSA Office of the Inspector General, and the Executive Office of the President.”….*
>
> *However, SSA determined in its recent review that in March 2025,* ***a political advocacy group contacted two members of SSA’s DOGE Team with a request to analyze state voter rolls*** *that the advocacy group had acquired.* ***The advocacy group’s stated aim was to find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results*** *in certain States. In connection with these communications,* ***one of the DOGE team members signed a “Voter Data Agreement,” in his capacity as an SSA employee, with the advocacy group****. He sent the executed agreement to the advocacy group on March 24, 2025.*

The filing goes on to admit that the declaration from a Social Security administration employee that there were safeguards in place against sharing data, and that everyone had received training in not sharing data, was apparently wrong.

> *However, SSA has learned that, beginning March 7, 2025, and continuing until March 17 (approximately one week before the TRO was entered), members of SSA’s DOGE Team were using links to share data through the third-party server “Cloudflare.” Cloudflare is not approved for storing SSA data and when used in this manner is outside SSA’s security protocols. SSA did not know, until its recent review, that DOGE Team members were using Cloudflare during this period. Because Cloudflare is a third-party entity, SSA has not been able to determine exactly what data were shared to Cloudflare or whether the data still exist on the server.*

Cool cool. No big deal. DOGE boys just put incredibly private data on a third party server and no one knows what data was there or even *if it’s still there.*

Have I got some waste, fraud, and abuse for you to check out!

Separately, the filing reveals that Elon Musk’s right hand man, Steve Davis—the “fixer” Musk deploys across all his organizations—was copied on an email containing an encrypted file of SSA data. The filing is careful to note that DOGE itself “never had access to SSA systems of record,” but that’s a distinction without much difference when your guy is getting emailed password-protected files derived from those systems. Oh and: SSA still can’t open the file to figure out exactly what was in it.

> *However, SSA has determined that on March 3, 2025—three weeks prior to entry of the TRO—an SSA DOGE Team member copied Mr. Steve Davis, who was then a senior advisor to Defendant U.S. DOGE Temporary Organization, as well as a DOGE-affiliated employee at the Department of Labor (“DOL”), on an email to Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The email attached an encrypted and password-protected file that SSA believes contained SSA data. Despite ongoing efforts by SSA’s Chief Information Office, SSA has been unable to access the file to determine exactly what it contained. From the explanation of the attached file in the email body and based on what SSA had approved to be released to DHS, SSA believes that the encrypted attachment contained PII derived from SSA systems of record, including names and addresses of approximately 1,000 people.*

Looks like some more waste, fraud, and abuse right there.

So to recap: the team that stormed in to root out “waste, fraud, and abuse” committed what looks an awful lot like ***actual*** fraud and abuse—sharing data on unauthorized servers, misleading courts, cutting deals with election conspiracy groups, and emailing around encrypted files of PII that the agency itself can’t even open anymore. All of it now documented in federal court filings—not that anyone will do anything about it. Accountability is for people who don’t have Elon Musk on speed dial.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/05/a-25-year-old-is-writing-backdoors-into-the-treasurys-6-trillion-payment-system-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/18/in-a-monday-night-declaration-the-white-house-admits-musk-and-doge-violated-the-cfaa-although-they-might-not-realize-it/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/10/the-untold-saga-of-what-happened-when-doge-stormed-social-security/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/14/details-of-dhs-agreement-reveal-risks-of-trump-administrations-use-of-social-security-data-for-voter-citizenship-checks/
[5]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/20/trump-musk-doge-social-security-00737245
[6]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.577321/gov.uscourts.mdd.577321.197.0.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/doj-admits-doge-team-caught-sharing-social-security-data-with-election-denier-group/

Thanks To Trump, Verizon Immediately Starts Making It Harder To ...

2026-01-22T13:31:32Z

Thanks To Trump, Verizon Immediately Starts Making It Harder To Switch Mobile Carriers

Last week [we noted how the Trump FCC][1], at the direct request of wireless phone giants, destroyed popular rules making it easier and cheaper to switch wireless carriers. The rules, applied via spectrum acquisition and merger conditions, required that Verizon unlock your phone within 60 days after purchase so you could easily switch to competitors.

Verizon, as we’ve long established, hates competition, and immediately got to work lobbying the Trump administration to destroy the rules. The pay-to-play Trump administration quickly agreed, and now Verizon has started telling wireless customers [they have to wait a year before switching phones][2] after purchasing one from Verizon:

> *“Verizon was previously required to unlock phones automatically after 60 days due to restrictions imposed on its [spectrum licenses][3] and [merger conditions][4] that helped Verizon obtain approval of its [purchase of TracFone][5]. But an update applied today to the [TracFone unlocking policy][6] said new phones will be locked for at least a year and that each customer will have to request an unlock instead of getting it automatically.”*

Again, these conditions were broadly popular and served the public interest, ensuring that it was easier for consumers to switch between our ever-consolidating, anti-competitive wireless phone giants. Verizon lobbied the FCC by repeatedly lying, without evidence, that these conditions [resulted in a wave of black market phone thefts][7]. FCC boss Brendan Carr, ever the industry lackey, parroted the claims in his rulings.

To be clear this is, for now, only something Verizon is doing via its prepaid sub-brands that include Straight Talk, Tracfone, Net10 Wireless, Clearway, Total Wireless, Simple Mobile, SafeLink Wireless, and Walmart Family Mobile. These brands often attract lower income customers who can least afford to be trapped under an expensive provider like this.

Verizon’s quite intentionally targeting these folks first, effectively making freedom and choice a luxury tier (much like telecom providers [tried to do with privacy][8] before U.S. government corruption [discarded privacy oversight entirely][9]).

You can, for now, still buy an unlocked phone from an independent retailer, bring it to Verizon’s main postpaid brands, and port it back out again if you’d like. But when Verizon sees limited Democrat and press backlash to this first push (guaranteed with so much else going on), it will steadily keep expanding its restrictions to include its primary brands and all unlocked phones.

I know this because I’ve covered this company for a quarter century and this company’s anti-competitive ambitions are as predictable as the tides.

Ideally, Verizon wants to return to what it considers the golden era of cellular phones: circa 2007 or so when carriers restricted how you could use your phone and restricted what apps you could install (remember all the shitty VCast Verizon apps they wouldn’t let you uninstall? Or the way they’d [block phone GPS hardware from working on third-party apps][10]?). Back then, they would also tether you to one carrier via expensive long-term contracts with costly early termination fees.

If we stay on this path of zero U.S. corporate oversight, it’s all coming back, sooner or later. From there, should U.S. governance remain under corrupt authoritarian dominance, it’s only a matter of time before Verizon tries to dictate what content you can see in collaboration with the kakistocracy, thanks to the [Trump administration’s destruction of popular net neutrality protections][11].

This has always been Verizon’s ambition as a lumbering telecom giant that can’t innovate and hates competition and government oversight. Thanks to Trump’s assault on regulators, it’s increasingly difficult to hold companies like AT&T and Verizon accountable for literally anything (see the [5th Circuit’s decision to let AT&T off the hook][12] for lying to, and spying on, its users).

And the Trump administration’s ongoing quest to rubber stamp every merger that comes across its desk means more consolidation, and ultimately higher prices for U.S. wireless consumers who already pay some of the highest prices for mobile data in the developed world.

Verizon and other broadly despised telecoms have struck a generational blow against oversight and consumer protection across Trump’s two terms, and they intend to take full advantage of a presidency they helped purchase. All while the president informs his loyal rubes he’s a champion of affordability.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/trump-fcc-helps-verizon-make-it-harder-for-you-to-switch-wireless-carriers/
[2]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/verizon-starts-requiring-365-days-of-paid-service-before-it-will-unlock-phones/
[3]: https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/05/verizon-we-promise-to-honor-the-block-c-open-access-rules/
[4]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-121A1.pdf
[5]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/verizon-to-buy-tracfone-expanding-big-carriers-control-of-prepaid-industry/
[6]: https://www.tfwunlockpolicy.com/wps/portal/home/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/trump-fcc-helps-verizon-make-it-harder-for-you-to-switch-wireless-carriers/
[8]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-gigapower-plans-turn-privacy-203513501.html
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/5th-circuit-obediently-lets-att-off-the-hook-for-major-location-data-privacy-violations/
[10]: https://community.verizon.com/discussion/59470/verizon-blocks-gps-to-most-third-party-apps
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/07/u-s-media-once-again-fails-to-cover-the-corrupt-net-neutrality-ruling-with-any-clarity/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/5th-circuit-obediently-lets-att-off-the-hook-for-major-location-data-privacy-violations/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/22/thanks-to-trump-verizon-immediately-starts-making-it-harder-to-switch-mobile-carriers/

The Measles Outbreak In South Carolina Is Spiraling Out Of ...

2026-01-22T04:17:37Z

The Measles Outbreak In South Carolina Is Spiraling Out Of Control

America is broken and it seems like nobody is bothering to try to repair it. That’s a general statement, to be sure, so if you need some marking point to serve as a specific example of our national malfunction, the [return of measles][1] to our country can fit the bill. It’s not quite as flashy as the secret police [shooting citizens][2], of course. But I think that there is something about children with angry rashes across their necks sitting in hospital beds, or in body bags, that will have a way of clarifying the mind.

With a grifter like RFK Jr. at the helm of American health, having built a career based on anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories and health misinformation, our country became a fertile host once more to this horrific disease. Kennedy’s [inability][3] to properly communicate to the nation what needs to happen, which is another concentrated MMR vaccination effort, combined with his [eugenics-lite][4] belief system on matters of health, has all led to this. 2025 saw the [highest number][5] of Americans infected by measles in decades, 3 people died, we’re about to lose our [elimination status][6] for the disease, and an outbreak in [South Carolina][7] has us off to a [rip roaring start][8] to 2026.

While this is largely due to the unvaccinated population among us, allowing the disease to spread where it otherwise would not, we’ve seen enough breakthrough infections that even being one of the “responsible ones” won’t necessarily keep you safe any longer. And the South Carolina outbreak of measles is officially off the rails.

A week ago, [ArsTechnica had an alarming post][9] about how South Carolina saw well over a hundred new cases of measles and over 400 people quarantined *in a handful of days*.

> *Amid the outbreak, South Carolina health officials have been providing updates on cases every Tuesday and Friday. On Tuesday, state health officials reported [124 more cases][10] since last Friday, which had [99 new cases][11] since the previous Tuesday. On that day, January 6, officials noted a more modest increase of 26 cases, bringing the outbreak total at that point to [211 cases][12].*
>
> *With the 3-month-old outbreak now doubled in just a week, health officials are renewing calls for people to get vaccinated against the highly infectious virus—an effort that has met with little success since October. Still, the health department is activating its mobile health unit to offer free measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations, as well as flu vaccinations at two locations today and Thursday in the Spartanburg area, the epicenter of the outbreak.*

Those same officials had another dire warning: the outbreak had grown so big that they no longer had the ability to perform contact tracing. Where the disease would go next was anyone’s guess.

The outbreak is still growing to date. At least [88 more cases of measles][13] were recorded in South Carolina in less than a week since the Ars post. Schools remain the most problematic vector, but it’s no longer just elementary and secondary schools that are in trouble. Colleges are now part of the party.

> *There are at least 15 schools — including elementary, middle and high schools — which currently have students in quarantine.*
>
> *Health officials also warned of exposures at Clemson University and Anderson University, both located in northwestern South Carolina, which have a combined 88 students in quarantine.*

While these numbers from South Carolina are publicly stated, the [CDC site tallying measles infections][14] apparently can’t keep up. The last time the numbers were updated there was January 14th, but even those numbers appear to be incorrectly low. The site also announces that it is moving its reporting schedule from every Wednesday to Fridays, which is your classic “bad news dumping ground” day.

But that change won’t keep the news of how the South Carolina outbreak [has gone national from being reported][15].

> *Measles continue to spread in the Upstate but now, health leaders in Washington state say the outbreak here in South Carolina is connected to cases on the west coast. The Snohomish County Health Department confirmed three cases in children who were exposed to a contagious family visiting from South Carolina.*
>
> *Previously, the Snohomish County Health Department and Public Health – Seattle & King County were notified that three members of a South Carolina family, one adult and two children, were infectious while visiting King and Snohomish counties from Dec. 27, 2025 through Jan. 1, 2026. The family visited multiple locations in Everett, Marysville and Mukilteo while contagious before being diagnosed. They also traveled through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and visited a car rental facility near the airport.*

In any sane administration, a measles task force would be mobilized to build out a strategy to contain these outbreaks, to communicate actions plans to the public, and to execute on actions designed to keep the public healthy. Trump, RFK Jr., and the health agencies they’re in charge of *are barely talking about this*. They are ignoring the problem and that will ensure that it becomes much, much worse.

Impeachments are what’s necessary here, starting with Kennedy, who is clearly asleep at the wheel. A feckless Congress unwilling to do its job should have members tossed out on their ass. Staff at HHS and its child agencies should be in full revolt, sounding the alarm.

Measles is no fucking joke, folks. But our government currently is.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/measles/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/03/rfk-jr-cdc-vaccine-guidance-a-new-deputy-cdc-director-and-measles-in-south-carolina/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/08/rfk-jr-s-measles-policy-deaths-are-expected-and-its-the-victims-fault/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/30/2025-measles-cases-in-america-surpass-the-2000-mark/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/24/cdc-data-indicates-were-2-months-away-from-america-losing-its-measles-elimination-status/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/12/the-measles-outbreak-in-south-carolina-is-growing/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/new-year-but-the-same-measles-crises-rages-on/
[9]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/01/sc-measles-outbreak-has-gone-berserk-124-cases-since-friday-409-quarantined/
[10]: https://dph.sc.gov/news/tuesday-measles-update-dph-reports-124-new-measles-cases-upstate-new-public-exposures-and
[11]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/01/measles-continues-raging-in-south-carolina-99-new-cases-since-tuesday/
[12]: https://dph.sc.gov/news/tuesday-measles-update-dph-reports-26-new-measles-cases-upstate-bringing-outbreak-total-211
[13]: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/88-new-measles-cases-confirmed-south-carolina-bringing/story?id=129377559
[14]: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html
[15]: https://www.wistv.com/2026/01/19/south-carolina-measles-outbreak-spreads-west-coast/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/the-measles-outbreak-in-south-carolina-is-spiraling-out-of-control/

Congress Wants To Hand Your Parenting To Big Tech Lawmakers in ...

2026-01-21T23:40:04Z

Congress Wants To Hand Your Parenting To Big Tech

Lawmakers in Washington are once again focusing on kids, screens, and mental health. But according to Congress, Big Tech is somehow both the problem **and** the solution. The Senate Commerce Committee recently held a [hearing][1] on “examining the effect of technology on America’s youth.” Witnesses warned about “addictive” online content, mental health, and kids spending too much time buried in screen. At the center of the debate is a bill from Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) called the [Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA),][2] which they say will protect children and “empower parents.”

That’s a reasonable goal, especially at a time when many parents feel overwhelmed and nervous about how much time their kids spend on screens. But while the bill’s press release contains soothing language, KOSMA doesn’t actually give parents more control.

Instead of respecting how most parents guide their kids towards healthy and educational content, KOSMA hands the control panel to Big Tech. That’s right—this bill would take power away from parents, and hand it over to the companies that lawmakers say are the problem.

### **Kids Under 13 Are Already Banned From Social Media**

One of the main promises of KOSMA is simple and dramatic: it would ban kids under 13 from social media. Based on the language of bill sponsors, one might think that’s a big change, and that today’s rules let kids wander freely into social media sites. But that’s not the case.

Every major platform already draws the same line: kids under 13 cannot have an account. [Facebook][3], [Instagram][4], [TikTok][5], [X][6], [YouTube][7], [Snapchat][8], [Discord][9], [Spotify][10], and even blogging platforms like [WordPress][11] all say essentially the same thing—if you’re under 13, you’re not allowed. That age line has been there for many years, mostly because of how online services comply with a federal privacy law called [COPPA][12].

Of course, everyone knows many kids under 13 are on these sites anyways. The real question is how and why they get access.

### **Most Social Media Use By Younger Kids Is Family-Mediated **

If lawmakers picture under-13 social media use as a bunch of kids lying about their age and sneaking onto apps behind their parents’ backs, they’ve got it wrong. Serious studies that have looked at this all find the opposite: most under-13 use is out in the open, with parents’ knowledge, and often with their direct help.

A large national study published last year in [*Academic Pediatrics*][13] found that 63.8% of under-13s have a social media account, but only 5.4% of them said they were keeping one secret from their parents. That means roughly 90% of kids under 13 who are on social media aren’t hiding it at all. Their parents know. (For kids aged thirteen and over, the “secret account” number is almost as low, at 6.9%.)

Earlier research in the U.S. found the same pattern. In a [well-known study of Facebook use][14] by 10-to-14-year-olds, researchers found that about 70% of parents said they actually helped create their child’s account, and between 82% and 95% knew the account existed. Again, this wasn’t kids sneaking around. It was families making a decision together.

A [2022 study by the UK’s media regulator Ofcom][15] points in the same direction, finding that up to two-thirds of social media users below the age of thirteen had direct help from a parent or guardian getting onto the platform.

The typical under-13 social media user is not a sneaky kid. It’s a family making a decision together.

### **KOSMA Forces Platforms To Override Families **

This bill doesn’t just set an age rule. It creates a legal duty for platforms to police families.

Section 103(b) of the [bill][16] is blunt: if a platform knows a user is under 13, it “shall terminate any existing account or profile” belonging to that user. And “knows” doesn’t just mean someone admits their age. The bill defines knowledge to include what is “fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances”—in other words, what a reasonable person would conclude from how the account is being used. The reality of how services would comply with KOSMA is clear: rather than risk liability for how they should have known a user was under 13, they will require all users to prove their age to ensure that they block anyone under 13.

KOSMA contains no exceptions for parental consent, for family accounts, or for educational or supervised use. The vast majority of people policed by this bill won’t be kids sneaking around—it will be minors who are following their parents’ guidance, and the parents themselves.

Imagine a child using their parent’s YouTube account to watch science videos about how a volcano works. If they were to leave a comment saying, “Cool video—I’ll show this to my 6th grade teacher!” and YouTube becomes aware of the comment, the platform now has clear signals that a child is using that account. It doesn’t matter whether the parent gave permission. Under KOSMA, the company is legally required to act. To avoid violating KOSMA, it would likely lock, suspend, or terminate the account, or demand proof it belongs to an adult. That proof would likely mean asking for a scan of a government ID, biometric data, or some other form of intrusive verification, all to keep what is essentially a “family” account from being shut down.

Violations of KOSMA are enforced by the FTC and state attorneys general. That’s more than enough legal risk to make platforms err on the side of cutting people off.

Platforms have no way to remove “just the kid” from a shared account. Their tools are blunt: freeze it, verify it, or delete it. Which means that even when a parent has explicitly approved and supervised their child’s use, KOSMA forces Big Tech to override that family decision.

### **Your Family, Their Algorithms**

KOSMA doesn’t appoint a neutral referee. Under the law, companies like Google (YouTube), Meta (Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, Spotify, X, and Discord will become the ones who decide whose account survives, whose account gets locked, who has to upload ID, and whose family loses access altogether. They won’t be doing this because they want to—but because Congress is threatening them with legal liability if they don’t.

These companies don’t know your family or your rules. They only know what their algorithms infer. Under KOSMA, those inferences carry the force of law. Rather than parents or teachers, decisions about who can be online, and for what purpose, will be made by corporate compliance teams and automated detection systems.

### **What Families Lose **

This debate isn’t really about TikTok trends or doomscrolling. It’s about all the ordinary, boring, parent-guided uses of the modern internet. It’s about a kid watching “How volcanoes work” on regular YouTube, instead of the stripped-down YouTube Kids. It’s about using a shared Spotify account to listen to music a parent already approves. It’s about piano lessons from a teacher who makes her living from YouTube ads.

These aren’t loopholes. They’re how parenting works in the digital age. Parents increasingly filter, supervise, and, usually, decide together with their kids. KOSMA will lead to more locked accounts, and more parents submitting to face scans and ID checks. It will also lead to more power concentrated in the hands of the companies Congress claims to distrust.

### **What Can Be Done Instead**

KOSMA also includes separate restrictions on how platforms can use algorithms for users aged 13 to 17. Those raise their own serious questions about speech, privacy, and how online services work, and need debate and scrutiny as well. But they don’t change the core problem here: this bill hands control over children’s online lives to Big Tech.

If Congress really wants to help families, it should start with something much simpler and much more effective: [strong privacy protections for everyone][17]. Limits on data collection, restrictions on behavioral tracking, and rules that apply to adults as well as kids would do far more to reduce harmful incentives than deputizing companies to guess how old your child is and shut them out.

But if lawmakers aren’t ready to do that, they should at least drop KOSMA and start over. A law that treats ordinary parenting as a compliance problem is not protecting families—it’s undermining them.

Parents don’t need Big Tech to replace them. They need laws that respect how families actually work.

*Republished from the [EFF’s Deeplinks blog][18].*

[1]: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2026/1/chairman-cruz-announces-kids-screen-time-hearing_2
[2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/278
[3]: https://www.facebook.com/terms/
[4]: https://help.instagram.com/termsofuse
[5]: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2025/01/429296/many-children-use-tiktok-against-rules
[6]: https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/information-for-parents-and-minor-users
[7]: https://kids.youtube.com/t/terms
[8]: https://www.snap.com/terms
[9]: https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360050817374-Age-restriction
[10]: https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/plain/
[11]: https://wordpress.com/tos/
[12]: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa
[13]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285925000099
[14]: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/massachusetts-00243%C2%A0/00243-82161.pdf
[15]: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/a-third-of-children-have-false-social-media-age-of-18
[16]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/278/text#toc-id6c00eb1f556f47aabc8e4f75f2f3e2c8
[17]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/04/eff-congress-heres-what-strong-privacy-law-looks
[18]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/01/congress-wants-hand-your-parenting-big-tech

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/congress-wants-to-hand-your-parenting-to-big-tech/

Techdirt Podcast Episode 441: A Manifesto To Build A Better ...

2026-01-21T21:30:28Z

Techdirt Podcast Episode 441: A Manifesto To Build A Better Internet

[Support us on Patreon »][1]

Last month, we dedicated an [episode of the podcast][2] to discussing our [recently announced][3] project to push for a better internet, [The Resonant Computing Manifesto][4]. This week, we’ve got a cross-post episode that serves as a followup to that discussion. Mike recently joined [Charlie Warzel’s *Galaxy Brain* podcast][5] along with manifesto organizer [Alex Komoroske][6] and contributor [Zoe Weinberg][7] to discuss the idea of resonant computing, and you can [listen to the whole discussion here on this week’s episode][8].

You can also [download this episode directly][9] in MP3 format.

*Follow the Techdirt Podcast on [Soundcloud][10], subscribe via [Apple Podcasts][11] or [Spotify][12], or grab the [RSS feed][13]. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes [right here on Techdirt][14].*

[1]: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=4450624&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Ftechdirt
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/05/techdirt-podcast-episode-439-the-resonant-computing-manifesto/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/05/bring-back-innovation-that-empowers-rather-than-extracts-the-resonant-computing-manifesto/
[4]: https://resonantcomputing.org/
[5]: https://podcastaddict.com/galaxy-brain/episode/214529357
[6]: https://www.komoroske.com/
[7]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:pn5opu7om4evxwk37ie3guda
[8]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt/a-manifesto-to-build-a-better-internet
[9]: https://feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/2251652468-techdirt-a-manifesto-to-build-a-better-internet.mp3
[10]: https://soundcloud.com/techdirt
[11]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/techdirt/id940871872?mt=2
[12]: https://open.spotify.com/show/6qXCFL3MjSpiD8O0pZgcsi
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/podcast.xml
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/podcast/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/techdirt-podcast-episode-441-a-manifesto-to-build-a-better-internet/

Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t ...

2026-01-21T20:23:14Z

Two Major Studies, 125,000 Kids: The Social Media Panic Doesn’t Hold Up

For [years][1] now, [we’ve][2] been [repeatedly][3] [pointing][4] out [that][5] the “social media is destroying kids” narrative, popularized by Jonathan Haidt and others, has been built on a foundation of [shaky][6], often [contradictory][7] research. We’ve noted that the actual data is far more nuanced than the moral panic suggests, and that policy responses built on [that panic][8] might end up [causing more harm][9] than they prevent.

Well, here come two massive new studies—one from Australia, one from the UK—that land like a sledgehammer on Haidt’s narrative—and, perhaps more importantly, on Australia’s much-celebrated social media ban for kids under 16.

The Australian study, [published in JAMA Pediatrics][10], followed over 100,000 Australian adolescents across three years and found something that should give every policymaker pause: the relationship between social media use and well-being isn’t linear. It’s U-shaped. Perhaps most surprisingly, **kids who use social media moderately have the *best* outcomes**. Kids who use it excessively have worse outcomes. But here’s the kicker: **kids who don’t use it at all *also* have worse outcomes**.

This isn’t to say that all kids should use social media. Unlike some others, we’re not saying any of this shows that social media *causes* good or bad health outcomes. We’re pointing out that the claims of inherent harm seem not just overblown, but wrong.

From the study’s key findings:

> *A U-shaped association emerged where **moderate social media use was associated with the best well-being outcomes**, while both no use and highest use were associated with poorer well-being. For girls, moderate use became most favorable from middle adolescence onward, while for boys, **no use became increasingly problematic from midadolescence**, exceeding risks of high use by late adolescence.*

This seems like pretty strong evidence that Haidt’s claims of inherent harm are not well-founded, and the policy proposals to ban kids entirely from social media are a bad idea. For older teenage boys, having *no* social media was associated with *worse* outcomes than having too much of it. The study found that nonusers in grades 10-12 had significantly higher odds of low well-being compared to moderate users—with boys showing an odds ratio of 3.00 and girls at 1.79.

Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Manchester just published a separate study [in the Journal of Public Health][11] that followed 25,000 11- to 14-year-olds over three school years. Their conclusion? **Screen time spent on social media or gaming does not cause mental health problems in teenagers**. At all.

From [the Guardian’s coverage][12] of the UK study:

> *The study found no evidence for boys or girls that heavier social media use or more frequent gaming increased teenagers’ symptoms of anxiety or depression over the following year. Increases in girls’ and boys’ social media use from year 8 to year 9 and from year 9 to year 10 had zero detrimental impact on their mental health the following year.*

Zero. Not “small.” Not “modest.” Zero.

The UK researchers also examined whether *how* kids use social media matters—active chatting versus passive scrolling. The answer? Neither appeared to drive mental health difficulties. As lead author Dr. Qiqi Cheng put it:

> *We know families are worried, but our results do not support the idea that simply spending time on social media or gaming leads to mental health problems – the story is far more complex than that.*

The Australian researchers, to their credit, are appropriately cautious about causation:

> *While heavy use was associated with poorer well-being and abstinence sometimes coincided with less favorable outcomes, these findings are observational and should be interpreted cautiously.*

But while researchers urge caution, politicians have been happy to sprint ahead.

Australia leapt into the fray, and the ban has so far [proven to be a complete mess][13].

The entire premise of Australia’s ban—and similar proposals floating around in various US states and across Europe—is that social media is inherently harmful to young people, and that removing access is protective. But both studies suggest the reality is far more complicated. The Australian researchers explicitly call this out:

> *Social media’s association with adolescent well-being is complex and nonlinear, suggesting that* ***both*** *abstinence and excessive use can be problematic depending on developmental stage and sex.*

In other words: Australia’s ban may be taking kids who would have been moderate users with good outcomes and forcing them into the “no use” category that the study associates with *worse* well-being. It’s potentially the worst of all possible policy outcomes.

The UK study’s co-author, Prof. Neil Humphrey, reinforced this point:

> *Our findings tell us that young people’s choices around social media and gaming may be shaped by how they’re feeling but not necessarily the other way around. Rather than blaming technology itself, we need to pay attention to what young people are doing online, who they’re connecting with and how supported they feel in their daily lives.*

That’s a crucial distinction that the moral panic crowd keeps glossing over: correlation running in the opposite direction than assumed. Kids who are already struggling, and who aren’t getting the support they need, might use social media differently—not the other way around.

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. We’ve covered study after study showing that the relationship between social media and teen mental health is complicated, context-dependent, and nowhere near as clear-cut as Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation” would have you believe. As we’ve noted before, correlation is not causation, and the timing of teen mental health declines doesn’t actually line up neatly with smartphone adoption the way the narrative claims.

But nuance doesn’t make for good headlines or popular books. “Social Media Is Complicated And The Effects Depend On How You Use It, Your Age, Your Sex, And A Bunch Of Other Factors” doesn’t quite have the same ring as “Smartphones Destroyed A Generation.”

No one’s beating down my door to write a book detailing the trade-offs and nuances. Instead, Haidt’s book remains on the NY Times’ best seller list almost two years after being published.

The Australian study also highlights something else that should be obvious but apparently needs repeating: social media serves genuine social functions for teenagers. Being completely cut off from the platforms where your peers are socializing, sharing, and connecting has costs. The researchers note:

> *Heavy use has been associated with distress, while abstinence may cause missed connections.*

This is what we’ve been saying forever. These platforms aren’t just “distraction machines” or “attention hijackers” or whatever scary framing is popular this week. They’re where social life happens for a lot of young people. Cutting kids off entirely doesn’t return them to some idyllic pre-digital social existence. It cuts them off from their actual social world.

Both sets of researchers make the same point: online experiences aren’t inherently harmless—hurtful messages, online pressures, and extreme content can have real effects. But blunt instruments like time-based restrictions or outright bans completely miss the target, and are unlikely to help those who need it most. The Australian authors recommend “promotion of balanced and purposeful digital engagement as part of a broader strategy.”

That’s… actually sensible policy advice? Based on actual evidence?

Imagine that.

Meanwhile, Australia is out there celebrating [how many accounts it’s deleted][14], tech companies are scrambling to comply with fines of up to $49.5 million, the [UK is actively considering][15] following Australia’s lead, and policymakers around the world are [looking at Australia][16] as a model to follow.

Maybe—just maybe—they should look at the actual research coming out of Australia and the UK instead.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/28/contrary-to-popular-opinion-most-teens-get-real-value-out-of-social-media/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/12/apa-report-says-that-media-politicians-are-simply-wrong-about-kids-social-media-media-then-lies-about-report/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/22/can-we-stop-the-moral-panic-yet-new-study-childrens-brains-are-not-harmed-by-screen-time/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/30/a-deeper-look-at-the-surgeon-generals-report-on-kids-social-media-its-not-what-you-heard/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/10/massive-new-study-covering-72-countries-nearly-1-million-people-finds-zero-evidence-that-facebook-leads-to-psychological-harm/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/26/new-study-in-the-journal-of-pediatrics-says-maybe-its-not-social-media-but-helicopter-parenting-thats-making-kids-depressed/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/31/everyone-hates-trust-safety-everyone-needs-trust-safety-this-is-a-problem/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/22/why-jonathan-haidts-protect-the-kids-proposals-could-make-things-worse/
[10]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2843720
[11]: https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pubmed/fdaf150/8371934?login=false
[12]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/14/social-media-time-does-not-increase-teenagers-mental-health-problems-study
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/10/australias-social-media-ban-goes-into-effect-as-pretty-much-everyone-realizes-its-a-total-mess/
[14]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/social-media-platforms-removed-4-7-million-accounts-after-australia-banned-them-for-children-younger-than-16
[15]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dk0g5yk06o
[16]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/31/france-plans-social-media-ban-for-under-15s-from-september-2026

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000-kids-the-social-media-panic-doesnt-hold-up/

Evil ICE Fucks Ate Lunch At A Mexican Restaurant Just So They ...

2026-01-21T18:56:39Z

Evil ICE Fucks Ate Lunch At A Mexican Restaurant Just So They Could Come Back And Detain The People Who Fed Them

Do you still want to cling to this pretense, Trump supporters? Do you still want to pretend ICE efforts are targeting “[the worst of the worst][1]?” Are you just going to sit there and mumble some incomprehensible stuff about “respecting the laws?”

Go ahead. Do it, you cowards. This is *exactly* what you voted for, even if it now [makes you a bit queasy][2]. Just sit there and soak in it. You *are* who you support, even if you never thought it would go this far.

“Worst of the worst,” Trump’s parrot repeat on blast. “This one time we caught a guy who did actual crimes,” say spokespeople defending whatever the [latest hideous violation][3] of the social contract (if not actual constitutional rights) a federal agent has performed. “Targeted investigation/stop” say the enablers, even when it’s just officers turning white nationalism into [Official Government Policy][4]. “Brown people need to be gone” is the end game. Full stop.

Here’s where we’re at in Minnesota, where ICE officers are being shamed into retreat on the regular, punctuated by the [occasional revenge killing][5] of mouthy US citizens.

I don’t want you MAGA freaks to [tell me you’re OK with this][6]. I want you to tell me *why.*

> *Federal agents detained three workers from a family-owned Mexican restaurant in Willmar, Minn., on Jan. 15, hours after four agents ate lunch there.*

Does that seem innocuous? Does this seem like some plausible deniability is in play here? Well, disabuse yourself of those notions. This is how it went down.

> *The arrest happened around 8:30 p.m. near a Lutheran church and Willmar Middle School as agents followed the workers after they closed up for the night. A handful of bystanders blew whistles and shouted at agents as they detained the people. “Would your mama be proud of you right now?” one of the bystanders asked.*

Nice. Is this what you want from a presidential administration? Or would you rather complain ICE officers [have been treated unfairly][7] if people refuse to feed or house them, knowing full well that doing either of these things will turn their employees into targets.

To be sure, the meal wasn’t a meal. It was [half-stakeout, half-intimidation][8].

> *An eyewitness who declined to give a name for fear of retribution, told the Minnesota Star Tribune that four ICE agents sat in a booth for a meal at El Tapatio restaurant a little before 3 p.m. Staff at the restaurant were frightened, said the eyewitness, who shared pictures from the restaurant as well as video of the arrest.*

I’m not saying ICE officers shouldn’t be able to eat at ethnic restaurants. I am, however, saying that they definitely *shouldn’t* because everyone is going to think the officers are there for *anything* but the food. And I do believe any minority business owner should be able to refuse service to ICE officers who wander in under the pretense of buying a meal. The end result is going to be the same whether or not you decide to engage with this pretense. You’re getting raided either way. May as well deny them the meal.

Especially if ICE and the DHS are just going to lie about what happened. Here’s what [eyewitnesses, business owners, and local journalists][9] said about this display of ICE shittiness:

> *El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant closed after WCCO confirmed agents visited the spot for lunch and later returned, detaining its owners and a dishwasher nearby after they had closed early due to the federal law enforcement’s previous appearance.*

And here’s the DHS statement, which pretends ICE officers didn’t eat a meal at a restaurant and then return a few hours later to detain employees when they left the building:

> *“On January 14, ICE officers conducted surveillance of a target, an illegal alien from Mexico. Officers observed that the target’s vehicle was outside of a local business and positively identified him as the target while inside the business. Following the positive identification of the target, officers then conducted a vehicle stop later in the day and apprehended the target and two additional illegal aliens who were in the car, including one who had a final order of removal from an immigration judge.”*

Nope. I don’t care what the ICE apologists will say about this. These narratives have places where they overlap but it’s impossible to believe this went down exactly like the government said it did. These officers picked out an ethnic restaurant, were served by an intimidated staff, and then hung around to catch any stragglers leaving the business that previously had graciously served them, despite the threat they posed.

Abolish ICE. It’s no longer just a catchy phrase to shout during protests. It’s an imperative. If we don’t stop it now, it will only become even worse and even more difficult to remove. Treat ICE like the tumor it is. Pretending its MRSA gives it more power than it should ever be allowed to have.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/31/ice-is-spending-more-time-targeting-the-least-dangerous-people-in-america/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/31/ices-hiring-surge-is-attracting-a-bunch-of-people-who-are-too-unfit-or-too-criminal-to-work-at-ice/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/following-murder-of-renee-good-by-ice-officers-ice-blocks-congressional-reps-from-its-detention-facility/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/29/donald-trump-declares-war-on-portland-because-of-a-few-anti-ice-protests/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/
[6]: https://www.startribune.com/ice-agents-eat-at-small-town-mexican-restaurant-then-detain-workers/601565580
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/07/dear-hilton-lose-my-number/
[8]: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/willmar-ice-federal-agents-restaurant-workers-detained/
[9]: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/willmar-ice-federal-agents-restaurant-workers-detained/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/evil-ice-fucks-ate-lunch-at-a-mexican-restaurant-just-so-they-could-come-back-and-detain-the-people-who-fed-them/

Daily Deal: PiCar-X Smart Video Robot Car Kit for Raspberry Pi 4 ...

2026-01-21T18:50:28Z

Daily Deal: PiCar-X Smart Video Robot Car Kit for Raspberry Pi 4

Dive into the world of robotics, programming, and electronics with the [PiCar-X][1], an engaging and versatile smart car designed for learners from elementary school to advanced hobbyists. Combining powerful features, exceptional quality, and a cool design, this robot car kit delivers an engaging learning experience in robotics, AI, and programming. Beyond being an educational tool, its powerful Robot Hat provides abundant resources for you to design and bring to life your projects. Plus, it comes enriched with 15 comprehensive video tutorials, guiding you through each step of discovery and innovation. Embark on a journey of discovery and creativity with Picar-X, where young learners become budding innovators! Without the Raspberry Pi board, it’s on sale for $80. With a RPi Zero 2W + 32GB, it’s on sale for $110. With a RPi 4 2GB + 32GB, it’s on sale for $141.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/picar-x-smart-video-robot-car-kit-for-raspberry-pi-4-board-not-included?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/daily-deal-picar-x-smart-video-robot-car-kit-for-raspberry-pi-4-3/

Rand Paul Only Wants Google To Be The Arbiter Of Truth When The ...

2026-01-21T17:30:09Z

Rand Paul Only Wants Google To Be The Arbiter Of Truth When The Videos Are About Him

Just a year and a half ago, Senator Rand Paul sponsored a bill that would [make it illegal for federal government employees][1] to ask internet companies to remove any speech. Now, in [a NY Post op-ed][2], Paul proudly announces that he did exactly that—formally contacting Google executives to demand they remove a video he didn’t like.

The video apparently (falsely) claims Paul took money from Nicolas Maduro, the former Venezuelan President the US recently kidnapped. And Paul is furious that YouTube wouldn’t take it down for him.

> *But the straw that broke the camel’s back came this week when I notified Google executives that they were hosting a video of a woman posing as a newscaster posing in a fake news studio explaining that “Rand Paul is taking money from the Maduro regime.”*
>
> *I’ve formally notified Google that this video is unsupported by facts, defames me, harasses me and now endangers my life.*
>
> *Google responded that they don’t investigate the truth of accusations . . . and refused to take down the video.*

Let’s pause here. Senator Paul—a sitting U.S. Senator—”formally notified” Google executives that they needed to remove content. Under ***his own*** proposed legislation, that would be illegal. His bill was explicitly designed to prevent government officials from pressuring platforms about speech. And yet here he is, doing exactly that.

This is also notably closer to actual government jawboning than most of what the Biden administration was accused of in the [*Murthy v. Missouri*][3] case—where the Supreme Court found no First Amendment violation because platforms felt free to say no. Paul, a Senator with legislative power over these companies, is “formally notifying” them of what he wants removed, and is now saying that Google’s refusal to do so means they should lose Section 230. Remember, the “smoking gun” in the Murthy case was supposedly Biden officials (and Biden himself) threatening to remove Section 230 if the tech platforms didn’t remove content they didn’t like.

Rand Paul was furious about that and his bill was supposedly in direct response to the Murthy ruling, in which he wanted to make it clear that (1) no government official should ever demand content be taken down and (2) threatening to pass legislation to punish companies for their refusal to moderate content would also violate the law.

And here he’s doing both.

But it gets worse. Buried in the third-to-last paragraph of Paul’s op-ed is this remarkable admission:

> *Though Google refused to remove the defamatory content, the individual who posted the video finally took down the video under threat of legal penalty.*

Wait. So the system *worked exactly as designed*? Paul threatened legal action against the person who actually created the content, and they took it down? That’s… that’s the whole point of Section 230. Liability attaches to the speaker, not the host. The creator is responsible. And when threatened with actual legal consequences, they removed the video.

So what, exactly, is Paul complaining about?!? He got the outcome he wanted through the mechanism that Section 230 preserved for him: the ability to bring legal action against the speaker. But instead of acknowledging that the law worked, he’s using this as his justification for destroying it.

Paul is a public figure. He has access to pretty much all the media he wants. If he wanted to use the famous “marketplace of ideas” he so frequently invokes to debunk a nonsense lie about him and Maduro, he was free to do that. If the video was actually defamatory, he could sue the creator—which he apparently threatened to do, and it worked! Instead, he wants to tear down the entire legal framework because YouTube wouldn’t do his bidding, even though the video was already taken down.

**The Arbiter of Truth Hypocrisy**

Here’s where Paul’s position becomes truly incoherent.

> *I asked one of Google’s executives what happens to the small town mayor whose enemies maliciously and without evidence, post that he is a pedophile on YouTube?. Would that be OK?*
>
> *The executive responded that YouTube does not monitor their content for truth. But how would that small town mayor ever get his or her reputation back?*

Just a few years ago, Rand Paul was apoplectic that YouTube tried to determine whether content—specifically about COVID-19—was true or not. He thought it was terrible that YouTube would dare to be the arbiter of truth, and he [whined about it at length][4].

Now he’s demanding they be the arbiter of truth and remove one video because *he* says it’s false.

Paul even acknowledges this contradiction in his own op-ed, apparently without realizing it:

> *Interestingly, Google says it doesn’t assess the truth of the content it hosts, but throughout the pandemic they removed content that they perceived as untrue, such as skepticism toward vaccines, allegations that the pandemic originated in a Wuhan lab, and my assertion that cloth masks don’t prevent transmission.*

Yes. And you screamed bloody murder about it. You insisted they should *never* do that. You built your entire position around the idea that platforms shouldn’t be deciding what’s true. And, with the re-election of Donald Trump, the big tech platforms all bent the knee and said they’d stop being arbiters of truth (even as it was legal for them to do so).

And so they stopped. And now you’re furious that they won’t make an exception for you.

Doesn’t that seem just a bit fucking hypocritical and entitled of you?

**The “It’s Their Property” Problem**

Paul’s real complaint—buried under all the high-minded rhetoric about defamation—is that Google makes its own decisions:

> *So, Google and YouTube not only choose to moderate speech they don’t like, but they also will remove speeches from the Senate floor despite such speeches being specifically protected by the Constitution.*
>
> *Google’s defense of speech appears to be limited to defense of speech they agree with.*

Yeah, dude. That’s how private property works. They get to decide what they host and what they don’t. That’s how it works. It’s also protected by *their* First Amendment rights. Compelled hosting or not hosting of speech you agree or disagree with is not a remedy available to you, Senator.

Paul continues:

> *Part of the liability protection granted internet platforms, section 230(c)(2), specifically allows companies the take down “harassing” content. This gives the companies wide leeway to take down defamatory content. Thus far, the companies have chosen to spend considerable time and money to take down content they politically disagree with yet leave content that is quite obviously defamatory. So Google does not have a blanket policy of refraining to evaluate truth. Google chooses to evaluate what it believes to be true when it is convenient and consistent with its own particular biases.*

He says this as if it’s controversial. It’s not. It’s exactly how editorial discretion works. The company gets to make their own editorial decisions. You don’t have to like those decisions. But demanding they make different ones, and threatening to strip their legal protections if they don’t, is a government official using state power to coerce speech decisions.

You know, the thing Paul claimed to be against.

> *I think Google is, or should be, liable for hosting this defamatory video that accuses me of treason, at least from the point in time when Google was made aware of the defamation and danger.*

Again: *you already threatened the creator, and they took it down*. The remedy worked. You used it successfully.

And if Paul’s standard is “Google becomes liable once made aware,” then anyone who wants content removed will just *claim* it’s defamatory and dangerous. How is this different from the COVID videos Paul was so mad they removed? People told Google those were false and dangerous, Google removed them, and Paul was furious that they acted after being “made aware” of allegedly false and dangerous content.

Now Google is doing exactly what Paul demanded—not removing content based on mere claims of falsity or danger—and he’s *still* mad at them.

**The Section 230 Threat**

So what’s Paul’s solution? Threaten to remove Section 230:

> *It is particularly galling that, even when informed of the death threats stemming from the unsubstantiated and defamatory allegations, Google refused to evaluate the truth of what it was hosting despite its widespread practice of evaluating and removing other content for perceived lack of truthfulness.*

Remember when MAGA world insisted that Biden administration officials threatening platforms’ Section 230 protections was unconstitutional coercion? Remember how that was supposedly the worst violation of the First Amendment imaginable?

Rand Paul is now doing the same thing. A sitting Senator, using his platform and his legislative power, threatening to strip legal protections from a company because they won’t remove content he personally dislikes.

Paul literally told these platforms it wasn’t their job to determine truth or falsity. He literally sponsored a bill to prevent government officials from pressuring platforms about content. And now he’s doing exactly what he said was wrong—and threatening consequences if they don’t comply.

You didn’t “change your mind” on Section 230. You just revealed that you never had a principled position in the first place.

Paul supported Section 230 when he thought it meant platforms would leave up content he liked. He sponsored anti-jawboning legislation when he thought it would stop people he disagreed with from pressuring platforms. But the moment the system produced an outcome he didn’t like—even though it *worked exactly as designed* and the video came down anyway—he’s ready to burn the whole thing down.

What is it with Senators and their thin skins? A few months ago we wrote about Senator Amy Klobuchar pressing for an [obviously unconstitutional law against deepfakes][5] after someone made an obviously fake satirical video about her. Now Paul joins the club: Senators who want to remake internet law because someone was mean to them online.

The video’s already down, Senator. You won. Maybe take the win instead of trying to burn down the open internet because Google wouldn’t do you a personal favor (the same favor you wanted to make illegal).

[1]: https://www.paul.senate.gov/dr-rand-paul-rep-hageman-and-rep-bishop-fight-to-protect-americans-first-amendment-rights-again/
[2]: https://nypost.com/2026/01/19/opinion/rand-paul-ive-changed-my-mind-google-and-youtube-cant-be-trusted-to-do-the-right-thing-and-must-be-reined-in/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/murthy-v-missouri/
[4]: https://fee.org/articles/interview-rand-paul-slams-big-tech-s-crackdown-on-covid-misinformation-and-offers-his-solution/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/21/amy-klobuchar-wants-to-break-the-internet-because-someone-made-a-stupid-satirical-video-about-her/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/rand-paul-only-wants-google-to-be-the-arbiter-of-truth-when-the-videos-are-about-him/

Trump Continues To Make It Clear He Has CBS On A Leash By now, ...

2026-01-21T13:29:52Z

Trump Continues To Make It Clear He Has CBS On A Leash

By now, it’s pretty clear that right wing billionaire and Trump ally Larry Ellison bought CBS to convert what was left of the news division into [lazy agitprop that blows smoke up the ass of wealth and power][1]. Leading the charge is CBS News boss Bari Weiss, an unqualified contrarian Substack troll hired to do things like [normalize right wing grifters][2], and [bury stories critical of the administration’s concentration camps][3].

And even though CBS executives paid Trump a bribe to get their merger approved, and keep demonstrating they’re a loyal lapdog (like airing [this extremely dubious story][4] claiming that the ICE murderer of Renee Good suffered internal bleeding from being lightly bumped, which [many CBS News employees doubted][5]), the Trump administration feels compelled to remind CBS that they’re little more than an administration lap dog now.

During a recent interview, Trump (correctly) told CBS News anchor Tony Dokoupil that he [wouldn’t have a job without Trump’s intervention][6]. Dokoupil , who was clearly hired by Bari Weiss because of this [obnoxious late 2024 interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates][7] (where he seemingly defends Israel’s industrialized mass murder of children), has had a disastrous start as CBS Evening News anchor.

The program has been rife with technical errors and [continues to see its ratings drop][8]. During the Trump interview, administration press secretary Karoline Leavitt was also caught on a hot mic reminding CBS that they [have to air Trump’s ramblings in full or risk being sued][9] (again):

> *“He said, ‘Make sure you guys don’t cut the tape. Make sure the interview is out in full,’” Leavitt told new “CBS Evening News” anchor Tony Dokoupil, relaying a message from the president ahead of the interview earlier this week. “He said, ‘If it’s not out in full, we’ll sue your ass off.’”*
>
> *Dokoupil responded with levity: “He always says that!”*

Both CBS and the Trump administration have pretended there’s [nothing weird or problematic about this][10] exchange. You’ll recall that CBS gave the Trump administration [a $16 million bribe][11] to settle lazy and false allegations the network unfairly edited an interview with Kamala Harris. At the same time, right wing agitprop media routinely faces no criticism for [misleadingly editing stories every day][12].

The myth that U.S. journalism suffers from a systemic “liberal bias” is one of the greatest lies ever foisted upon U.S. public discourse. In reality, most U.S. journalism is [comprised of center-right corporatists primarily reflecting the financial interests of affluent, white male Conservative ownership][13]. That CBS folded in this way wouldn’t be a surprise to [prominent and long-deceased media studies academics][14].

CBS’ reward for its initial feckless appeasement to the Trump administration was utterly bogus lawsuits, baseless FCC “[investigations][15],” and getting relentlessly attacked in the right wing media as some sort of leftist rag (when again, CBS, if anything, had spent much of the last decade [pandering to the U.S. right][16]).

Weiss then threw what was left of CBS’ reputation in the trash by turning it into a Trump apologist rag that grovels before Trump at every possibility, yet you’ll notice that’s **still** somehow not deferential enough for our mad, idiot king.

There’s a lesson here for anybody who strikes a partnership with this unpopular, extremist administration: there’s simply no bottom once you sell out your principles. And someday, when Trump is dead and gone, the stain will still be there and many people will remember how unprincipled and pathetic you were .

CBS will find it can never be extremist, conspiratorial, racist, or deferential enough to truly appeal to the MAGA base, who already have ample choices for their propaganda. And the rest of the public will simply avoid the network on principle, well aware it threw all ethics in the toilet when it really mattered. And when the “new CBS” collapses in an unwatched heap, its fate will have been truly earned.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/24/larry-ellison-is-very-excited-to-destroy-whats-left-of-cnn-sweetens-the-pot-for-hostile-warner-takeover/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/16/nobody-including-advertisers-cared-about-bari-weiss-new-cbs-town-hall/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/22/bari-weiss-shows-her-true-colors-kills-a-60-minutes-story-critical-of-the-presidents-concentration-camps/
[4]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/15/cbs-news-ice-officer-injuries
[5]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/15/cbs-news-ice-officer-injuries
[6]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/trump-cbs-interview-tony-dokoupil
[7]: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/business/media/coates-dokoupil-cbs-mornings.html
[8]: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tony-dokoupils-debut-cbs-news-020046966.html
[9]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/01/17/trump-cbs-dokoupil-interview/
[10]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/cbs-news-defends-editorial-call-after-karoline-leavitt-threat-leaked/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/03/institutional-failure-cbs-wimps-out-pays-trump-16-million-bribe-to-settle-baseless-lawsuit/
[12]: https://newrepublic.com/post/205382/fox-news-edit-minneapolis-frey-ice-takeover
[13]: https://www.damemagazine.com/2023/02/21/legacy-media-tilts-two-ways-center-right-and-far-right/
[14]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
[15]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/25/even-traditional-gop-allies-are-urging-the-fcc-to-end-its-baseless-attack-on-cbs-60-minutes/
[16]: https://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-news-exec-says-hiring-more-republicans-expect-midterm-win-2022-3

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/trump-continues-to-make-it-clear-he-has-cbs-on-a-leash/

“We’re Too Close To The Debris”: Airplanes Dodge The ...

2026-01-21T04:17:28Z

“We’re Too Close To The Debris”: Airplanes Dodge The Remains Of Exploding SpaceX Rockets

*This story was [originally published][1] by ProPublica.* *Republished under a [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0][2]* *license.* *There are additional (exceptional!) imagery in the original.*

When SpaceX CEO Elon Musk chose a remote Texas outpost on the Gulf Coast to develop his company’s ambitious Starship, he put the 400-foot rocket on a collision course with the commercial airline industry.

Each time SpaceX did a test run of Starship and its booster, dubbed Super Heavy, the megarocket’s flight path would take it soaring over busy Caribbean airspace before it reached the relative safety of the open Atlantic Ocean. The company planned as many as five such launches a year as it perfected the craft, a version of which is supposed to one day land on the moon.

The FAA, which also oversees commercial space launches, predicted the impact to the national airspace would be “minor or minimal,” akin to a weather event, the agency’s 2022 approval shows. No airport would need to close and no airplane would be denied access for “an extended period of time.”

But the reality has been far different. Last year, three of Starship’s five launches exploded at unexpected points on their flight paths, twice raining flaming debris over congested commercial airways and disrupting flights. And while no aircraft collided with rocket parts, pilots were forced to scramble for safety.

A ProPublica investigation, based on agency documents, interviews with pilots and passengers, air traffic control recordings and photos and videos of the events, found that by authorizing SpaceX to test its experimental rocket over busy airspace, the FAA accepted the inherent risk that the rocket might put airplane passengers in danger.

And once the rocket failed spectacularly and that risk became real, neither the FAA nor Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy sought to revoke or suspend Starship’s license to launch, a move that is permitted when “necessary to protect the public health and safety.” Instead, the FAA allowed SpaceX to test even more prototypes over the same airspace, adding stress to the already-taxed air traffic control system each time it launched.

The first two Starship explosions last year forced the FAA to make real-time calls on where to clear airspace and for how long. Such emergency closures came** **with little or no warning, ProPublica found, forcing pilots to suddenly upend their flight plans and change course in heavily trafficked airspace to get out of the way of falling debris. In one case, a plane with 283 people aboard ran low on fuel, prompting its pilot to declare an emergency and cross a designated debris zone to reach an airport.

The world’s largest pilots union told the FAA in October that such events call into question whether “a suitable process” is in place to respond to unexpected rocket mishaps.

“There is high potential for debris striking an aircraft resulting in devastating loss of the aircraft, flight crew, and passengers,” wrote Steve Jangelis, a pilot and aviation safety chair.

The FAA said in response to questions that it “limits the number of aircraft exposed to the hazards, making the likelihood of a catastrophic event extremely improbable.”

Yet for the public and the press, gauging that danger has been difficult. In fact, nearly a year after last January’s explosion, it remains unclear just how close Starship’s wreckage came to airplanes. SpaceX estimated where debris fell after each incident and reported that information to the federal government. But the company didn’t respond to ProPublica’s requests for that data, and the federal agencies that have seen it, including the FAA, haven’t released it. The agency told us that it was unaware of any other publicly available data on Starship debris.

In public remarks, Musk downplayed the risk posed by Starship. To caption a video of flaming debris in January, he wrote, “[Entertainment is guaranteed!][3]” and, after the March explosion, he posted, “[Rockets are hard][4].” The company has been more measured, saying it learns from mistakes, which “help us improve Starship’s reliability.”

For airplanes traveling at high speeds, there is little margin for error. Research shows as little as 300 grams of debris — or two-thirds of a pound — “could catastrophically destroy an aircraft,” said Aaron Boley, a professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied the danger space objects pose to airplanes. Photographs of Starship pieces that washed up on beaches show items much bigger than that, [including large, intact tanks][5].

“It doesn’t actually take that much material to cause a major problem to an aircraft,” Boley said.

In response to growing alarm over the rocket’s repeated failures, the FAA has expanded prelaunch airspace closures and offered pilots more warning of potential trouble spots. The agency said it also required SpaceX to conduct investigations into the incidents and to “implement numerous corrective actions to enhance public safety.” An FAA spokesperson referred ProPublica’s questions about what those corrective actions were to SpaceX, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Experts say the FAA’s shifting approach telegraphs a disquieting truth about air safety as private companies increasingly push to use the skies as their laboratories: Regulators are learning as they go.

During last year’s Starship launches, the FAA was under pressure to fulfill a dual mandate: to regulate and promote the commercial space industry while keeping the flying public safe, ProPublica found. In his October letter, Jangelis called the arrangement “a direct conflict of interest.”

In an interview, Kelvin Coleman, who was head of FAA’s commercial space office during the launches, said his office determined that the risk from the mishaps “was within the acceptable limits of our regulations.”

But, he said, “as more launches are starting to take place, I think we have to take a real hard look at the tools that we have in place and how do we better integrate space launch into the airspace.”

### “We Need to Protect the Airspace”

On Jan. 16, 2025, as SpaceX prepared to launch Starship 7 from Boca Chica, Texas, the government had to address the possibility the giant rocket would break up unexpectedly.

Using debris modeling and simulations, the U.S. Space Force, the branch of the military that deals with the nation’s space interests, helped the FAA draw the contours of theoretical “debris response areas” — no-fly zones that could be activated if Starship exploded.

With those plans in place, Starship Flight 7 lifted off at 5:37 p.m. EST. About seven minutes later, it achieved a notable feat: Its reusable booster rocket separated, flipped and returned to Earth, where giant mechanical arms caught it as SpaceX employees cheered.

But about 90 seconds later, as Starship’s upper stage continued to climb, SpaceX lost contact with it. The craft caught fire and exploded, far above Earth’s surface.

*A pilot on a flight from Miami to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, recorded video of space debris visible from the cockpit while flying at 37,000 feet. Provided to ProPublica*

Air traffic control’s communications came alive with surprised pilots who saw the accident, some of whom took photos and shot videos of the flaming streaks in the sky:

***Pilot:** I just got a major streak going for at least 60 miles, all these different colors. Just curious but — it looked like it was coming towards us, but obviously because of the distance …. Just letting you know.
**Controller: **Can you, can you give an estimate on how far away it is?*

Another controller warned a different pilot of debris in the area:

***Controller: **Due to a space vehicle mishap — a rocket launch that basically exploded between our airspace and Miami — I’m going to give you holding instructions because there was debris in the area, so I’m going to keep you away from it.
*

Two FAA safety inspectors were in Boca Chica to watch the launch at SpaceX’s mission control, said Coleman, who, for Flight 7, was on his laptop in Washington, D.C., receiving updates.

As wreckage descended rapidly toward airplanes’ flight paths over the Caribbean, the FAA activated a no-fly zone based on the vehicle’s last known position and prelaunch calculations. Air traffic controllers warned pilots to avoid the area, which stretched hundreds of miles over a ribbon of ocean roughly from the Bahamas to just east of St. Martin, covering portions of populated islands, including all of Turks and Caicos. While the U.S. controls some airspace in the region, it relies on other countries to cooperate when it recommends a closure.

The FAA also cordoned off a triangular zone south of Key West.

When a pilot asked when planes would be able to proceed through the area, a controller replied:

***Controller:** The only information I got is that the rocket exploded so we need to protect the airspace, and Miami and Domingo stopped taking aircraft.
*

There were at least 11 planes in the closed airspace when Starship exploded, and flight tracking data shows they hurried to move out of the way, clearing the area within 15 minutes. Such maneuvers aren’t without risk. “If many aircraft need to suddenly change their routing plans,” Boley said, “then it could cause additional stress” on an already taxed air traffic control system, “which can lead to errors.”

That wasn’t the end of the disruption though. The FAA kept the debris response area, or DRA, active for another 71 minutes, leaving some flights in a holding pattern over the Caribbean. Several began running low on fuel and some informed air traffic controllers that they needed to land.

“We haven’t got enough fuel to wait,” said one pilot for Iberia airlines who was en route from Madrid with 283 people on board.

The controller warned him that if he proceeded across the closed airspace, it would be at his own risk:

***Controller:** If you’re going to pass through the DRA, you guys’re going to need to declare an emergency. That’s what my supervisor — if you’re going to land at San Juan, you need to declare an emergency for fuel reasons, that’s what my supervisor just told me.
**Pilot:** In that case, we declare emergency. Mayday mayday mayday.*

The plane landed safely in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Iberia did not respond to requests for comment, but in statements to ProPublica, other airlines downplayed the launch fallout. Delta, for example, said the incident “had minimal impact to our operation and no aircraft damage.” The company’s “safety management system and our safety culture help us address potential issues to reinforce that air transportation remains the safest form of travel in the world,” a spokesperson said.

After the incident, some pilots registered concerns with the FAA, which was also considering a request from SpaceX to increase the number of annual Starship launches from five to 25.

“Last night’s Space X rocket explosion, which caused the diversion of several flights operating over the Gulf of Mexico, was pretty eye opening and scary,” wrote Steve Kriese in comments to the FAA, saying he was a captain for a major airline and often flew over the Gulf. “I do not support the increase of rocket launches by Space X, until a thorough review can be conducted on the disaster that occurred last night, and safety measures can be put in place that keeps the flying public safe.”

Kriese could not be reached for comment.

The Air Line Pilots Association urged the FAA to suspend Starship testing until the root cause of the failure could be investigated and corrected. A letter from the group, which represents more than 80,000 pilots flying for 43 airlines, said flight crews traveling in the Caribbean didn’t know where planes might be at risk from rocket debris until after the explosion.

“By that time, it’s much too late for crews who are flying in the vicinity of the rocket operation, to be able to make a decision for the safe outcome of the flight,” wrote Jangelis, the pilot and aviation safety chair for the group. The explosion, he said, “raises additional concerns about whether the FAA is providing adequate separation of space operations from airline flights.”

In response, the FAA said it would “review existing processes and determine whether additional measures can be taken to improve situational awareness for flight crews prior to launch.”

According to FAA documents, the explosion propelled Starship fragments across an area nearly the size of New Jersey. Debris landed on beaches and roadways in Turks and Caicos. It also damaged a car. No one was injured.

Three months later, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which was evaluating potential impacts to marine life, sent the FAA a report with a map of where debris from an explosion could fall during future Starship failures. The estimate, which incorporated SpaceX’s own data from the Starship 7 incident, depicted an area more than three times the size of the airspace closed by the FAA.

In a statement, an FAA spokesperson said NOAA’s map was “intended to cover multiple potential operations,” while the FAA’s safety analysis is for a “single actual launch.” A NOAA spokesperson said that the map reflects “the *general* area where mishaps could occur” and is not directly comparable with the FAA’s no-fly zones.

Nevertheless Moriba Jah, a professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Texas, said the illustration suggested the no-fly zones the FAA activated may not fully capture how far and wide debris spreads after a rocket breakup. The current predictive science, he said, “carries significant uncertainty.”

At an industry conference a few weeks after the January explosion, Shana Diez, a SpaceX executive, acknowledged the FAA’s challenges in overseeing commercial launches.

“The biggest thing that we really would like to work with them on in the future is improving their real time awareness of where the launch vehicles are and where the launch vehicles’ debris could end up,” she said.

### “We’re Too Close to the Debris”

On Feb. 26 of last year, with the investigation into Starship Flight 7 still open, the FAA [cleared Flight 8 to proceed][6], saying it “determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental and other licensing requirements.”

The action was allowed under [a practice that began][7] during the first Trump administration, known as “expedited return-to-flight,” that permitted commercial space companies to launch again even before the investigation into a prior problematic flight was complete, as long as safety systems were working properly.

Coleman, who took a voluntary separation offer last year, said that before granting approval, the FAA confirmed that “safety critical systems,” such as the rocket’s ability to self-destruct if it went off course, worked as designed during Flight 7.

By March 6, SpaceX was ready to launch again. This time the FAA gave pilots a heads-up an hour and 40 minutes before liftoff.

“In the event of a debris-generating space launch vehicle mishap, there is the potential for debris falling within an area,” the advisory said, again listing coordinates for two zones in the Gulf and Caribbean.

The FAA said a prelaunch safety analysis, which includes planning for potential debris, “incorporates lessons learned from previous flights.” The zone described in the agency’s advisory for the Caribbean was wider and longer than the previous one, while the area over the Gulf was significantly expanded.

Flight 8 launched at 6:30 p.m. EST and its booster returned to the launchpad as planned. But a little more than eight minutes into the flight, some of Starship’s engines cut out. The craft went into a spin and about 90 seconds later SpaceX lost touch with it and it exploded.

The FAA activated the no-fly zones less than two minutes later, using the same coordinates it had released prelaunch.

Even with the advance warning, data shows at least five planes were in the debris zones at the time of the explosion, and they all cleared the airspace in a matter of minutes.

A pilot on one of those planes, Frontier Flight 081, told passengers they could see the rocket explosion out the right-side windows. Dane Siler and Mariah Davenport, who were heading home to the Midwest after vacationing in the Dominican Republic, lifted the window shade and saw debris blazing across the sky, with one spot brighter than the rest.

“It literally looked like the sun coming out,” Siler told ProPublica. “It was super bright.”

They and other passengers shot videos, marveling at what looked like fireworks, the couple said. The Starship fragments appeared to be higher than the plane, many miles off. But before long, the pilot announced “I’m sorry to report that we have to turn around because we’re too close to the debris,” Siler said.

Frontier did not respond to requests for comment.

The FAA lifted the restriction on planes flying through the debris zone about 30 minutes after Starship exploded, much sooner than it had in January. The agency said that the Space Force had “notified the FAA that all debris was down approximately 30 minutes after the Starship Flight 8 anomaly.”

But in response to ProPublica’s questions, the Space Force acknowledged that it did not track the debris in real time. Instead, it said “computational modeling,” along with other scientific measures, allowed the agency to “predict and mitigate risks effectively.” The FAA said “the aircraft were not at risk” during the aftermath of Flight 8.

Experts told ProPublica that the science underlying such modeling is far from settled, and the government’s ability to anticipate how debris will behave after an explosion like Starship’s is limited. “You’re not going to find anybody who’s going to be able to answer that question with any precision,” said John Crassidis, an aerospace engineering professor at the University of Buffalo. “At best, you have an educated guess. At worst, it’s just a potshot.”

Where pieces fall — and how long they take to land — depends on many factors, including atmospheric winds and the size, shape and type of material involved, experts said.

During the breakup of Flight 7, the FAA kept airspace closed for roughly 86 minutes. However, Diez, the SpaceX executive, told attendees at the industry conference that, in fact, it had taken “hours” for all the debris to reach the ground. The FAA, SpaceX and Diez did not respond to follow-up questions about her remarks.

It’s unclear how accurate the FAA’s debris projections were for the March explosion. The agency acknowledged that debris fell in the Bahamas, but it did not provide ProPublica the exact location, making it impossible to determine whether the wreckage landed where the FAA expected. While some of the country’s islands were within the boundaries of the designated debris zone, most were not. Calls and emails to Bahamas officials were not returned.

The FAA said no injuries or serious property damage occurred.

### FAA Greenlights More Launches

By May, after months of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency slashing spending and firing workers at federal agencies across Washington, [the FAA granted SpaceX][8]’s request to exponentially increase the number of Starship launches from Texas.

Starship is key to “delivering greater access to space and enabling cost-effective delivery of cargo and people to the Moon and Mars,” the FAA found. The agency said it will make sure parties involved “are taking steps to ensure the safe, efficient, and equitable use” of national airspace.

The U.S. is in a race to beat China to the lunar surface — a priority set by Trump’s first administration and continued under President Joe Biden. Supporters say the moon can be mined for resources like water and rare earth metals, and can offer a place to test new technologies. It could also serve as a stepping stone for more distant destinations, enabling Musk to achieve his longstanding goal of bringing humans to Mars.

Trump pledged last January that the U.S. will “pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.”

But with experimental launches like Starship’s, Jangelis said, the FAA should be “as conservative as possible” when managing the airspace below them.

“We expect the FAA to make sure our aircraft and our passengers stay safe,” he said. “There has to be a balance between the for-profit space business and the for-profit airlines and commerce.”

### A More Conservative Approach

In mid-May, United Kingdom officials sent a letter to their U.S. counterparts, asking that SpaceX and the FAA change Starship’s flight path or take other precautions because they were worried about the [safety of their Caribbean][9] territories.

The following day, the FAA announced in a news release that it had approved the next Starship launch, pending either the agency’s closure of the investigation into Flight 8 or granting of a “return to flight” determination.

A week later, with the investigation into Flight 8 still open, the agency said SpaceX had “satisfactorily addressed” the causes of the mishap. The FAA did not detail what those causes were at the time but said it would verify that the company implemented all necessary “corrective actions.”

This time the FAA was more aggressive on air safety.

The agency preventively closed an extensive swath of airspace extending 1,600 nautical miles from the launch site, across the Gulf of Mexico and through part of the Caribbean. The FAA said that 175 flights or more could be affected, and it advised Turks and Caicos’ Providenciales International Airport to close during the launch.

[The agency said][10] the move was driven in part by an “updated flight safety analysis” and SpaceX’s decision to reuse a previously launched Super Heavy booster — something the company had never tried before. The agency also said it was “in close contact and collaboration with the United Kingdom, Turks & Caicos Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, and Cuba.”

Coleman told ProPublica that the concerns of the Caribbean countries, along with Starship’s prior failures, helped convince the FAA to close more airspace ahead of Flight 9.

On May 27, the craft lifted off at 7:36 p.m. EDT, an hour later than in March and two hours later than in January. The FAA said it required the launch window to be scheduled during “non-peak transit periods.”

This mission, too, ended in failure.

Starship’s Super Heavy booster blew up over the Gulf of Mexico, where it was supposed to have made what’s called a “hard splashdown.”

In response, the FAA again activated an emergency no-fly zone. Most aircraft had already been rerouted around the closed airspace, but the agency said it diverted one plane and put another in a holding pattern for 24 minutes. The FAA did not provide additional details on the flights.

According to the agency, no debris fell outside the hazard area where the FAA had closed airspace. Pieces from [the booster eventually washed up on][11] Mexico’s beaches.

Starship’s upper stage reached the highest planned point in its flight path, but it went into a spin on the way down, blowing up over the Indian Ocean.

### The Path Ahead

*A map released by the FAA shows potential no-fly zones planned for future Starship launches that would cross over a portion of Florida. Air hazard areas — the AHAs on this map — are paths that would be cleared of air traffic before launches. Federal Aviation Administration*

SpaceX launched Starship again in August and October. Unlike the prior flights, both went off without incident, and the company said it was turning its focus to the next generation of Starship to provide “service to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond.”

But about a week later, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said he would open up SpaceX’s multibillion-dollar contract for a crewed lunar lander to rival companies. SpaceX is “an amazing company,” he said on CNBC. “The problem is, they’re behind.”

Musk pushed back, [saying on X that ][12]“SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry.” He insulted Duffy, calling him “[Sean Dummy][13]” and [saying][14] “The personresponsible for America’s space program can’t have a 2 digit IQ.”

The Department of Transportation did not respond to a request for comment or make Duffy available.

In a web post on Oct. 30, SpaceX said it was proposing “a simplified mission architecture and concept of operations” that would “result in a faster return to the Moon while simultaneously improving crew safety.”

[SpaceX is now seeking FAA approval][15] to add new trajectories as Starship strives to reach orbit. Under the plan, the rocket would fly over land in Florida and Mexico, as well as the airspace of Cuba, Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, likely disrupting hundreds of flights.

In its letter, the pilots’ union told the FAA that testing Starship “over a densely populated area should not be allowed (given the dubious failure record)” until the craft becomes more reliable. The planned air closures could prove “crippling” for the Central Florida aviation network, it added.

Still, SpaceX is undeterred.

Diez, the company executive, [said on X][16] in October, “We are putting in the work to make 2026 an epic year for Starship.”

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/spacex-faa-launch-airlines-safety-explosions-florida-caribbean
[2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[3]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880040599761596689?s=20
[4]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1897882353298506137?s=20
[5]: https://www.accuweather.com/en/space-news/spacex-rocket-debris-litters-mexico-beach-threatens-environment/1782495
[6]: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements/general-statements
[7]: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561
[8]: https://www.faa.gov/media/94346
[9]: https://www.propublica.org/article/spacex-starship-explosions-uk-turks-caicos-faa-launches
[10]: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements/general-statements
[11]: https://www.kristv.com/news/world-news/spacex-starship-debris-washes-up-on-mexican-beach-prompting-investigation
[12]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1980335879945351303?s=20
[13]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1980654826129354924
[14]: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1980657620160860501
[15]: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship/20250919_Draft-Tiered-EA-for-Additional-Trajectories-and-Starship-RTLS_508.pdf
[16]: https://x.com/ShanaDiez/status/1977966272772984909

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/were-too-close-to-the-debris-airplanes-dodge-the-remains-of-exploding-spacex-rockets/

Trump Continues To Use Pop Culture Memes Without Permission, This ...

2026-01-20T23:46:25Z

Trump Continues To Use Pop Culture Memes Without Permission, This Time With A 3rd Term Easter Egg

The Trump administration’s penchant for announcing or celebrating its various dumbass policies via pop culture video game memes marches on, it seems. We talked about this sort of thing previously when the administration built an ICE recruitment video to mimic the intro to the *[Pokémon][1]* cartoon show (gotta catch ’em all… get it?), as well as ICE recruiting memes utilizing imagery from the *[Halo][2]* series of games (aliens… get it?). Despite the blatant and obvious use of imagery and IP from both games, both Nintendo and Microsoft were remarkably silent about it all. What’s wrong, guys? Fascist got your tongue?

But because they couldn’t be bothered to lift a finger over what is a pretty clear infringement of their trademarks and/or copyright, the administration was emboldened and has done it again. This time it’s in service of announcing something more tame, the reintroduction of whole milk into schools. And the administration did so by [mocking up an image][3] from [beloved farming sim *Stardew Valley*][4].

So, here we have an undoubtedly AI mock-up of an image from *Stardew Valley*, a game I personally adore, with Trump inserted to celebrate this minor thing that RFK Jr.’s crew championed out of Congress. Is whole milk in schools some horrible thing? Look, I only have so much anger to spare, folks, and I’m not killing the budget by spending it on this. But I do have to wonder if developer Concerned Ape will do what Nintendo and Microsoft did not and voice some flavor of objection to the use of its IP by an administration busy doing the fascism elsewhere. While IP enforcement isn’t generally my kink, I sure as shit wouldn’t want *my* IP associated with Trump. On that, we’ll have to wait and see just how concerned the ape can get, I suppose.

But there’s also a nice little shitpost easter egg buried in that image. Take a look at the money counter in the upper right corner of the image.

Trump was the 45th President, claims he won the 2020 election and should have been the 46th President, he *is* the 47th President, and he’s flirted with the idea that he shouldn’t be bound by silly bullshit like our Constitution and should be allowed another term and become the 48th President. 45464748… get it?

I do, and it’s frightening rhetoric that is designed to do one of two things. The more innocuous option is that Trump and his cadre of imps enjoys upsetting more than half of the American population by scaring them into thinking he’s going to upend our rule of law and stay in office. It’s cruel. It’s designed purely to cause emotional reactions and “lib tears.” It’s on brand.

Or it’s a somewhat subtle nod that he’s not fucking around about that at all and intends to stay in power (again) despite how our system is legally designed to work.

> *Trump is the 45th and 47th president of the United States, and has held onto the debunked claims that he won the presidency against Joe Biden in 2020. He has also publicly said he’s [open to a third term][5], which would be in [violation of the 22nd amendment][6], but Trump doesn’t seem to think the law applies to him. Steve Bannon, the ex-chief-strategist of the Trump administration, has also said that Trump [will have a third term][7], while also [reportedly planning to run himself][8]. So these numbers seem to be a thinly veiled threat that Trump wants to be president again in 2028.*

These people aren’t funny, but they are dangerous. Even if this wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, there is no choice but to do so.

Meanwhile, we’ll see if Concerned Ape acts against the use of its IP, as I think it probably should.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/24/hey-nintendo-you-cool-with-ice-using-your-pokemon-ip-to-recruit-more-goons/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/10/hey-microsoft-are-you-guys-also-cool-with-dhs-and-trump-using-halo-imagery-for-fascism/
[3]: https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2011864079053238516?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[4]: https://kotaku.com/donald-trump-white-house-stardew-valley-whole-milk-ai-2000660273
[5]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-third-term-white-house-methods-rcna198752
[6]: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxii
[7]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/us/politics/president-trump-2028-steve-bannon.html
[8]: https://www.axios.com/2026/01/10/steve-bannon-2028-campaign-maga

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/trump-continues-to-use-pop-culture-memes-without-permission-this-time-with-a-3rd-term-easter-egg/

Can You Trust Mark Meador? The FTC remains politicized. One ...

2026-01-20T21:40:52Z

Can You Trust Mark Meador?

The FTC remains politicized. One commissioner is leading the way—when it suits him.

The Federal Trade Commission under Lina Khan was not a well-run institution. I wrote about this at the time, [often][1] and [at length][2], and I regret nothing. But wow—wow—would you be forgiven for thinking that the goal of new management is to make Khan’s tenure look good by comparison. There is plenty to say about this sorry state of affairs, but for now let’s focus on a single commissioner.

Why just one? Isn’t the FTC a multi-member body? Well, these days the agency is something of a husk. President Trump has purported to fire two commissioners—the Democrats, naturally. The FTC Act says he cannot do that, but the Supreme Court appears poised to bless the move on constitutional grounds ([a serious mistake][3]). A third commissioner, Melissa Holyoak, recently departed after a brief stint. And [rumors swirl][4] that the chair, Andrew Ferguson, will soon take on a second job overseeing a nationwide fraud unit at the Justice Department.

That leaves Mark Meador. He may soon be the lone commissioner who has not been defenestrated, jumped ship, or been pulled into a dual role.

Last week I saw Meador speak at an [antitrust conference][5] in the Bay Area. As a matter of policy, [his remarks][6] were not to my taste. He aired a familiar set of complaints about modern tech products. Apple’s “liquid glass” is confusing; Google’s AI overviews—that stuff that now appears above the search results—are annoying; AI-generated cat videos, and short-form video more generally, are bad for the soul. It is certainly true that tech companies have many bad ideas. It does not follow that Mark Meador knows better. Yet he spoke with complete confidence in his own superior vision for the tech industry. He knows what the social media market should look like. He knows how to “win the AI race *the right way*.” The man is, apparently, a prophet.

Some of Meador’s gripes were not really about products at all, but about people. People *shouldn’t like* short-form video. The government, Meador seemed to suggest, must protect them from themselves. You might say that Meador wants to replace the consumer-welfare standard, under which the FTC protects markets that work to give people what they want, with a moral-welfare standard, under which the FTC pushes markets to give people what they are* supposed* to want—as determined by Mark Meador.

Maybe people should be more virtuous. But what business is that of the FTC? The FTC Act makes commissioners competition regulators, not philosopher-kings or morality police.

One European lawyer I spoke with at the conference seemed rather taken with Meador’s speech. He wants to crack down on Big Tech, after all; what’s not to like? I tried to explain how Meador plainly judges companies by a moral code, and why that code should give any upstanding European pause. Meador is [committed to][7] “the just ordering of society that best facilitates human flourishing.” He speaks unabashedly of the need for “beauty and virtue,” “moral values,” and “tradition and custom.” He peppers his writing (yes, his *antitrust* writing) with theological language, referring to human beings as “embodied souls seeking communion with their fellow man and their Creator.” The undertone—the dog whistle, if you will—is not Brussels-style social democracy. It is national conservatism, if not flat out Christian nationalism.

Which brings me to my real objection to Meador’s appearance. In Palo Alto, he was mild, reasonable, even conciliatory. The speech itself was a little misguided but pleasant enough. The problem was what it concealed: the other Mark Meador, and the other FTC.

In his speech, Meador called for apolitical enforcement. Antitrust, he said, should not serve an “unrelated political agenda.” It should not target disfavored industries. He and the agency should not “make decisions according to how political winds are blowing.”

How rich. Maximally politicized enforcement has characterized the Trump administration at large, and the Trump FTC in particular. Consider the Omnicom–IPG settlement. The FTC allowed two major advertising firms to merge, but only after restricting the new entity’s ability to withhold advertising dollars based on a publisher’s viewpoints. The settlement is a [transparent assault][8] on advertising firms’ First Amendment right to boycott publishers on grounds of social or ideological principle. It is also a nakedly political effort to redirect advertising dollars toward right-wing outlets.

Or consider the FTC’s hapless social-media “censorship” inquiry. [This move][9], too, is an attack on First Amendment rights—this time, platforms’ right to moderate content as they see fit. And this move, too, is aimed at helping the right, specifically those right-wing speakers who insist—[baselessly][10], [by and large][11]—that platforms have “silenced” them. Take also the FTC’s [foray into debates][12] over gender medicine. The FTC is not a medical regulator; it has no expertise in this area. But transgender issues are at the center of the culture war, so the agency could not resist weighing in, thumb firmly on the scale for the political right.

For Meador to sit in Palo Alto and sermonize about ignoring political winds was an insult to anyone paying attention to his agency or the administration it serves.

Equally striking was the contrast between Meador’s tone inside the conference room and the tone he and the FTC adopt elsewhere. In his remarks, Meador urged listeners not to “draw up battle lines.” Washington and Silicon Valley, he said, should root for each other’s success. During the Q&A, he endorsed a “just the facts, ma’am” approach. He expressed distaste for heated rhetoric from private parties—inflated claims about the stakes of litigation or boasts about whipping the FTC in court. Such talk amounts, he complained, to “melodramatic atmospherics.”

But Mark Meador and the Trump FTC do melodramatic atmospherics with the best of them. Last year, for instance, the FTC [convened a conference][13] titled “The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families.” The title was all too fitting: the whole event was slanted, overheated, and self-righteous. Meador led the charge. He [likened][14] “the battle over the ‘attention economy’” to “the fight against Big Tobacco.” He argued that social media companies sell an addictive and harmful product; that they must keep children hooked, “craving the next fix, the next puff, the next notification”; and that they peddle lies in their defense.

No doubt this jeremiad resonates with some. [I think it’s nonsense][15]. But the point here is not whether Meador is right or wrong. It’s that he is two-faced. In Silicon Valley, he presents himself as mildly uneasy about short-form video. Elsewhere, he portrays social media companies as irredeemable reprobates, scarcely distinguishable from cigarette manufacturers. The Meador we saw projected reasonableness. In reality, he is a fanatic.

What Meador concealed about himself pales, though, beside what he concealed about the FTC. Excuse me, commissioner, did you just say you oppose overheated rhetoric? Where were you after the FTC lost its antitrust case against Meta?

The defeat was not surprising. The case was weak from the outset, failing to grapple with competitors such as YouTube and TikTok. It was dismissed in [a careful opinion][16] written by an able judge. That judge, James Boasberg, also [ruled against][17] the Trump administration’s reprehensible efforts to hustle men, without due process, to a prison in El Salvador. In response to that ruling, some GOP lawmakers launched a campaign to impeach him. The case for impeachment is risible. But that did not stop the FTC from exploiting it. After the Meta loss, an FTC spokesperson, Joe Simonson, [sneered][18]: “The deck was always stacked against us with Judge Boasberg, who is currently facing articles of impeachment.”

This statement is an embarrassment. Everyone at the FTC should be mortified by it. But there it is. Mark Meador has no standing to lecture others about decorum.

Nor should we expect this to be an isolated lapse. The second Trump FTC has been staffed with people who are terminally online. In a sense, they are the dog that caught the car: they have memed their way into an amount of power they are neither competent nor responsible enough to wield.

This became obvious when the FTC set out to punish Media Matters. The organization had published a study finding that ads appeared next to hate speech on the alt-right-friendly platform X. The agency then launched a sweeping investigation (another example, contra Meador, of the FTC’s overtly political posture). The courts [blocked the probe][19], finding it to be retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. Evidence of a retaliatory motive included, almost comically, some FTC staffers’ big fat mouths. Before joining the agency, a cadre of young edgelords had been spending their time spouting off on social media. Joe Simonson (he of the appalling comment after the Meta loss) had mocked Media Matters for employing “a number of stupid and resentful Democrats.” Another staffer had called the group “scum of the earth.”

This is the backdrop to Meador’s calls, in Palo Alto, to lower the temperature. Spare us, commissioner.

The word at the conference was that the FTC is in disarray. Many experienced attorneys and economists accepted one of the Trump administration’s buyout offers. Others concluded, after a return-to-office mandate, that if working for the FTC was going to be a hassle—don’t forget those “five things you did this week” emails!—they might as well leave for higher pay. I heard this from a former government official who had himself recently decamped to private practice. When I asked this refugee about the FTC’s ambitions to police social media or wade into gender medicine, he said he would not be surprised if the agency ultimately accomplishes very little. Who knows. But the intuition is sound: you cannot decimate and demoralize an agency and then expect it to move regulatory mountains.

When Meador was appointed, Tyler Cowen summed things up nicely, [concluding that][20] he “is just flat out terrible,” including for his inability to maintain “a basic level of professionalism.” Is he lonely at the top? With the agency hollowed out, Meador may be a king without a throne. One can only hope that his capacity for mischief will be constrained by the wreckage below.

*Corbin K. Barthold is Internet Policy Counsel at TechFreedom. Republished with permission from [Policy & Palimpsests][21]*

[1]: https://www.city-journal.org/article/ftc-chair-lina-khan-fails-upward
[2]: https://www.city-journal.org/article/lina-khans-norm-busting-legacy
[3]: https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/the-supreme-court-should-resist-handing
[4]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-14/ftc-s-ferguson-eyed-by-white-house-to-oversee-new-fraud-unit
[5]: https://www.concurrences.com/fr/evenement/the-tech-antitrust-conference-6859
[6]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/meador-concurrences-keynote.pdf
[7]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/antitrust-policy-for-the-conservative-meador.pdf
[8]: https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/the-politicization-of-antitrust-part-IV-concurrences.pdf
[9]: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/request-public-comments-regarding-technology-platform-censorship
[10]: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/orwellian-doesnt-mean-what-you-think
[11]: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/influencers-bullshitters-losing-shared-reality
[12]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/technology/ftc-andrew-ferguson-regulator.html
[13]: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2025/06/attention-economy-tech-firms-exploit-children
[14]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/cmr-mark-r-meador-attention-economy-keynote-06-03-2025.pdf
[15]: https://corbinkbarthold.substack.com/p/calm-down-about-the-kids
[16]: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rww8JGP.20cc/v0
[17]: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-constitutional-perdition-el-salvador-bukele-renditions-supreme-court
[18]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/18/judge-rules-that-meta-doesnt-have-a-social-media-monopoly-00656616
[19]: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/10/25-5302LDSN2.pdf
[20]: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/05/the-new-ftc-commissioner-mark-meader.html?utm_
[21]: https://corbinkbarthold.substack.com/p/can-you-trust-mark-meador

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/can-you-trust-mark-meador/

State Department: Detaining People For Social Media Activity Is ...

2026-01-20T20:06:34Z

State Department: Detaining People For Social Media Activity Is ‘Paranoid’ And Sign Of An ‘Illegitimate Regime’ (Unless We Do It)

You really can’t make this stuff up.

On Friday, the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs posted to Twitter/X condemning Nicaragua’s government for—and I quote—”**detaining Nicaraguans for liking posts online**,” calling it evidence of “**how paranoid the illegitimate Murillo and Ortega regime is**.” The Bureau demanded “the unconditional release of all political prisoners” and declared that “freedom means ending the regime’s cycle of repression.”

Stirring stuff. Very pro-free-expression. One tiny problem: the very same day, a federal judge [refused to dismiss a lawsuit][1] against Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the US government doing… essentially the same thing. Hat tip to the excellent Chris Geidner from [Lawdork][2] for [calling out the contrast][3] on Bluesky.

The lawsuit, brought by Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation along with two anonymous noncitizen students, challenges the government’s practice of [revoking visas and initiating deportation proceedings][4] against people lawfully present in the United States based on their speech—including, notably, [their social media activity][5]. As [we’ve covered][6] here at Techdirt, the State Department has made reviewing social media profiles a regular part of the visa process, and has been actively targeting people for their online expression.

The court’s ruling lays out in pretty damning detail just how aggressively the government has been going after people for their protected speech. From the order:

> *In March 2025, DHS and ICE began aggressively targeting lawfully present noncitizens for protected speech, particularly at universities. Plaintiffs point to the arrests of Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Mohsen Mahdawi as emblematic of the Government’s enforcement strategy.*

And what exactly did these individuals do that warranted arrest, detention, and deportation proceedings? Let’s see:

> *Ms. Öztürk is a PhD student at Tufts University who is lawfully present in the United States on an F-1 student visa. Ms. Öztürk co-authored an opinion article in the Tufts student newspaper that criticized the university’s refusal to adopt several resolutions approved by the undergraduate student senate urging the University to, among other things, recognize a genocide in Gaza and divest from Israeli companies… On March 25, 2025, six plain-clothes federal officers surrounded Ms. Öztürk on the street outside her home, detained her, and transported her to a Louisiana immigration jail.*

She [wrote an op-ed][7] in a student newspaper. A DHS spokesperson claimed her editorial “glorified and supported terrorists.” It did not. It criticized the university’s policies, and did nothing to glorify or support “terrorists.”

The court also details what government officials have been saying publicly about this enforcement strategy.

DHS posted on Twitter that anyone who thinks they can “hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism—think again.” Stephen Miller bragged that “The State Department has revoked tens of thousands of visas, and they’re just getting started on tens of thousands more.” The US government isn’t hiding the fact that they’re combing US social media to figure out who to detain.

One of the plaintiffs—Jane Doe—is on the Canary Mission website, a private list of people which MAGA folks claim are anti-Israel and which the government has apparently been using as a shopping list for who to kidnap and deport. From the ruling:

> *Jane Doe was listed on the Canary Mission website, which is an anonymously and privately run website that publishes personal information of individuals and organizations that the Canary Mission personally deems “anti-Israel.” In their motion and during the hearing, the Government explained that DHS had asked ICE to generate “reports” for the State Department on individuals listed on the Canary Mission website to aid in decision-making about visa revocations. Notably, before the Government brought enforcement actions against them, Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Mohsen Mahdawi all had profiles published about them on the Canary Mission website.*

The US government is actively monitoring people’s social media, revoking visas over protected speech, and using an anonymous website that doxxes pro-Palestinian activists as a source for enforcement targets.

And then the State Department has the audacity to criticize Nicaragua for “detaining Nicaraguans for liking posts online.”

Remember, the State Department’s tweet said that this kind of behavior shows “how paranoid and illegitimate” the regime is. We agree.

The hypocrisy is coming so fast it’s hard to keep up, but this one deserves special mention because the State Department is literally condemning other countries for the exact policy it’s implementing, and getting called out about it in court.

Nicaragua is paranoid and illegitimate for targeting social media activity, but when the US does it, we’re… protecting national security? Fighting antisemitism? The framing changes but the underlying action is the same: using the power of the state to punish people for their online expression.

The court, for its part, found that the plaintiffs’ fears of enforcement were entirely reasonable given the government’s very public campaign of targeting people for their speech:

> *Jane Doe and John Doe have sufficiently alleged that their behavior falls into the crosshairs of the Government’s stated enforcement priorities. The Government has also not disavowed plans to continue invoking the Revocation and Deportation Provisions.*

In other words: the government isn’t even pretending it won’t keep doing this. And yet somehow it’s Nicaragua that needs to be lectured about freedom?

Maybe someone at the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs should walk down the hall and have a chat with their colleagues about what “freedom means ending the regime’s cycle of repression” actually looks like in practice. Because right now, the State Department’s position appears to be: targeting people for their social media activity is evidence of a paranoid, illegitimate regime—unless we’re the ones doing it.

[1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454120/gov.uscourts.cand.454120.75.0.pdf
[2]: https://www.lawdork.com/
[3]: https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3mcnh3iknbs2u
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/09/how-ices-plan-to-monitor-social-media-threatens-not-just-privacy-but-civic-participation/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/24/you-shouldnt-have-to-make-your-social-media-public-to-get-a-visa/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/14/trump-administrations-targeting-of-international-students-jeopardizes-free-speech-and-privacy-online/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/27/trumps-secret-police-are-now-disappearing-students-for-their-op-eds/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/state-department-detaining-people-for-social-media-activity-is-paranoid-and-sign-of-an-illegitimate-regime-unless-we-do-it/

Because ICE Is Losing In Minnesota, Hegseth Is Prepping For ...

2026-01-20T18:50:08Z

Because ICE Is Losing In Minnesota, Hegseth Is Prepping For Actual Martial Law

LOL this government [thought actual murder][1] would shut Minneapolis down. You absolute idiots. [Whatever kills us makes us stronger][2]. And I say that as only a part-time Minnesotan. I’ve split time between there and South Dakota over the past couple of decades. And Minneapolis never fails to impress.

The administration went all in on Minneapolis after a MAGA grifter claimed a bunch of fraud was being perpetrated by Somali-Americans. Trump, of course, believed this because [he hates Minnesota, Somalis, Ilhan Omar,][3] and anything else that looks like it might be a grassroots reaction to his Ministry of Hate.

[Cue this latest move by the government][4], which is still in the “pending” pile. But don’t expect this leash to be held in check for long.

> *The Pentagon has ordered 1,500 US troops based in Alaska to prepare to deploy to Minnesota as a precautionary measure in case the administration decides to send them, a US official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The unit of the 11th Airborne Division is a cold-weather unit nicknamed “The Arctic Angels.”*

Hey, good luck with that. Local businesses are far less willing to [feed and house][5] federal officers, given the risk it poses to their own businesses once the locals discover where ICE is shacking up and/or getting its coffee. While DHS officials love to claim any refusal to house federal officers is unamerican af, the reality is that local business owners don’t want the negative publicity and negative public action housing ICE officers might provoke.

You’d think a shrewd businessperson such as Donald Trump would understand. After all, he’s made a career out of strategic bankruptcies and investing in gold leaf futures. He should sympathize with small business owners who don’t want to be whistled/ice-cubed/TripAdvisored into non-existence. But he doesn’t because he only cares about Trump and thinks everyone should be asking “[Where’s Trump?][6]” whenever he fails to post to his own social media service 5-10 times a day.

“Arctic Angels” my Midwestern white ass. These won’t be angels. They’ll be on the wrong side of history for as long as history persists, which tends to be forever. (Just ask the Roman Empire figures you idolize, you stupid white nationalist fucks.)

It’s not just the Army that might be coming for Minneapolis, the home of Minnesota Nice and interpretations of cold weather that defy scientific measurement. You may have trained in Alaska, but have you ever been whistled into submission by people [who know how to walk on ice][7] without falling flat on their ass?

I submit to you that you are not ready to deal with Minnesota. No one is. The administration is still flustered by Portland, Oregon, where [inflatable animal costumes][8] have beaten ICE into semi-submission.

Bringing in the FBI isn’t going to change anything, especially when it’s still headed by [an insurrection enabler][9] that has been elevated to a level of infamy even his worst enemies would only hesitantly wish on him:

> *At the same time, the FBI is sending messages to its agents nationwide seeking volunteers to temporarily transfer to Minneapolis. It wasn’t immediately clear what the FBI would ask agents who volunteered to travel to Minneapolis to do.*

The FBI already has a pretty big building in Minneapolis. Yep, that’s all theirs and I know because last December, I spent three days in the hotel facing it while visiting my family.

Bringing in more FBI agents may fill those officers a bit more, but it won’t make Minneapolis any less of the [FOAD monster][10] it has morphed into in response to a vengeful federal invasion.

Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, has pledged to send out National Guard troops to protect Minnesotans and their rights. The federal government, on the other hand, has only promised to send out more guys with guns to protect the *government.*

> *“We have to send more officers and agents just to protect our officers to carry out their mission,” ICE Director Todd Lyons said on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures. “The majority of those are there to protect the men and women who are already there. Now we need 10-15 officers per arrest to protect each other” against protesters.*

If you cowards can’t arrest someone when faced with the combined forces of whistles and GTFO shouts without assembling half a platoon, you’re definitely in the wrong business. If you think sending more officers and actual military troops will keep Minneapolis residents from making it hard for you to be as racist as you want to be… well, just look at the response you provoked after murdering someone just because she made it clear she wasn’t intimidated by you.

Trump wants a war. But he’s not smart enough to choose his battles. Unless he’s got the willpower to push past the few guardrails keeping him in check, he’s going to be America’s next Custer — a man so secure in his white-makes-right philosophy that he won’t recognize that he’s in over his head until it’s far too late.

And the analogy fits: they’re both prime examples of the “meritocracy” a bunch of lesser failures claim makes this country great. On one hand, we have a thrice-divorced “deal maker” who’s more famous for his bankruptcies than his business successes. On the other hand, we have Custer, who’s absolutely the mold they cast MAGA from:

> *Custer graduated in 1861 from the [United States Military Academy][11] at [West Point, New York][12], last in his class. *

Not only last in his class, but last in his class of only *34*. Most West Point classes exceeded 100 cadets, but with the Civil War an ongoing concern, many of Custer’s betters had already volunteered to serve, rather than (lol) compete with Custer for the worst grades.

Bring it on, losers. The Midwest will fuck you up in ways you New York elites (yes, that’s *you*, Trump) can’t even imagine.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/01/let-motherfucker-burn/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/17/ice-ramps-up-deportation-efforts-in-minneapolis-after-trump-claims-somalians-are-garbage/
[4]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-18/us-readies-fbi-troops-for-possible-minnesota-surge-to-back-ice
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/07/dear-hilton-lose-my-number/
[6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-6F1O6RcYY
[7]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/video-ice-agent-slipping/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/07/doj-moves-goalposts-to-send-troops-to-portland-gets-shut-down-by-a-federal-court/
[9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kash_Patel#Business_affairs
[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.O.A.D.
[11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Academy
[12]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Point,_New_York

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/because-ice-is-losing-in-minnesota-hegseth-is-prepping-for-actual-martial-law/

Daily Deal: Linux/UNIX Certification Training Bundle Linux and ...

2026-01-20T18:44:57Z

Daily Deal: Linux/UNIX Certification Training Bundle

Linux and UNIX operating systems have become increasingly popular in commercial computing environments. Due to their rapid growth in today’s businesses, Linux/UNIX administrators have also become very much in demand. This hands-on [Linux/UNIX Certification Training Bundle][1] will help you prepare for the CompTIA Linux+ and the Novell Certified Linux Professional certification exams. It’s on sale for $50.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/linux-certification-training-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/daily-deal-linux-unix-certification-training-bundle-4/

Everyone Knows Our Mad King’s Greenland Obsession Is Insane. ...

2026-01-20T17:31:36Z

Everyone Knows Our Mad King’s Greenland Obsession Is Insane. Why Won’t Congress Stop It?

Look, I know we’ve all gotten somewhat numb to the constant stream of unhinged pronouncements from the White House. At some point, the brain develops defense mechanisms. But every now and then, something comes along that is so transparently, obviously, undeniably insane that it demands we stop and actually process what is happening.

This weekend was one of those moments.

President Trump [sent a text message][1] to Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre that was subsequently leaked to PBS and reported on by the New York Times. And I genuinely need you to read this, because summarizing it doesn’t do justice to how absolutely deranged it is:

> *Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT*

Let me be absolutely clear about what you just read: The President of the United States is explicitly stating that because he didn’t receive an award he wanted, he “no longer feel[s] an obligation to think purely of Peace” and is therefore justified in threatening to forcibly take territory from a NATO ally.

This is the stated reasoning. From the President. In writing. To a foreign head of state.

And this only came after Trump first [announced illegal and unnecessary tariffs][2] on products from Europe for not just handing him Greenland (which is actually a tax on Americans, since that’s who pays the tariffs). Støre’s initial text message to Trump was an attempt to get him to calm down and to stop doing ridiculously antagonistic shit like taxing Americans because foreign countries won’t just hand Trump an entire territory he’s unhealthily obsessed with.

I want to focus on a few layers of insanity here, because they compound on each other in ways that should be making every American deeply uncomfortable.

**First: Trump is yelling at the wrong country about the wrong thing.**

The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the Norwegian government. It is awarded by an independent five-member committee chosen by Norway’s parliament. Prime Minister Støre had to [patiently explain this (again)][3] in response:

> *As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have on several occasions clearly explained to Trump what is well known, namely that it is an independent Nobel Committee, and not the Norwegian government, that awards the prize*

This is not obscure information. This is how the Nobel Prize has worked since 1901. The fact that the President either doesn’t know this or doesn’t care is already disqualifying. But we’re just getting started.

Also, Greenland is a territory of Denmark. Denmark, notably, is not Norway. Norway is not Denmark. Greenland is not controlled by Norway, just like Norway’s government doesn’t determine who gets the Nobel Peace Prize and… why are we even talking about this?

**Second: He’s openly admitting his Greenland obsession has nothing to do with national security.**

For months, the official line has been that acquiring Greenland is [somehow essential for American national security][4]. But here’s Trump, in his own words, saying the quiet part extremely loud: the real reason is that **his feelings got hurt over a prize**. The “national security” framing was always [pretextual nonsense][5], and now we have the President himself confirming it. Beyond the fact that the threat to take Greenland has, itself, done a tremendous amount of [damage to US national security][6], Trump’s linking it to the prize undermines every other claim.

If Greenland were actually critical to American security interests, the Nobel Committee’s decisions would be completely irrelevant. The fact that Trump is explicitly linking the two reveals the entire enterprise as what it always was: the wounded ego of a man who desperately wants validation and will threaten sovereign nations to get it.

**Third: “There are no written documents” is weapons-grade historical illiteracy.**

Denmark’s connection to Greenland stretches back over 300 years. There are, in fact, extensive written documents, including treaties that the United States itself has signed recognizing Danish sovereignty over Greenland. A 2004 defense pact between the U.S. and Denmark—which already grants the US tremendous rights to make use of Greenland for the US military—explicitly recognizes Greenland as “an equal part of the Kingdom of Denmark.” In 1916, when Denmark sold what are now the U.S. Virgin Islands to the United States, the treaty included an explicit clause where the U.S. agreed not to object to Danish interests in Greenland.

But sure, “there are no written documents” and “boats landing” is apparently the level of historical analysis we’re working with now. (We won’t even get into the question of what it means for the United States that “boats landing here hundreds of years ago” gives you no rights to the land).

**Fourth: He’s threatening to invade a country because he didn’t get a Peace Prize.**

Like, what the fuck are we even doing here?

Also, no, [he didn’t stop][7] “8 wars PLUS.” Stop letting him get away with lying about this. He’s taking credit for a ton of other things that weren’t wars, that aren’t over, or that he had nothing to do with.

**Fifth: This is 25th Amendment territory, and everyone knows it.**

The 25th Amendment exists precisely for situations where a President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” When the President openly states that his bellicose foreign policy is being driven by a grudge over not receiving a peace prize—and that this grudge means he no longer feels obligated to pursue peace—we are describing someone whose judgment is fundamentally compromised.

Some people are actually (finally!) [saying this out loud][8]. Senator Ed Markey tweeted simply: “Invoke the 25th Amendment.” Rep. Eric Swalwell tweeted just “25” with a copy of the letter. The Daily Beast ran a piece with the headline “[Trump’s Insane New Threat Leaves No Doubt: It’s Time for the 25th Amendment.][9]“

As the Daily Beast put it:

> *It is clearly not rational to start a war because your feelings got hurt by not winning a prize that you were not even eligible for. It is certainly not rational to sabotage the country’s national security—emboldening Russia and China—over those hurt feelings.*

But here’s what’s actually happening: basically everyone in a position to do something about this is pretending everything is fine.

**The normalization machine is working overtime.**

The same people who would be absolutely losing their minds if any Democratic president sent a message like this to a foreign leader are now either silent or actively running interference. A decade ago, as a political rival, Ted Cruz once warned that we’d wake up one day to find a [President Trump had nuked Denmark][10]. And yet now he’s [actively supporting][11] Trump’s lunacy.

Or take Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt. In December of 2024 after Trump was re-elected, but before he took office, the Senator went on TV to talk up how Trump was the non-interventionist President [who would keep the US out of foreign wars][12].

> *Well, I think that’s a longer discussion and a discussion that President Trump had in his first term. I do think we’re entering a new phase, though, of realism in this country.* ***President Trump will be less interventionist****, and we get back to our core national interests. Principally defending the homeland, the Indo-Pacific, and China, and so I think that’s a longer term conversation.*
>
> *We’ll make sure everybody is safe over there. That’s the first order of business, but, again,* ***I think people have had enough of these forever wars all across the world****. We can’t be everywhere all at once all the time. That’s just not our capability, so I think that I’m welcoming President Trump coming with this agenda.*

Yet, over the weekend he tweeted out a long thread arguing that “territorial expansion is a time-honored American tradition” and that it’s “in our blood” to acquire Greenland (leaving out that the examples he gave of the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska did not come with a mad President demanding we get the land or we’d attack).

And the most galling part? Everyone knows. Everyone knows this is insane. The Republicans know it. The Democrats know it. Foreign leaders definitely know it. The Norwegian Prime Minister had to respond to an unhinged text message from the leader of the free world as if it were a normal diplomatic communication. Denmark’s foreign minister had to issue statements about how “you can’t threaten your way to ownership of Greenland” as if that’s a thing that should ever need to be said to an American president.

Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska who is not seeking reelection (funny how that works), [actually said what everyone is thinking][13]. When he saw the letter, he simply tweeted: “Very embarrassing conduct.”

That’s the most honest assessment you’ll get from a sitting Republican member of Congress. And notice he’s only willing to say it because he’s on his way out.

**What are the actual consequences here?**

Trump has now announced 10% tariffs on goods from the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland—all NATO allies—as punishment for not supporting his acquisition of Greenland. When asked if he’ll follow through, he said “[100%][14].” It’s a silly question all around, but to date, much of the media had treated Trump’s weird infatuation with Greenland as if it were a joke, rather than deadly serious.

When asked if he would use military force to seize Greenland, the President of the United States responded: “No comment.”

The President won’t rule out military action against NATO allies because he didn’t get a peace prize.

Because he didn’t get a *peace* prize. Peace. Prize.

The EU is holding an emergency summit. Denmark has said that U.S. military action in Greenland would spell the end of NATO. European allies are deploying troops—symbolic numbers, but troops nonetheless—to Greenland. We are watching in real-time as the post-World War II international order that the United States built and led for 80 years crumbles because one man’s ego couldn’t handle not getting an award.

And Russian state media? [They’re gloating][15]. As the BBC reported, pro-Kremlin outlets are full of praise for Trump’s Greenland push, which kinda highlights that Trump’s claim that we need Greenland to protect us from Russia is bullshit. Russia is loving this mess. Putin couldn’t have designed a more effective way to fracture NATO if he’d tried. And he tried.

> *“Standing in the way of the US president’s historic breakthrough is the stubbornness of Copenhagen and the mock solidarity of intransigent European countries, including so-called friends of America, Britain and France,” writes Rossiyskaya Gazeta.*
>
> *“Europe does not need the American greatness that Trump is promoting. Brussels is counting on ‘drowning’ the US president in the midterm congressional elections, on preventing him from concluding the greatest deal of his life.”*

**This is not normal. Stop pretending it is.**

I’ve written before about how Techdirt has become something of [a democracy blog][16], because when the fundamental institutions that allow for things like innovation and free speech are under attack, everything else becomes secondary. This is one of those moments.

A President who openly admits his foreign policy is driven by personal grievances over awards he didn’t receive is not fit for office. A President who threatens to invade NATO allies and won’t rule out military force against them is a danger to global stability. A President who doesn’t understand (or doesn’t care) that the Nobel Committee is independent from the Norwegian government has no business conducting diplomacy.

These aren’t controversial statements. They’re obvious. Everyone knows it.

But none of the political elite want to act. For nearly a decade now there’s been this weird paralysis where opposing Trumpian nonsense is treated as simply not allowed. Why? Because his most vocal supporters might get upset? So fucking what. He’s ripping apart the global order over a personal grievance. He’s already destroyed so much goodwill and soft power that it will take decades to recover—if recovery is even possible.

The fact that it’s taken until now to even begin discussing the 25th Amendment is already a travesty. That no one with actual power will do anything about it is the real indictment.

We’re protecting a mad king because those who could stop it are too scared of random troll accounts on X (not to mention the world’s richest man) possibly mocking them for not being loyal enough to the mad king.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/us/politics/trump-norway-prime-minister-texts-greenland.html
[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g5345ylk0o
[3]: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/whats-new/statement-from-the-prime-minister/id3146486/
[4]: https://www.kron4.com/news/national/cruz-says-it-is-overwhelmingly-in-americas-national-interest-to-acquire-greenland/
[5]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/16/europeans-befuddled-by-trumps-russian-rationale-for-greenland-00734955
[6]: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/former-us-ambassador-denmark-trump-greenland-push-weakens-national-security/
[7]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3599gx4qo
[8]: https://www.kron4.com/news/politics/swalwell-joins-in-calls-to-invoke-25th-amendment-over-trump-greenland-letter/
[9]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-appalling-threat-leaves-no-doubt-its-time-for-the-25th-amendment/
[10]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2026/01/18/ted-cruz-lauds-trumps-america-first-greenland-threats-after-viral-clip-bashing-president-resurfaced/
[11]: https://www.kron4.com/news/national/cruz-says-it-is-overwhelmingly-in-americas-national-interest-to-acquire-greenland/
[12]: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/12/15/sen_eric_schmitt_the_public_is_done_with_the_forever_wars_and_foreign_policy_not_in_americas_interest.html
[13]: https://thehill.com/policy/international/5695971-trump-bacon-greenland-letter/
[14]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g5345ylk0o
[15]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17zpvkddpzo
[16]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/04/why-techdirt-is-now-a-democracy-blog-whether-we-like-it-or-not/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/everyone-knows-our-mad-kings-greenland-obsession-is-insane-why-wont-congress-stop-it/

Ted Cruz Pats Himself On The Back At Senate Hearing For Screwing ...

2026-01-20T13:24:49Z

Ted Cruz Pats Himself On The Back At Senate Hearing For Screwing Over Rural School Children

Ted Cruz last week [chaired a Senate hearing][1] dubbed “Plugged Out: Examining the Impact of Technology on America’s Youth.” The hearing spent a lot of time doubling down on the scary-sounding, often-baseless stories lawmakers tell themselves as they [push terrible laws like KOSMA][2] to “protect the children” from a [completely unproven link][3] between social media and mental health problems.

Laws like KOSMA, as we’ve [repeatedly reported][4], are unconstitutional messes that often create more problems than they profess to solve. And lawmakers like Ted Cruz, which we’ve also documented repeatedly, have shown time and time again how they [aren’t][5] **actually** [interested][6] in [protecting kids][7] (from tech giants or [anything else][8]), or doing any of the heavy lifting (like, say ensuring everyone has access to affordable mental health care or [affordable broadband][9]) required to *actually help anybody*.

But when it comes to Ted Cruz, it’s even worse than all that. Last year we noted how Cruz was at the forefront of efforts to [kill FCC reforms that made it easier and cheaper for kids to access the internet and do their homework][10].

More specifically, Cruz leveraged the Congressional Review Act to kill FCC modifications to the E-Rate program that allowed school libraries to offer kids free Wi-Fi hotspots. This was a broadly popular, uncontroversial program that made it easier for rural, low-income kids to get online. And Cruz killed it because companies like AT&T [don’t want the government offering alternatives to their overpriced service][11].

Cruz, of course, couldn’t just openly announce that telecom lobbyist corruption resulted in him killing a helpful program with broad, bipartisan support. So he [made up a whole bunch of bullshit][12] about how this Wi-Fi program was “censoring Conservative viewpoints” and resulting in kids running amok unsupervised online. As we debunked in detail [it was all lies][13]; he just threw a bunch of nonsense at the wall, and our lazy, shitty press parroted much of it unskeptically.

Fast forward to last week and Cruz’s support for the awful KOSMA bill. Cruz actually took time out in his grandstanding “protect the children!” hearing testimony to pat himself on the back for the fact he [made it harder for rural American schoolchildren to access the internet][14]:

> “*During the Biden administration, not only did Congressional Democrats give billions of dollars to the FCC to buy personal internet devices for children, but the Biden FCC sought to bankroll kids’ unsupervised internet access and undermine parental rights by expanding the E-Rate program to install Wi-Fi hotspots off campus, including on school buses and in students’ homes.*“

Cruz is, as usual, lying. The expanded Wi-Fi hotspot program ***didn’t cost the FCC any additional taxpayer money whatsoever***. They leveraged existing E-Rate funds to ensure the most disadvantaged, rural kids (many of whose parents voted for Trump) had access to affordable Internet when not on school grounds, either via a cheap access point at home, or a cheap access point on a local bus or bookmobile.

Again, the Republican opposition to this wasn’t rooted in any sort of good intention. AT&T and Verizon simply don’t like the precedent of the government offering affordable (or free) broadband internet access to people. Even people in areas their networks don’t reach. They’d much rather those families be stuck paying an arm and a leg for spotty, expensive, often unreliable broadband access.

Cruz dressed up his lazy corruption as some sort of noble “protection of the children,” a pretty common refrain in DC policy circles. And because the U.S. press generally sucks (in part due to the Republican [assault on media consolidation and ownership limits][15]), he was broadly allowed to lie repeatedly about this without being seriously challenged in the media.

To make matters worse, he’s leveraging his corrupt protection of the Republican-coddled telecom industry as some sort of noble justification for passing shitty, half-cooked legislation on a completely different front. But as is so often the case, the “protect the children” and race-baiting, culture war trolling generally exists to divide and disorient the public so they don’t cooperatively target the real problem: rich assholes.

In the case of KOSKA, as we saw with the [fake GOP antitrust inquiries into “big tech,”][16] or fake concerns about [“free speech,”][17] Cruz’s interest isn’t in actually reining in big tech or helping kids. His interest is in finding leverage points over modern media giants that can be used to bully them into protecting and coddling authoritarians and their rank propaganda, a gambit that’s proven to be [quite successful so far][18].

[1]: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2026/1/chairman-cruz-kosma-meets-parents-where-they-re-at-protects-kids-online
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/bipartisan-group-of-senators-introduce-new-terrible-protect-the-kids-online-bill/
[3]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/bipartisan-group-of-senators-introduce-new-terrible-protect-the-kids-online-bill/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/03/ted-cruz-kills-americas-latest-attempt-to-have-functional-privacy-laws/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/02/ted-cruzs-dumb-plan-to-punish-states-that-regulate-ai-by-withholding-broadband-grants-falls-apart/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/05/trump-fcc-boss-brendan-carr-joins-ted-cruz-in-fucking-over-poor-rural-school-kids/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/05/trump-fcc-boss-brendan-carr-joins-ted-cruz-in-fucking-over-poor-rural-school-kids/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/05/trump-fcc-boss-brendan-carr-joins-ted-cruz-in-fucking-over-poor-rural-school-kids/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/14/ted-cruz-proudly-makes-broadband-shittier-and-homework-harder-for-u-s-school-kids/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/14/ted-cruz-proudly-makes-broadband-shittier-and-homework-harder-for-u-s-school-kids/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/30/ted-cruz-blocks-fcc-plan-to-bring-mobile-wi-fi-to-school-kids-for-a-very-very-stupid-reason/
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/30/ted-cruz-blocks-fcc-plan-to-bring-mobile-wi-fi-to-school-kids-for-a-very-very-stupid-reason/
[14]: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2026/1/chairman-cruz-kosma-meets-parents-where-they-re-at-protects-kids-online
[15]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/10/trump-fcc-prepares-to-destroy-whatevers-left-of-media-consolidation-limits/
[16]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/just-a-reminder-authoritarians-dont-actually-support-antitrust-reform/
[17]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/06/senator-cruz-figure-out-who-was-president-from-2018-to-2020-challenge-impossible/
[18]: https://fortune.com/2025/09/05/trump-tech-dinner-full-attendee-list/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/ted-cruz-pats-himself-on-the-back-at-senate-hearing-for-screwing-over-rural-school-children/

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt This ...

2026-01-18T20:00:22Z

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to Tom Homan’s complaints about people calling ICE murderers. In first place, it’s [Bloof][1] with [a translation of his words][2]:

> *‘People need to be civil and helpful when masked thugs come for their friends and neighbours, and to just follow orders like good citizens. Don’t worry when they come for the communists, socialists, trade unionists and jews, there’ll be plenty of others on the list before you, honest.’*

In second place, it’s an anonymous comment with [thoughts on his underlying feelings][3]:

> ***You can hear the fear in Homan’s voice***
>
> *Can’t you? Can’t everyone? Isn’t it obvious?*
>
> *These people are terrified of their fellow citizens — because some of them happen to be brown or black or women or LGBTQ or pretty much anything. They’re shaking with fear; they’re cowards — to the bone. Which is of course why they mask their faces and wear body armor and carry lots of weapons: **THEY’RE AFRAID**.*
>
> *So remember: when you see them, mock them. Insult them. Degrade them. Humiliate them. Because they deserve it.*

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got two more comments from that post. First, it’s [Doctor Biobrain][4] expanding on a line from the post asserting that [“they seemed to think that once they were in power, the public would love and admire them for their power”][5]:

> *Indeed. These people think respect comes with the job because they’re authoritarians trained to think authority is always legitimate so you should always respect the people above you. Just like they think being a white man automatically makes you the most qualified for every good job, so DEI hiring means you can’t be getting the best people. Because that’s actually the big joke of this: If they don’t like someone above them, they not only don’t get respect but are considered to have the job illegitimately.*
>
> *The idea of earning respect seems impossible to them because they think fear and respect are the same things and not opposites. I’ve had several righties say this despite my best attempts to explain the difference. They were taught to fear authority and call it respect; then wonder why the people under them don’t like them. So much of what we see are emotionally repressed victims still traumatized by their mean parents and dumping that trauma on others. They were forced to fake maturity at a young age and never really grew up.*
>
> *And yeah, Trump has been craving respect his whole life because his success is unearned and anyone with taste or brains knew he was a clown. Yet those are the people he wanted praise from and he loathes people who are submissive to him like MAGA because he doesn’t want to be the member of any club that would have a creep like him. He thought being called Mr. President would finally give him the admiration he needs and instead he just gets his handlers coddling him and telling him that all dissent is manufactured and his approval ratings are 1,600%. Sad!*

Next, it’s [dfbomb][6] with [a succinct response to Homan][7]:

> *If you don’t want to be called a murderer then stop your agents from fucking murdering my neighbors.*

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is [Thad][8] with a response to [Microsoft’s CEO lamenting the backlash against AI slop][9]:

> *“No, it’s the children who are wrong.”*

In second place, it’s [MrWilson][10] with a comment about [Trump’s censorship record][11]:

> *I think this is a little unfair. Trump’s presidency **has** actually been the most transparent administration ever. Case in point, the Epstein files proved this when it was revealed that ███████ ████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██████ and ██████ █████████ █████████ █████ ██████ ███████.*
>
> *I mean, the ███████ alone should be all the ██████ evidence you need.*
>
> *Also, anyone who disagrees will be summarily ██████ ███ ██████ ██████.*

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment about [the pressure ICE faces][12]:

> *You just don’t know what it’s like to walk the streets as an ICE agent. The person you’re walking by could pull out A PHONE and aim it at you. Some of these phones have FULLY AUTOMATIC recording with UNLIMITED DATA STREAMING plans.*
>
> *And we’re not even talking about people in shadowy windows with zoom lenses. Last week I heard about an agent who was just minding their business, kicking in some 110 pound teenager’s head, when he saw the glint of a 700mm f/8 Canon aimed at him. Never saw the shot coming.*
>
> *Dude had a wife and kids.*
>
> *I mean, he still does. But he did, too.*

Finally, it’s one more comment from [Thad][13], this time about [Larry Ellison’s propaganda war against Netflix][14]:

> *Netflix is too woke? Sounds like it’s time for another Dave Chappelle special!*

That’s all for this week, folks!

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/bloof/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/tom-homan-if-democrats-dont-stop-calling-us-murderers-were-just-going-to-be-forced-to-keep-murdering-you/#comment-4986403
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/tom-homan-if-democrats-dont-stop-calling-us-murderers-were-just-going-to-be-forced-to-keep-murdering-you/#comment-4986275
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/doctorbiobrain/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/tom-homan-if-democrats-dont-stop-calling-us-murderers-were-just-going-to-be-forced-to-keep-murdering-you/#comment-4986294
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/dfed/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/tom-homan-if-democrats-dont-stop-calling-us-murderers-were-just-going-to-be-forced-to-keep-murdering-you/#comment-4986417
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/thad/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/microsoft-ceo-laments-criticism-of-ai-slop-causing-the-whole-internet-to-double-down-on-criticism-of-microslop/#comment-4986126
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/trumps-free-speech-presidency-racked-up-200-censorship-attempts-in-its-first-year/#comment-4995347
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/dhs-tells-reporter-that-filming-ice-officers-sounds-like-obstruction-of-justice/#comment-4988748
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/thad/
[14]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/trump-ellison-wage-war-on-woke-netflix-in-effort-to-scuttle-warner-brothers-deal-dominate-u-s-media/#comment-4992589

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/18/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-192/

This Week In Techdirt History: January 11th – 17th **Five Years ...

2026-01-17T20:00:30Z

Game Publisher Bans Working With Devs That Use Any AI, Rather ...

2026-01-17T03:39:25Z

Game Publisher Bans Working With Devs That Use Any AI, Rather Than Banning Bad Uses Of AI

I’m going to start this post off with two rhetorical questions.

1. Do you believe that the use of AI should be free and unfettered in the video game industry and will certainly and overwhelmingly be a positive good for the industry generally?
2. Do you believe that AI should be banned and never used in the video game industry because it can only produce slop and result in job loss in the industry generally?

My position is simple: anyone answering “yes” to either of those questions is out of the conversation when I’m involved. Dogmatic approaches like those aren’t right, they’re not smart, they’re not helpful, and they will never produce any progress or interesting discussion. They’re a sort of religious beliefs pointed at a terrestrial industry and they make no sense.

And now let me add a rhetorical statement of my own, so that there’s no misunderstanding: every game publisher and developer out there is free to make their own decisions regarding AI, full stop. I’m here to talk, not to make demands.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about indie publisher Hooded Horse and its “zero AI” policy that it [has written into its developer contracts][1]. CEO Tim Bender spoke with Kotaku recently on the topic and he certainly didn’t hold back.

> *The label he helps run as CEO, Hooded Horse, struck gold after signing the medieval base-builder mega hit Manor Lords, but its library of published games has grown far beyond it in the past two years with releases like the Lego-like tower-defense game Cataclismo, the economic management sim Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic, and the 4X sequel Endless Legend 2. Being strategy games isn’t the only thing they all have in common. They also all adhere to a strict ban on generative AI art.*
>
> *“I fucking hate gen AI art and it has made my life more difficult in many ways…suddenly it infests shit in a way it shouldn’t,” Bender told me in a recent interview. “It is now written into our contracts if we’re publishing the game, ‘no fucking AI assets.’”*

Now, if Bender says this has made his life more difficult, I’m going to choose to believe him. Honestly, I can’t imagine why he’d lie about something like that.

But he’s also clearly answered “yes” to rhetorical question #2 I posted above. And I just don’t understand it as a long term contractual policy. If AI largely sucks right now in the gaming industry, and I agree there’s a lot of bad out there, that doesn’t mean it will in the future. If AI has the capability to take some jobs in the industry today, that doesn’t mean it can’t create jobs elsewhere in the industry as well. If some applications of AI in the gaming industry carry with it very real moral questions, that doesn’t mean that *every* use does.

But when you *really* dig into Bender’s stated concerns that have led him to a blanket ban on the use of any AI by partner developers, you quickly understand his actual concern is a quality control concern.

> *“We’ve gotten to the point where we also talk to developers and we recommend they don’t use any gen AI anywhere in the process because some of them might otherwise think, ‘Okay, well, maybe what I’ll do is for this place, I’ll put it as a placeholder,’ right?” continued Bender.*
>
> *“Like some, people will have this thought, like they would never want to let it in the game, but they’ll think, ‘It can be a placeholder in this prototype build.’ But if that gets done, of course, there’s a chance that that slips through, because it only takes one of those slipping through in some build and not getting replaced or something. […] Because of that, we’re constantly having to watch and deal with it and try to prevent it from slipping in, because it’s cancerous.” *

It’s the Larian Studios concept art [discussion][2] all over again. Bender doesn’t seem to have an actual problem with developers using AI in developing a game. Instead, it appears he doesn’t want any AI-made product ending up in the finished game. Those are two very different things. But rather than trying to figure out how to QC the developers to make sure the end product is clean of AI, since that seems to be what Bender is after, we get a blanket ban on all AI use everywhere, all the time, by the developers.

Now, to keep things clear, my position is that Bender certainly *can* do this if he likes. It’s his company, have at it. But when I read this…

> *“When it comes to gen-AI, it’s not a PR issue, it’s an ethics issue,” Bender said. “The reality is, there’s so much of it going on that the commitment just has to be that you won’t allow it in the game, and if it’s ever discovered, because this artist that was hired by this outside person slipped something in, you get it out and you replace it. That has to be the commitment. It’s a shame that it’s even necessary and it’s a very frustrating thing to have to worry about.”*

…I’m left with the impression that I’m listening to someone devoid of nuance reciting a creed rather than fully thinking this through.

AI *will* be used in gaming. To borrow a phrase, it’s a very frustrating thing to have to even state. It’s tough to get more obvious than that. The question and the conversation, as I keep saying, is about *how *it will be used, not *if* it will be used.

And people like Bender have exited that conversation, which is too bad. He’s clearly a good businessman and smart industry guy. We need his voice in the discussion.

[1]: https://kotaku.com/hooded-horse-gen-ai-art-ban-4x-strategy-steam-2000658179
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/22/larian-studios-the-latest-to-face-backlash-over-use-of-ai-to-make-games/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/game-publisher-bans-working-with-devs-that-use-any-ai-rather-than-banning-bad-uses-of-ai/

Report Says AI That Hallucinated A Cop Into A Frog Is Making Utah ...

2026-01-16T23:44:59Z

Report Says AI That Hallucinated A Cop Into A Frog Is Making Utah Streets ‘Safer’

AI can be useful. But so many people seem to feel it’s nothing more than an unpaid intern you can lean on to do all the work you don’t feel like doing yourself. (And the less said about its misuse to generate a webful of slop, the better.)

Like everyone everywhere, police departments are starting to rely on AI to do some of the menial work cops don’t like doing themselves. And it’s definitely going poorly. [More than a year ago][1], it was already apparent that law enforcement agencies were just pressing the “easy” button, rather than utilizing it wisely to work smarter and faster.

Axon — the manufacturer of Taser and a line of now-ubiquitous body cameras — has pushed hard for AI adoption. Even it knows AI use can swiftly become problematic if it’s not properly backstopped by humans. But the humans it sells its products too don’t seem to care for anything other than its ability to churn out paperwork [with as little human involvement as possible][2].

> *The report notes that Draft One includes a feature that can intentionally insert silly sentences into AI-produced drafts as a test to ensure officers are thoroughly reviewing and revising the drafts. However, Axon’s CEO mentioned in a [video][3] about Draft One that **most agencies are choosing not to enable this feature**.*

Yep. They just don’t care. If it means cases get tossed because sworn statements have been AI auto-penned, so be it. If someone ends up falsely accused of a crime or falsely arrested because of something AI whipped up, that’s just the way it goes. And if it adds a layer of plausible deniability between an officer and their illegal actions, [even better][4].

Not only is the tech apparently not saving [anyone much time][5], it’s also being abused by law enforcement officers to justify their actions [after the fact][6]. But it’s shiny and new and seems sleek and futuristic, so of course reporters will occasionally decide to do law enforcement’s PR work for it by presenting incredibly fallible tech as the 8th wonder of the police world.

Sometimes reporters bury the lede. And sometimes their editors decide the lede should be buried by the end of the headline. That appears to be the case here, where Mya Constantino’s reporting isn’t exactly what’s being touted [in this article’s original headline][7].

As can be observed from viewing the URL, the current headline (updated January 1st) wasn’t the *original* headline. The Wayback Machine tells the real story. This article was originally published on December 19, 2025 with *this* headline:

That headline (which reads “How Utah police departments are using AI to keep streets safer”) was immediately followed by these paragraphs:

Here’s a direct quote of those leading paragraphs:

> *HEBER CITY, Utah — **An artificial intelligence that writes police reports had some explaining to do earlier this month after it claimed a Heber City officer had shape-shifted into a frog.***
>
> *However, the truth behind that so-called magical transformation is simple.*
>
> *“**The body cam software and the AI report writing software picked up on the movie that was playing in the background, which happened to be ‘The Princess and the Frog,'”** Sgt. Keel told FOX 13 News. “That’s when we learned the importance of correcting these AI-generated reports.”*

Fortunately, those paragraphs still remain [in the updated post][8], which now contains a headline that makes a lot more sense:

The headline (accompanied by a short video of a tree frog) says:

> *Ribbit ribbit! Artificial Intelligence programs used by Heber City police claim officer turned into a frog*

While I can understand why a small news outlet (albeit one that’s a Fox affiliate) might decide to play nice with the local cops rather than call out their software failure in the headline, it really doesn’t make it *acceptable*. My guess is the original headline was about maintaining access to officers and officials. At some point, someone realized the stuff detailed in the first paragraphs would probably attract more attention than some dry recitation of cop AI talking points.

But even the belated headline change doesn’t really make anything better here. There’s not really anything in the article that demonstrates *how* AI is making anyone *safer.* The article also notes that two different AI programs are currently being tested (Code Four, developed by a couple of 19-year-old former MIT students) and Draft One, which is part of [Axon’s vertical integration strategy][9]. That was the product that turned a cop into a frog, which probably explains why the reporter’s ridealong (so to speak…) only involved use of Code Four’s AI.

The reporter was on hand for a faux traffic stop that was later summarized by the AI to (apparently) demonstrate its usefulness. The journalist points out that the AI-generated report needed corrections, but at least didn’t turn any of the participants into a Disney-inspired character.

That being said, there’s nothing here that indicates these products will make streets “safer.” Here is the entirety of what was said about the tech’s positives by Sgt. Rick Keel of the Heber City PD:

> *Keel says one of the major draws is that the software saves them time, as writing reports typically takes 1-2 hours.*
>
> *“I’m saving myself about 6-8 hours weekly now,” Keel said. “I’m not the most tech-savvy person, so it’s very user-friendly.”*

Giving cops more free time doesn’t make streets safer. It just means they have more time on their hands. That’s not always a good thing. Of all the things that need to be fixed in terms of US policing, writing reports is pretty far down the list. It’s what’s being done with this extra time that actually matters. Pursuing efficiency for its own sake makes no sense in the context of law enforcement. The statements by this PD official raise questions that were never asked by the reporter, like the most important one: what is being done with this saved time? And if something still requires a lot of human activity to keep it from generating nonsense, is it really any better than the system it’s replacing?

One thing is for sure: AI doing the menial work of filing police reports is never going to make anyone safer. On the contrary, it’s only going to increase the chance that someone’s rights will be violated. And because law enforcement agencies refuse to be honest about the risks this poses and the fact that it appears only officers who don’t like writing paperwork will benefit from this added expense, they shouldn’t be trusted with tech that will ultimately only make the bad parts of US policing even worse.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/20/aclu-points-out-more-problems-with-ai-generated-police-reports/
[2]: https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/12/aclu_ai_police_report/
[3]: https://vimeo.com/941650612#t=47m10s
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/16/axons-draft-one-is-designed-to-defy-transparency/
[5]: http://techdirt.com/2025/04/03/anchorage-police-department-ai-generated-police-reports-dont-save-time/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/11/chatgpt-is-pitching-in-to-help-federal-officers-misrepresent-confrontations-with-protesters/
[7]: https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/summit-county/how-utah-police-departments-are-using-ai-to-keep-streets-safer
[8]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260103062225/https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/summit-county/how-utah-police-departments-are-using-ai-to-keep-streets-safer
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/axon-wants-its-body-cameras-to-start-writing-officers-reports-for-them/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/report-says-ai-that-hallucinated-a-cop-into-a-frog-is-making-utah-streets-safer/

NoFap Founder Sued Pornhub, UCLA, and Scientists While ...

2026-01-16T21:41:57Z

NoFap Founder Sued Pornhub, UCLA, and Scientists While Intimidating Journalists.

Alexander Rhodes, the founder of the pornography addiction self-help group NoFap and repeat plaintiff, [sued the parent company of Pornhub][1], Aylo, along with the University of California Los Angeles, two scientists, and an academic publisher for defamation. Filed in a court of common pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and since removed to federal court by the defendants, the suit has gone under the radar by most news outlets.

I wrote for [one of my publishers][2] about the lawsuit but little coverage has picked it up. I hope that changes in the coming months as litigation advances in the case.

The lawsuit alleges a civil conspiracy bankrolled by Aylo to defame Rhodes and NoFap. Rhodes is a [divisive figure][3] in the wider anti-porn discussion as he believes that breaking “pornography addiction,” (which [is not an accepted diagnosis][4] in the DSM-5) requires participants to not engage in masturbation or watching pornography in a bid to “reboot” their brains. The theory [is not supported by most science][5].

Nonetheless, he and his movement have gained traction over the years. Some sexual health experts started to scrutinize the claims of the NoFap philosophy as well as its supposed scientific basis. Because there has been some research pushing back on some of NoFap’s claims, lawyers for Rhodes claims it is proof of organized and explicit coordination to defame him. According to the lawsuit, Aylo is supposedly at the center of this scheme and allegedly paid off two scientists who have published critical research on NoFap. Furthermore, the complaint argues that UCLA and the academic publisher Taylor & Francis engaged in this defamation scheme by “aiding and abetting” the pair of scientists and Aylo by publishing the research.

This is a very weird lawsuit.

But what makes it weirder and more alarming than it is stems from the narrative pushed by the plaintiffs. In a bid to demonstrate the conspiracy, Rhodes presents a theory that the scientists and Aylo actively engaged in *media pitches* to dozens of journalists and other media personalities, including myself, to advance messages that disparage the NoFap company and its founder. Companies doing media pitches happen every day. Media pitches do not make anything into a conspiracy.

According to this theory, Rhodes alleges a coordinated media narrative that advances Aylo’s interests with the supposed end goal of… silencing this random dude who makes money off of telling people not to watch porn and jerk off. Even though Rhodes has the right to believe and communicate what he believes, it is quite a reach to insist that research and criticism of his beliefs and movement, including bog standard press coverage, amount to a conspiracy to defame.

Having people review strong claims is part of how academic research works. Having the media cover that research happens every day. It is silly to conclude that this turns it into a conspiracy.

And this week, Rhodes ramped things up a notch by claiming not just your garden variety conspiracy, [but a RICO claim][6]. Rather than go into the details of that, we’ll just point you to an archive of Ken White’s lawsplainer: [IT’S NOT RICO, DAMMIT][7].

His lawyers mention about 38 people who have written or tried to write about NoFap and Rhodes in a negative light. Their coverage has been almost entirely critical of his claims. For example, my writing on NoFap has been critical in the context that it [pushes and reinforces anti-pornography sentiments among social conservative groups][8] and is [a constituent faction of the so-called online manosphere][9]. I have heard that some publishers of mine have been served up threats of legal action and/or retraction demands for my reporting and analysis about these groups.

Other journalists, like Gustavo Turner, have [written on some of the more outlandish claims][10] of so-called porn induced erectile dysfunction (PIED). PIED is not an official diagnosis, and is more likely to be related to underlying issues as pornography is wholly unlikely to contribute to erectile dysfunction among men. Turner was called a “collaborator” against Rhodes in the suit, even though Turner has never directly written about him, and defamation has to be of and about someone specifically. The article linked above, which is also mentioned in the lawsuit does not discuss Rhodes and only mentions “NoFap” in the context of a hashtag “phenomena,” not having anything to do with Rhodes’ organization specifically.

Others mentioned in the lawsuit include authors with bylines at other outlets like *Salon*, *Rolling Stone*, *Vice*, and many others. He mentions “disparaging” media communicated by LGBTQ+ figures like Dan Savage of the Savage Love podcast because Savage hosted one of the defendants on his podcast talking about her research.

The lawsuit is quite expansive.

While I am not a defendant in the case, I still feel that listing out the simple mentioning of Rhodes’ critics as part of the grand conspiracy is a form of intimidation. It’s not as direct, but Rhodes appears to be trying to put on notice those who scrutinize the claims he makes that they could be the next defendant added.

This chills speech and reporting on more than just Rhodes and NoFap. It speaks to wider sentiments in today’s culture about how the courts can be a weapon to censor journalists from doing their jobs.

Already I have heard from journalists who claim that publications are rejecting pitches about Rhodes and NoFap, with the implication being that the publications are worried about litigation threats for merely writing about him. It feels like a classic case of chilling effects via a SLAPP suit, and it’s why anti-SLAPP laws are so important.

What is ironic is that Rhodes accuses the defendants in this case of intimidation: buying off journalists and the very outlets they allege advances the talking points of an organized civil conspiracy against his business and personage. Journalists aren’t a part of the conspiracy. They’re just reporting on what’s happening, and sometimes that includes research results. And, yes, sometimes that includes criticism of companies like Aylo for bad things they’ve done as well. Because journalists are reporting the news, not engaged in a grand conspiracy.

A thoughtful, reasonable, reflective person might take the time to personally reflect on why so many articles question the narrative he’s pushing. Others, however, might just claim a conspiracy against them.

*Michael McGrady covers the tech and legal sides of the online porn business.*

[1]: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72044575/rhodes-v-aylo-holdings-sarl/
[2]: https://avn.com/news/legal/nofap-founder-sues-aylo-ucla-scientists-academic-publisher-180732
[3]: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1198916105
[4]: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too
[5]: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too
[6]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.325932/gov.uscourts.pawd.325932.15.0.pdf
[7]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200603152356/https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/
[8]: https://www.cityweekly.net/news/dirty-laundry-piles-up-at-utahs-anti-porn-and-anti-trafficking-charities-22314706
[9]: https://www.cityweekly.net/news/members-of-the-far-right-manosphere-push-a-dangerous-politics-of-male-grievance-aa6ddc25
[10]: https://www.xbiz.com/news/284439/the-daily-mail-revives-discredited-pornography-induced-erectile-dysfunction-pied-theory

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/nofap-founder-sued-pornhub-ucla-and-scientists-while-intimidating-journalists/

Trump’s ‘Free Speech’ Presidency Racked Up 200 Censorship ...

2026-01-16T20:12:07Z

Trump’s ‘Free Speech’ Presidency Racked Up 200 Censorship Attempts In Its First Year

We’ve said it before, and we’ll keep saying it because apparently it needs repeating: Donald Trump is not a free speech president. He just plays one on TV while doing the exact opposite behind the scenes. And in front of the scenes. And basically everywhere. Over and over and over again.

Nora Benavidez at Free Press (not the Bari Weiss publication, but the civil society group that has been around for years) has done the tedious but essential work of actually [counting the censorship attempts][1] from the Trump administration over the administration’s first year. Writing in the New York Times, she puts the number at around 200 documented instances:

> *Since returning to office, Mr. Trump and his administration have tried to undermine the First Amendment, suppress information that he and his supporters don’t like and hamstring parts of the academic, legal and private sectors through lawsuits and coercion — to flood the zone, as his ally Steve Bannon might say.*

Two hundred. In a single year. From the guy who never shuts up about how he’s the greatest defender of free speech in American history.

As we pointed out a few months back, Trump didn’t just stumble into hypocrisy—he (as he does so often these days) literally [said the quiet part out loud][2] when explaining his executive order attempting to criminalize flag burning:

> *“We took the freedom of speech away.”*

That’s… that’s not the flex you think it is, my dude.

The examples Benavidez catalogs range from the high-profile to the quietly terrifying. Many you’ve probably heard about:

> *His administration banned Associated Press reporters from certain parts of the White House and Air Force One because the outlet uses “Gulf of Mexico” rather than the term Mr. Trump prefers, “Gulf of America.” It tried and failed to force some of the nation’s biggest news organizations to agree to restrictions on coverage of the Pentagon. He has said critical coverage of his initiatives is “really illegal.”*

And, of course, the administration [has weaponized immigration enforcement][3] as a speech-suppression tool:

> *In March, Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and a leader of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on the Columbia campus, was arrested and detained by immigration officials for several months. That month, Rumeysa Ozturk, a student visa holder, was arrested by immigration officials and detained for several weeks, apparently because she was an author of an opinion essay criticizing Tufts University for its response to the Israel-Hamas war.*

Arresting people and threatening deportation because of their political speech. That’s not a misunderstanding of the First Amendment—it’s a direct assault on it.

And the targets keep expanding.

> *After Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled against the administration in a case involving the deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador, Mr. Trump called for the judge* [*to be impeached*][4]*. A trainee was* [*dismissed*][5] *from the F.B.I.’s academy, apparently for having displayed an L.G.B.T.Q. Pride flag. The F.B.I. also appears to have* [*fired*][6] *agents for kneeling during George Floyd protests.*

The administration has gone after law firms, [forcing settlements][7] where they agree to do pro bono work for administration-approved causes. Universities have been [coerced into changing policies][8] and paying millions. Social media platforms—the same ones MAGA world spent years screaming about for “censorship”—have been sued over their content moderation decisions and forced into “settlements” to stay in the good graces of our thin-skinned dictator wannabe:

> *Mr. Trump has sued social media platforms for their content moderation policies — free-speech decisions, in other words — leading to Meta, X and YouTube capitulating through settlements totaling around $60 million.*

Let’s be clear about what that means: the President of the United States sued private companies because he didn’t like how they exercised their own First Amendment rights regarding what speech to host on their own platforms. And got them to pay up, because the alternative of being a constant target, was worse.

That’s the opposite of free speech.

Remember all those years of Republicans insisting that when private platforms made moderation decisions they didn’t like, it was “censorship,” but when the government did it, that was just fine? Yeah. We’re living in that world now.

Benavidez makes an important point about how this all works together:

> *What is important to recognize is that these efforts work in concert in their frequency and their volume: Even the most egregious cases seem to quickly fade from public consciousness, and in that way, they’re clearly meant to overwhelm us and make us think twice about exercising our rights.*

This is the Bannon “flood the zone” strategy applied to constitutional rights. You can’t focus on any single outrage because there are fifteen new ones by the time you finish reading about it. Each individual act of censorship might spark a news cycle, but two hundred of them? That’s just… Tuesday.

And here’s what’s maddening: this is the same guy whose supporters spent years screaming that the Biden administration was engaged in unprecedented censorship because some officials sent some angry emails to social media companies—emails that, as we’ve covered extensively, the companies routinely ignored. That was the constitutional crisis that required Elon Musk to buy Twitter and “free the bird.”

But actual government coercion? Actual arrests? Actual lawsuits forcing private companies to change their speech policies? Actual bans on journalists? That’s apparently just “making America great again.”

Benavidez closes with a warning that shouldn’t need stating but apparently does:

> *But constitutional rights and democratic norms don’t disappear all at once; they erode slowly. The next three years will require a vigilant defense of free speech and open debate.*

She’s right. And part of that vigilance means not letting the “free speech” crowd get away with pretending that the guy actively engaged in government censorship at scale is somehow its greatest defender.

Two hundred times. In one year. And we’re just getting started on year two.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/opinion/trump-first-amendment-dissent.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/09/trump-admits-we-took-the-freedom-of-speech-away/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/23/mahmoud-khalil-finally-released-months-after-being-illegally-kidnapped-by-ice-for-his-speech/
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/us/politics/judge-boasberg-trump-deportation-flights.html
[5]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/us/politics/fbi-gay-pride-flag-lawsuit.html
[6]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/27/us/politics/kash-patel-fbi-firing.html
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/21/paul-weisss-shameful-surrender-makes-every-lawyer-there-complicit-in-trumpian-constitutional-desecration/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/12/cowardice-and-capitulation-at-cornell/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/trumps-free-speech-presidency-racked-up-200-censorship-attempts-in-its-first-year/

Welcome To The Resistance… Grand Juries? The DOJ can’t indict ...

2026-01-16T18:52:16Z

Welcome To The Resistance… Grand Juries?

The DOJ can’t indict a ham sandwich these days. That old saying doesn’t ring as true as it used to now that most of the DOJ’s work is just [vindictive prosecutions][1].

It’s not just cases being tossed because DOJ prosecutors [weren’t legally appointed][2] to their positions. This dates back to the early parts of last year when the DOJ was trying to turn anti-ICE protesters into convicted felons. Most notoriously, the government failed to secure an assault indictment against Sean Dunn, a DC resident who famously “assaulted” an ICE officer by [throwing a literal sandwich][3] at them.

Former Trump personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan did manage to secure indictments (after multiple attempts) against former FBI director James Comey and current New York Attorney General Letitia James. Those case are gone but not because the grand juries rebelled, but because the “rule of law” party [ignored a lot of rules and laws][4].

But the trend that began last year continues: federal prosecutors are seeing their cases [rejected by grand juries at historically high rates][5].

> *In 2016, the most recent year for which [the Justice Department has published data][6], federal prosecutors concluded more than 155,000 prosecutions and declined over 25,000 cases presented by investigators. **In only six instances was a grand jury’s refusal to indict listed as the reason for dropping the matter**.*

Lindsey Halligan managed to rack up nearly half that amount in a single case:

> *A grand jury rejected one of three charges Halligan proposed against Comey. She initially secured an indictment against James, but after a judge threw that case out , two grand juries [voted down new indictments][7].*

She did this twice with the same proposed defendant. The DOJ surpassed this number of rejections less than halfway through 2025, as grand juries not only rejected the vindictive prosecution of the DC sandwich thrower, but dozens of other cases brought by prosecutors.

> *At one point earlier this year, [DOJ US Attorney Bill] Essayli’s office had managed to secure indictments in less than a quarter of the felony cases it brought in connection with protests or immigration raids, [the Los Angeles Times reported][8].*

We’ve spent plenty of time criticizing [grand juries][9] here at Techdirt. But something weird and quietly wonderful is happening all over the nation, which is returning grand juries back to their roots: a crucial part of the system of checks and balances.

They’re a carryover from the British Empire, but one the founding fathers felt actually had some merit, as [former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason explained][10] in post last year discussing the DOJ’s multiple failures:

> *The Constitution requires that every federal felony be indicted by a grand jury. This safeguard was inherited from the British legal system, where it dates back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. To prevent the king from arbitrarily locking up people for improper reasons, British law required the Crown to present its evidence to a panel of residents of the local community to establish that criminal charges were justified. The case could only proceed if that group of citizens, the grand jury, approved the charges.*

We’re dealing with a president who thinks he’s a king. And his DOJ is finding out that regular Americans not only don’t view him as a king, but aren’t willing to rubber stamp a bunch of vindictive prosecutions meant to remind citizens who’s in power.

Halligan went 1-for-3 in her attempted prosecution of James Comey. Former Fox commentator Jeanine Pirro did even worse when trying to prosecute an anti-ICE protester for assault.

> *Pirro’s office presented these facts to a D.C. federal grand jury and asked them to indict Reid for assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer, a [felony][11] punishable by up to eight years in prison. When the grand jury refused, prosecutors tried again with a second grand jury. And then with a third. Each grand jury [refused to return the indictment][12] sought by prosecutors.*

Now that this sort of thing is almost a daily occurrence, Trump loyalists like Pirro are blaming their inability to secure indictments on the public, rather than their own inability to read the room and discard felony charges jury members don’t seem to believe are warranted. That’s part of the reason why so many indictments are returned by grand juries: prosecutors who actually know what they’re doing (rather than the stunt casting that passes for federal agency appointments under Trump) will ditch cases that seem doomed to be rejected by grand jurors.

No one in the administration will learn anything from this. Bill Essayli [will continue to scream][13] at his underlings for failing to turn vindictive bullshit into prison sentences. Lindsey Halligan will continue to bumblefuck her way into an eventual firing for failing to fulfill Trump’s revenge fantasies. And other under-qualified former Fox b-listers will return to their former employer to complain their losses are just more evidence of a latent strain of liberalism that’s making America less great again.

> *“There are a lot of people who sit on juries and and they live in Georgetown or in Northwest or in some of these better areas, and they don’t see the reality of crime that is occurring,” [Pirro said in August on “Fox News Sunday.”][14]*
>
> *Pirro also blamed that alleged indifference to crime for a grand jury’s refusal to [indict Justice Department paralegal Sean Dunn][15] for throwing a Subway sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent during a street confrontation earlier that month.*
>
> *“The grand jurors don’t take it so seriously. They’re like, ‘Eh, you know, whatever.’ My job is to try to turn that around,” Pirro said. *

Like many people in Trump’s orbit, Pirro is so divorced from reality she should be cutting it alimony checks every month. The grand juries are taking it seriously. It’s the DOJ prosecutors that are being glib, treating every ridiculous case like a foregone conclusion as they try to convert Trump’s desire for vengeance into criminal charges. Say what you will about grand juries, but it appears jurors aren’t willing to help the government strip people of their freedom just because it’s angry.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/05/judge-catches-doj-lying-tells-it-to-turn-over-more-documents-to-kilmar-abrego-garcia/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/25/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-tossed-because-trumps-insurance-lawyer-wasnt-legally-appointed-to-the-doj/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/02/federal-grand-jury-refuses-to-indict-dc-sandwich-thrower/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/31/rule-of-law-administration-keeps-losing-cases-because-it-has-no-respect-for-the-rule-of-law/
[5]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/trump-grand-juries-letitia-james-comey-indictments-00713579
[6]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs16st.pdf
[7]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/11/letitia-james-indictment-fails-00687508
[8]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-23/protester-charges-essayli
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/grand-jury/
[10]: https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/the-grand-jury-emerges-as-a-check
[11]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
[12]: https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/26/politics/pirro-grand-jury-alleged-fbi-agent-attacker
[13]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/04/doj-prosecutor-says-hell-just-keep-prosecuting-despite-court-ruling-he-was-illegally-appointed/
[14]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIC5ZIxAw6A
[15]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/03/sandwich-case-federal-agent-washington-dc-00634120

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/welcome-to-the-resistance-grand-juries/

Daily Deal: The Complete Superstar Photographer Bundle The ...

2026-01-16T18:48:07Z

Daily Deal: The Complete Superstar Photographer Bundle

The [Complete Superstar Photographer Bundle][1] has 11 courses to help take your photography skills to the next level. Two course start you off with the basics of photography and how to take advantage of your DSLR camera. Other courses focus on lighting and posing techniques, how to photograph landscapes, food, portraits, and groups, night photography tips, editing, and more. The bundle is on sale for $30.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: http://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-complete-2021-superstar-photographer-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/daily-deal-the-complete-superstar-photographer-bundle-2/

The Case For A 100-Justice Supreme Court With the current mess ...

2026-01-16T17:22:39Z

The Case For A 100-Justice Supreme Court

With the current mess that the US is in, there has been plenty of talk of “what comes after” and how to think about the big structural changes needed to prevent another authoritarian from taking over and abusing all the levers of power for corruption and self-enrichment.

There are many different issues to address, but we should be thinking creatively about how to redesign our institutions to be more resilient to the abuses we’re witnessing.

One area ripe for creative rethinking is the federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. Because right now, we have a system where individual judges matter way, way too much. Rather than the minor reforms and incremental changes some are suggesting, I think the solution is to go big. Really big. Expand the Supreme Court to at least 100 justices, with cases heard by randomized panels.

I’ll explain the details below, but the core philosophy is simple: no single Supreme Court Justice should ever matter that much.

The New York Times recently published [an analysis of how federal appeals court judges][1] appointed by Trump have voted on challenges to his administration’s actions. The numbers are stark:

> *President Trump has found a powerful but obscure bulwark in the appeals court judges he appointed during his first term. They have voted overwhelmingly in his favor when his administration’s actions have been challenged in court in his current term, a New York Times analysis of their 2025 records shows.*
>
> *Time and again, appellate judges chosen by Mr. Trump in his first term reversed rulings made by district court judges in his second, clearing the way for his policies and gradually eroding a perception early last year that the legal system was thwarting his efforts to amass presidential power.*

The actual figures are damning. Trump’s appellate appointees voted to allow his policies to take effect 133 times and voted against them only 12 times. That’s 92 percent of their votes in favor of the administration.

When Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge” back in 2018, he insisted that “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

The data suggests Roberts was either naive or lying.

> *The Times analyzed every judicial ruling on Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda, from Jan. 20 to Dec. 31 of last year, or more than 500 orders issued across 900 cases. About half of rulings at the appellate level were in Mr. Trump’s favor — better than his performance with the district courts, though worse than his record at the Supreme Court, where the rulings on his agenda have almost all been on a preliminary basis in response to emergency applications.*

And there it is. The higher you go up the judicial food chain, the better Trump does. District courts ruled in his favor 25% of the time. Appeals courts: 51%. The Supreme Court: 88%.

Now, some will argue this is the system working as designed—higher courts correcting overzealous lower court judges. And sure, that’s part of what appeals courts do. But the pattern here isn’t just about legal merit. It’s about how much individual judges matter, and how vulnerable the system is to ideological capture.

> *The uniformity of the judges’ votes is reason for serious concern, said Mark L. Wolf, a former federal judge nominated by President Ronald Reagan. Judge Wolf recently retired so he could speak more freely about what he has characterized as the threat that Mr. Trump posed to the rule of law.*
>
> *“If you’re an impartial judge, the same party is not going to win every time,” he said. “Because the facts are different, the law is different, and so the result is often going to be different.”*

This gets at the fundamental problem. When you have a small number of judges with lifetime appointments, whose ideological leanings are known quantities, those individual judges become enormously powerful. A single justice retiring or dying at the wrong time can reshape American law for a generation. That’s insane. No single person should have that kind of power over the constitutional rights of 330 million people.

And it gets worse. The Times found that three Trump appointees on the D.C. Circuit—Judges Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Justin Walker—accounted for more than half of all pro-Trump votes from Trump’s appellate appointees. Three judges. In one circuit. Exercising “outsized influence.”

> *Combined, Judges Gregory G. Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Justin R. Walker voted 75 times in favor of the administration — slightly more than half of the pro-Trump votes from Mr. Trump’s appointees logged by the Times analysis — and only three times against.*

So what do we do about this?

The typical response from Democrats when they’re in power is to either accept the status quo or propose modest reforms that don’t actually address the structural problem. Republicans, meanwhile, have been playing the long game on judicial appointments for *decades*, understanding that packing the courts with ideologically aligned young judges is one of the most effective ways to entrench their policy preferences beyond electoral accountability.

We need to think bigger. Much bigger.

Here’s my proposal: Expand the Supreme Court to **at least 100 justices**, with cases heard by randomized panels of 9 justices. High-profile or particularly important cases could be reheard en banc by a larger panel or the entire court, similar to how it’s currently done in appeals courts.

Before you dismiss this as just another “court packing” scheme, let me explain why it’s fundamentally different from what FDR tried to do in 1937.

FDR’s plan was explicitly designed to shift the ideological balance of the court in his favor. He wanted to add up to six new justices precisely because the existing court kept striking down New Deal programs. The goal was partisan advantage, and everyone knew it. That’s why it failed—even FDR’s own party largely opposed it as a power grab.

What I’m proposing is the opposite. By expanding to at least 100 justices, you’re not packing the court in any ideological direction. You’re **diluting the power of any individual justice**—or any ideological bloc—to the point where it doesn’t matter nearly as much who gets appointed or when they retire or die. And unlike some reform proposals that would require a constitutional amendment, this one doesn’t. The Constitution doesn’t specify the size of the Supreme Court—Congress has changed it before, from as few as five justices to as many as ten.

Think about it this way: Right now, replacing one justice out of nine can shift the balance of the court from 5-4 one way to 5-4 the other way. That’s an enormous swing from a single personnel change. But if you have 100 justices, and cases are heard by randomized panels of 9, the ideological composition of any given panel becomes much more variable, and the overall composition of the court becomes much more stable over time.

No single president appointing one or two or even ten justices can fundamentally reshape the court. No single justice dying at an inopportune moment can throw constitutional law into chaos. The incentive for presidents to appoint ideological extremists diminishes because no individual justice will be important enough to matter that much.

This is the core principle: **No single Supreme Court justice should ever be important enough to matter.**

We shouldn’t care who any individual justice is. We shouldn’t have national freakouts when an 87-year-old justice refuses to retire. We shouldn’t have presidents salivating over the actuarial tables of aging justices. The system should be robust enough to absorb personnel changes without lurching wildly in one direction or another.

How would this work in practice? There are several possibilities.

One approach would be to elevate existing appeals court judges to the Supreme Court. This could happen all at once or gradually over time. Given that there are currently around 180 active appeals court judges, drawing from this pool wouldn’t be difficult from a numbers perspective.

Another approach would be a rotating system where appeals court judges serve temporary terms on the Supreme Court. This would actually align with how many other countries structure their highest courts and would create a more fluid relationship between the appellate and Supreme Court levels.

Either approach could be combined with term limits—say, 18 years—for Supreme Court justices. Term limits address a different but related problem: the arbitrary power that comes from lifetime appointments combined with advances in life expectancy. When the Constitution was written, justices served an average of about 15 years. Now they routinely serve 25, 30, or more. Term limits would make appointments more predictable and reduce the incentive for presidents to appoint the youngest possible ideologues who might serve for four decades.

There are additional benefits to this approach beyond diluting individual power.

First, the Supreme Court could actually hear more cases. The court has been steadily shrinking its docket for decades, from around 150 cases per year in the 1980s to around 60-70 today. With multiple panels operating simultaneously, the court could address far more legal questions, reducing the enormous backlog of important issues that never get resolved.

Second, it could help rationalize the federal circuit system. The Ninth Circuit, for example, is a behemoth that covers nine states plus Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, with more than twice as many judges as the smallest circuits. With a reorganized Supreme Court drawing from an expanded pool of appellate judges, there would be an opportunity to realign the circuits into more sensible and equally-sized units.

Third, randomized panels would undermine the strategic timing that currently shapes which cases reach the court and when. Right now, advocacy groups wait for favorable court compositions before pushing major cases. The Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade didn’t happen by accident in 2022—anti-abortion activists had been deliberately holding back their most aggressive challenges for years, waiting until they knew they had a 6-3 anti-abortion majority locked in. With randomized panels drawn from 100 justices, that kind of strategic patience becomes pointless. You can’t game a court composition you can’t predict.

Now, there are legitimate questions and criticisms of this approach.

Some will argue that a 100-justice court would produce inconsistent rulings—different panels reaching different conclusions on similar issues. This is a real concern, but it’s manageable. En banc review could resolve circuit splits and ensure consistency on the most important questions. And frankly, we already have inconsistency—different circuit courts regularly reach contradictory conclusions that take years to resolve. Also the Supreme Court’s composition continually changes over time, and we still accept the results from different panels. No one sees a problem with relying on cases from half a century ago even though none of the Justices who made those rulings is even alive, let alone on the court, any more.

The most serious objection is political: any expansion would be seen as partisan court packing regardless of intent. This is true. Republicans would scream bloody murder if Democrats expanded the court by 91 justices, no matter how the new seats were filled. But Republicans are already screaming bloody murder about the courts whenever they don’t get their way. The question isn’t whether a reform will be controversial. The question is whether it will actually fix the problem.

The status quo isn’t neutral. A system where individual justices wield enormous power is a system that advantages whoever is best at the long game of judicial appointments. For the past several decades, that’s been Republicans.

Refusing to change a broken system because change might be controversial is just accepting permanent disadvantage while pretending to take the high road. Indeed, for anyone who (falsely) claims that this plan is “packing the court” (a la FDR), it’s the opposite. The Republicans and the Federalist Society spent decades plotting out things to get us where we are today, with a court that is “packed” in favor of their interests.

This is about unpacking the court.

The data from the Times analysis should alarm everyone who cares about an independent judiciary. When 92 percent of a president’s judicial appointees vote in his favor, that’s not impartial justice. That’s a rubber stamp. And when that pattern intensifies the higher you go in the judicial system, culminating in an 88% success rate at the Supreme Court, you have a system that’s been captured.

The solution isn’t to try to capture it for the other side. The solution is to build a system that’s resistant to capture in the first place.

Make the Supreme Court so large that no president can pack it. Make individual justices so interchangeable that none of them become celebrities or villains. Make the system boring. Make it work.

Because right now, we have a Supreme Court where everyone knows exactly who the swing vote is, where entire advocacy organizations are built around influencing specific justices, where presidential elections are decided partly on who might die in the next four years.

That’s not how a functional judicial system in a modern democracy should work. It’s time to unpack the court.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trumps-appeals-court-judges.html?unlocked_article_code=1.D1A.z_e3.fN3IPrcLLG6W&smid=nytcore-android-share

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/the-case-for-a-100-justice-supreme-court/

Trump FCC Helps Verizon Make It Harder For You To Switch Wireless ...

2026-01-16T13:25:10Z

Trump FCC Helps Verizon Make It Harder For You To Switch Wireless Carriers

Last May [we noted how][1] Verizon was lobbying the Trump administration to eliminate rules making it easier to switch mobile providers (and bring your phone with you). And as usual with the pay-to-play Trump administration, the Trump FCC is tripping over itself to give Verizon what it wants.

The Trump FCC [says it is eliminating rules][2] requiring that Verizon unlock handsets 60 days after they are activated on its network. As part of its lobbying efforts, Verizon has [falsely claimed][3] that adhering to the 60 day unlocking requirements is somehow a huge boon to criminals, something Brendan Carr’s industry-coddling FCC [parrots in the agency’s announcement][4]:

> *“[The rule] required one wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.”*

This is, you’ll be surprised to learn, a lie.

Older folks might remember that Verizon used to be *even more obnoxious *on this subject of consumer freedom. Once upon a time, the company banned you from even using third-party apps (including [basics like GPS][5]), forcing you to use extremely shitty Verizon apps. It also used to be horrendous when it came to unlocking phones, switching carriers, and using the device of your choice on the Verizon network.

Two things changed that. One, back in 2008 when the [company acquired spectrum][6] that came with [requirements][7] that users be allowed to use the devices of their choice. And two, as part of [merger conditions][8] affixed to its 2021 acquisition of Tracfone. Thanks to those two events Verizon was dragged, kicking and screaming, into a new era of openness that was of huge benefit to the public.

Here you have both a major wireless company and U.S. regulators lying to your face, insisting that killing these basic protections help create a “uniform industry standard that can help stem the flow of handsets into the black market.”

Verizon used to sell phones that were already fully unlocked, but received a waiver from the first Trump administration in 2019 after the company again lied about how making it easier to switch carriers would make it harder to “prevent fraud.”

Ultimately, what Verizon (and its friends at the corrupt FCC) want is zero government oversight whatsoever, taking us back to the days when Verizon could impose any number of obnoxious restrictions designed to harm (device and app) competition and the public interest. They want to bring back the era where you were locked to one provider via locked phones and long-term contracts.

Given enough time and rope, they’ll inevitably push to be able to control what apps and services you can use (read: [net neutrality][9]). This desire to exploit telecom monopoly power operates a bit like the physics of running water; it only really goes one direction without functional government oversight.

Because U.S. journalism is a clown show, many outlets are taking Verizon and the FCC’s unsubstantiated claims of increased fraud and parroting them in headlines, like Reuters does here:

Ultimately, the Trump administration (and its Supreme and Circuit Courts) has been steadily moving toward making it [impossible to hold unpopular giants like Verizon accountable for anything][10] by dismantling whatever is left of U.S. regulatory oversight. And [rubbing stamping more mergers][11] that increase consolidation in the uncompetitive telecom sector.

In exchange, Verizon obediently acquiesces to administration demands that executives remain quiet while the administration destroys democracy and civil rights, and occasionally makes an effort to [try to be more sexist and racist][12]. So far that corrupt symbiosis is working out well for both parties.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/28/verizon-asks-trump-admin-to-destroy-all-popular-phone-unlocking-requirements/
[2]: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-acts-bring-more-uniform-approach-handset-unlocking-rules
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/28/verizon-asks-trump-admin-to-destroy-all-popular-phone-unlocking-requirements/
[4]: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-acts-bring-more-uniform-approach-handset-unlocking-rules
[5]: https://community.verizon.com/t5/Blackberry-Archive/Verizon-blocks-GPS-to-most-third-party-apps/td-p/59470
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2008/05/06/that-didnt-take-long-verizon-wireless-trying-to-get-out-of-open-spectrum-requirements/
[7]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/27.16
[8]: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-121A1.pdf
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/07/u-s-media-once-again-fails-to-cover-the-corrupt-net-neutrality-ruling-with-any-clarity/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/23/5th-circuit-obediently-lets-att-off-the-hook-for-major-location-data-privacy-violations/
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/23/verizon-gets-20-billion-frontier-merger-approved-by-fcc-after-promising-to-be-more-racist-and-sexist/
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/23/verizon-gets-20-billion-frontier-merger-approved-by-fcc-after-promising-to-be-more-racist-and-sexist/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/16/trump-fcc-helps-verizon-make-it-harder-for-you-to-switch-wireless-carriers/

RFK Jr.’s FDA Removed A Webpage Of Warnings About Bogus Autism ...

2026-01-16T04:02:52Z

RFK Jr.’s FDA Removed A Webpage Of Warnings About Bogus Autism Treatments

Welcome to year two of the unmitigated disaster that is [RFK Jr.][1] being in charge of Health and Human Services and its child agencies. To call Kennedy an anti-vaxxer is not remotely controversial any longer, and probably never was. To state that he’s a corrupt peddler of misinformation from which he has, likely still is, and will in the future profit should be equally uncontroversial. And if there is a single health issue on which Kennedy has staked his dubious claims more than any other, it certainly must be [autism spectrum disorder][2].

Kennedy, and Trump right alongside him, have been all over the map when it comes to his claims about autism. Kennedy was one of those leading the charge for decades in claiming that thimerosal in childhood vaccines [was responsible for rising rates in autism][3] diagnoses. When thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines over two decades ago and autism rates didn’t decrease, rather than admitting they were wrong, Kennedy and his cadre of hapless buffoons simply pivoted to another vaccine ingredient: aluminum. That ingredient has also been deemed safe by countless studies and experts. You know, people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.

Since then, Kennedy has discovered all sorts of other causes of the disorder. Male [circumcision][4]? Autism! Make American girthy again, I suppose. Use of [Tylenol][5] by pregnant women and/or for young children? Autism! Fevers are super hot these days, y’all. And, of course, he is still claiming it might [be vaccines][6] too, because why the hell not? It’s not like [measles][7] is everywhere or anything.

Kennedy’s alteration of the CDC page on vaccines and autism to suggest that there just might be a link between the two is particularly appropriate, as the [FDA just also disappeared a webpage][8] informing the public on the various snake oil style scams that are out there purporting to treat autism as well.

> *…under anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who has numerous ties to the wellness industry—that FDA information webpage is [now gone][9]. It was quietly deleted at the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed to Ars Technica.*
>
> *The defunct webpage, titled “Be Aware of Potentially Dangerous Products and Therapies that Claim to Treat Autism,” provided parents and other consumers with an overview of the problem. It began with a short description of autism and some evidence-based, FDA-approved medications that can help manage autism symptoms. Then, the regulatory agency provided a list of some false claims and unproven, potentially dangerous treatments it had been working to combat. “Some of these so-called therapies carry significant health risks,” the FDA wrote.*
>
> *The list included chelation and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, treatments that those in the anti-vaccine and wellness spheres have championed.*

It should be obvious already that there is no evidence to suggest that these so-called autism therapies work in any way, shape, or form. That’s why the FDA had a page up warning against their use. In some cases, the danger in using them is no joke either.

Hyperbaric oxygen chamber use is probably the lesser of the two concerns. They won’t do anything for your autism, but they are typically found in facilities with staff who aren’t medical professionals and aren’t always trained well in their use generally. That’s how one five year old (!!!) that visited a wellness center that claimed to treat autism with hyperbaric chambers was incinerated inside it when a spark went off and all of that concentrated oxygen ignited. On the one hand, this person certainly doesn’t have autism any longer, though I don’t think that’s how the result is supposed to be achieved.

Then there’s chelation therapy, a process by which chemical injections into the body are performed, so that these chemicals can bind to metals within a person’s bloodstream, allowing them to be excreted through waste. Chelation actually *does* have legitimate uses, such as when someone has heavy metal poisoning, typically from mercury, lead, or arsenic. Using chelation therarpy to remove non-approved minerals, however, can have negative health outcomes, including death. And, of course, one of Kennedy’s minions is [David Geier][10]. Geier is an anti-vaxxer who joined HHS to “find” the cause of autism and has long been advocate for chelation therapy.

> *To address this nonexistent problem, anti-vaccine activists have touted chelation as a way to remove metals delivered via vaccines and treat autism. One of the most notorious of these activists is [David Geier][11], whom Kennedy hired to the US health department last year to study the debunked connection between vaccines and autism. David Geier, along with his late father, Mark Geier, faced discipline from the Maryland State Board of Physicians in 2011 for, among other things, putting the health of autistic children at risk by treating them with unproven and dangerous hormone and chelation therapies. Mark Geier was stripped of his medical license. David Geier, who is not a scientist or doctor, was issued a civil fine for practicing medicine without a license.*

So why is all of this being done? Money, of course! Kennedy has surrounded himself with these “health guru” snakeoil salesmen, both in government and out, and the lot of them have made buckets and buckets of money doing this sort of thing.

> *In July, KFF Health News reported that Kennedy and his wellness allies [have made millions promoting unproven wellness products][12] and treatments. Likewise, a story last week from The Wall Street Journal reported that [Kennedy has surrounded himself with wellness moguls][13], including Brecka, who are profiting from the administration’s unambiguous embrace of unproven treatments.*

Generally, my experience is that people think RFK Jr. is one of two things. One common belief is that he’s a health savior, finally sticking it to a corrupt medical industry and telling the truth about the real causes of real disorders like autism. That’s incredibly wrong for a million different reasons. The other common belief is that Kennedy’s views on vaccines and health are super wrong, and that he’s very dumb, but also that he’s a true believer.

That’s wrong, too. This is a grift and always has been. A money-making scheme built on the backs of illness and death for those who listen to him, all while he collects a government paycheck. That he was confirmed as Secretary of HHS at all was profane. That our government has allowed all of his bullshit to go unchecked and unaddressed, however, is perverse.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/rfk-jr/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/autism/
[3]: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/thimerosal-again
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/15/rfk-jr-discovers-second-cause-of-autism-foreskin-deficiency/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/23/trump-admin-tells-expecting-mothers-to-avoid-tylenol-due-to-unproven-link-to-autism/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/21/clown-show-cdc-website-changed-to-suggest-vaccines-may-indeed-cause-autism/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/new-year-but-the-same-measles-crises-rages-on/
[8]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/01/warning-about-bogus-autism-treatments-vanishes-from-fdas-website/
[9]: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/be-aware-potentially-dangerous-products-and-therapies-claim-treat-autism
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/14/rfk-jr-commits-to-knowing-the-cause-of-autism-by-september-of-this-year/
[11]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/03/rfk-jr-hires-anti-vaccine-advocate-to-study-debunked-vaccine-autism-link/
[12]: https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/rfk-jr-trump-maha-conflict-of-interest-wellness-industry-political-influence/
[13]: https://www.wsj.com/health/rfk-jr-supplements-industry-maha-ac8cc684

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/rfk-jr-s-fda-removed-a-webpage-of-warnings-about-bogus-autism-treatments/

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: We’ve Hit Grok Bottom **[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] ...

2026-01-15T23:45:47Z

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: We’ve Hit Grok Bottom

**[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and [Everything in Moderation][2]‘s Ben Whitelaw. **

**Subscribe now on [Apple Podcasts][3], [Overcast][4], [Spotify][5], [Pocket Casts][6], [YouTube][7], or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to [the RSS feed][8].**

In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:

* [UK, Canadian watchdogs press on with probes into Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot][9] (Reuters)
* [Musk’s xAI limits Grok’s ability to create sexualized images of real people on X after backlash][10] (CNBC)
* [X claims it has stopped Grok from undressing people, but of course it hasn’t][11] (The Verge)
* [State Department Threatens UK Over Grok Investigation, Because Only The US Is Allowed To Ban Foreign Apps][12] (Techdirt)
* [Keir Starmer tells MPs he is open to social media ban for young people][13] (The Guardian)
* [Statement from the Molly Rose Foundation][14] (LinkedIn)
* [Wes Streeting asks US expert Jonathan Haidt to address officials on social media ban for under-16s][15] (The Guardian)
* [Some social media use can benefit teen mental health][16] (AAP)
* [Arlington-focused Facebook group with 25,000 members is removed, angering moderators][17] (ARLnow)
* [Bandcamp becomes the first major music platform to ban AI content][18] (The Verge)

[1]: https://ctrlaltspeech.com/
[2]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/
[3]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193
[4]: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193
[5]: https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc
[6]: https://pca.st/zulnarbw
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z
[8]: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
[9]: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/uk-regulator-says-its-x-deepfake-probe-will-continue-2026-01-15/
[10]: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/musk-xai-blocks-grok-chatbot-from-creating-sexualized-images-of-people.html
[11]: https://www.theverge.com/news/862372/x-grok-ai-policy-update-deepfake-bikini-poses
[12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/state-department-threatens-uk-over-grok-investigation-because-only-the-us-is-allowed-to-ban-foreign-apps/
[13]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/13/keir-starmer-tells-mps-he-is-open-to-australian-style-social-media-ban
[14]: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andy-burrows-60256731_social-media-bans-are-the-wrong-approach-activity-7417484726598533120-VnCU/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAWdP_cB471ESzCxlSkInD88tQp2Y7oM280
[15]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/14/wes-streeting-asks-expert-jonathan-haidt-address-officials-social-media-ban-for-under-16s
[16]: https://aapnews.aap.com.au/glance/news/some-social-media-use-can-benefit-teen-mental-health?section=top-stories
[17]: https://www.arlnow.com/2026/01/14/arlington-focused-facebook-group-with-25000-members-is-removed-angering-moderators/
[18]: https://www.theverge.com/news/861794/bandcamp-ban-ai-music

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/ctrl-alt-speech-weve-hit-grok-bottom/

Justice Gorsuch Reminds: The Fourth Amendment Isn’t Dead Yet ...

2026-01-15T21:27:27Z

Justice Gorsuch Reminds: The Fourth Amendment Isn’t Dead Yet

The Supreme Court released a few decisions this week. All of them are important for the parties involved, and ultimately for everyone, but not to the immediate degree that some of the other pending cases are (like the tariffs case). But one of the decisions is worth calling out, not for the decision itself, but for what Justice Gorsuch said in his concurrence and how it bears on electronic surveillance and the crisis we find ourselves in where the Fourth Amendment (along with the rest of the Constitution) is providing none of its promised protection.

The decision at issue is [*Case v. Montana*][1] where a unanimous Court agreed that the Fourth Amendment did not actually apply. The justices [agreed that earlier precedent still held][2]: it will not violate the Fourth Amendment for police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. It is a rule that on its face does not necessarily look unreasonable. The problem, though, is that, over time, courts have found more and more rules describing circumstances when it is ok to supersede the Fourth Amendment’s own clear rule that the people should be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” from warrantless searches and seizures. As a result, over time the public has gotten less and less secure as fewer and fewer warrants have been needed by the government.

In his concurrence Justice Gorsuch agreed with the specific holding—that this sort of emergency rule exists, even in the shadow of the Fourth Amendment, and that it applied in this case—but he took some time ruminate on *why* it is a reasonable exception to the Fourth Amendment’s usual warrant requirement.

> *Does the Fourth Amendment tolerate this limited emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement just because five or more Justices of this Court happen to believe that such entries are “reasonable”? Or is this exception more directly “tied to the law”? Carpenter v. United States, 585 U. S. 296, 397 (2018) (GORSUCH , J., dissenting). The answer, I believe, is the latter.*

The reason it is “tied to the law,” he explains, is because such an “emergency” rule would have been recognized in common law, and that rule would forgive anyone’s trespass for the purpose of giving aid, including the police’s:

> *Today’s decision echoes both the common-law emergency aid rule and its limitations. It does so, to be sure, in the context of a law enforcement officer, not a private citizen, who sought to enter another’s home. But on this point as well the common law has spoken, long providing that officers generally enjoy the same legal privileges as private citizens. See, e.g., Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, 1066 (C. P. 1765); 1 J. Chitty, Criminal Law 36 (1819); 2 M. Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae 91 (1736). And, reflecting the common law here again, this Court has held that the Fourth Amendment usually permits officers lacking a valid warrant to “take actions that any private citizen might do without fear of liability.” Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U. S. 194, 198 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).*

The emergency of course does not give them carte blanche, however. Police excused from needing a warrant to respond to an emergency “normally may do ‘no more’ than that.”

> *Contrary to Mr. Case’s argument, King v. Coate, Lofft. 73, 98 Eng. Rep. 539 (K. B. 1772), does not establish that the common law demanded an exacting showing of actual necessity to defeat a claim for trespass. True, Lord Mansfield explained that any necessity defense in that case would need to “stand the strictest test,” with the “necessity manifestly proved.” Id., at 75, 98 Eng. Rep., at 540. But Coate involved an effort to involuntarily “confin[e] a person in a madhouse” for two months, not a claim over a home entry. Id., at 74, 98 Eng. Rep., at 539. And it is hardly surprising that the common law would demand a good deal more to justify a serious deprivation of liberty than to excuse an invasion of property rights aimed at protecting human safety.*

But what is most interesting about Gorsuch’s analysis is not how he applied the common law rule here but his larger argument that it is common law rules that should be applied to the Fourth Amendment analysis generally and *not* the line of precedent that has resulted since the Court decided [*Katz v. US*][3] in 1967. Those subsequent decisions have instead emphasized that whether there was a “reasonable expectation of privacy” is key to determining whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated. So while *Katz* itself had the immediate effect of expanding the protective reach of the Fourth Amendment, as Gorsuch had earlier complained in his dissent in the [*Carpenter v. US*][4] case, it set subsequent precedent down a path that largely narrowed it. As he wrote then:

> * Katz has yielded an often unpredictable—and sometimes unbelievable—jurisprudence. Smith and Miller are only two examples; there are many others. Take Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989), which says that a police helicopter hovering 400 feet above a person’s property invades no reasonable expectation of privacy. Try that one out on your neighbors. Or California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988), which holds that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage he puts out for collection. In that case, the Court said that the homeowners forfeited their privacy interests because “[i]t is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.” Id., at 40, 108 S.Ct. 1625 (footnotes omitted). But the habits of raccoons don’t prove much about the habits of the country. I doubt, too,
> that most people spotting a neighbor rummaging through their garbage would think they lacked reasonable grounds to confront the rummager. Making the decision all the stranger, California state law expressly protected a homeowner’s property rights in discarded trash. Id., at 43, 108 S.Ct. 1625. Yet rather than defer to that as evidence of the people’s habits and reasonable expectations of privacy, the Court substituted its own curious judgment.*

Even in a case like *Carpenter*, which the government basically lost, Gorsuch still had dissented from the decision apparently because he felt the rationale was so poisoned by the post-*Katz* reasoning that had subsequently emerged in so many cases since. As he wrote then:

> *In the end, what do Smith and Miller add up to? A doubtful application of Katz that lets the government search almost whatever it wants whenever it wants. The Sixth Circuit had to follow that rule and faithfully did just that, but it’s not clear why we should.*

One unfortunate way that Fourth Amendment protection has been narrowed since *Katz* is in the context of electronic surveillance. In case after case it has been an uphill battle to challenge programs that give the government so much information about people’s lives. Indeed, as Gorsuch had earlier worried in *Carpenter*, as long as the rule excusing an intrusion into what the Fourth Amendment would protect hinges on whether it invades a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” then there is effectively no protection to be had, because it simply isn’t a durable standard. As his comment in this recent case about the “five or more Justices of this Court” harkened back to, it is subjectively dependent on the whims of the judges hearing the case. As he also wrote then:

> * Maybe, then, the Katz test should be conceived as a normative question. But if that’s the case, why (again) do judges, rather than legislators, get to determine whether society should be prepared to recognize an expectation of privacy as legitimate? Deciding what privacy interests should be recognized often calls for a pure policy choice, many times between incommensurable goods—between the value of privacy in a particular setting and society’s interest in combating crime. Answering questions like that calls for the exercise of raw political will belonging to legislatures, not the legal judgment proper to courts. See The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). When judges abandon legal judgment for political will we not only risk decisions where “reasonable expectations of privacy” come to bear “an uncanny resemblance to those expectations of privacy” shared by Members of this Court. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 97, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998)
> (Scalia, J., concurring).*

The case this week was not an electronic surveillance case. But it is worth noting that Gorsuch is still holding fast to his insistence that the common law is still the correct lens to use to evaluate potential Fourth Amendment violations, and not the “reasonable expectation of privacy” lens that has emerged since *Katz*.

> *It should come as no surprise that our decision today might accord with the accumulated learning of the common law—just as it should come as no surprise that our application of the Fourth Amendment ought to be informed by the common law’s lessons rather than mere intuition. *

Because even if building off of *Katz* can sometimes result in even more protection, too often it has resulted in less, despite the Fourth Amendment’s articulated protection and history.

> *For a period, to be sure, the miasma created by this Court’s Katz era led some to think the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment depend on nothing more than current judicial instincts about “reasonable expectations of privacy.” See Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 394–395, 405–406 (GORSUCH , J., dissenting). But that confusion cannot last forever, for no one should think the rights of Americans hang on so thin a thread. Instead, and as Justice Story recognized, the Fourth Amendment is made of sturdier stuff, representing “the affirmance of a great constitutional doctrine of the common law.” 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 748 (1833).*

But his concurrence here may be more than just academic; it seems like it could be read to suggest that it may be time for litigants to take another swing at challenging the government’s warrantless electronic surveillance, especially given his callback to *Carpenter*, a case that implicated it. Because this time, he is intimating, the Court should get the analysis right, to find such surveillance anathema under the Fourth Amendment, by using more timeless common law principles than the courts since *Katz* have been free to use. Because even if the lower courts have been stuck with the “reasonable expectation of privacy” framework, the Supreme Court is not. And this concurrence reads as a clear call for the Court to revisit it.

Such challenges would also come not a moment too soon (assuming they are not already too late) given how the government’s data collection [practices][5] are now having immediate, direct, and horrific [effect][6] on people’s liberty writ large. It is not just personal information currently being seized but actual people, aided by the [warrantless collection][7] of their data. Or, in other words, and as it seems Gorsuch understands, what is happening is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to forestall. Thus it seems time for litigants to try again, to tee up before the Supreme Court the Fourth Amendment question that electronic surveillance implicates so that the Court can back up and try again, this time directing our subsequent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence down a different path from where it strayed post-*Katz*, and instead lead to one where the rights of Americans, particularly with respect to their electronic data, no longer “hang on so thin a thread.” It seems there’s
already at least one justice on board with finding that the Fourth Amendment precludes what the government has been doing of late, and probably more.

*Postscript: It is not the point of this post, but it is worth spending a moment to also digest Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence. In it she cautions that this decision should not be taken as a blanket rule that a police officer can always rush in without a warrant when they anticipate an emergency situation. Indeed, she notes, rushing in has the tendency to create the emergency, especially given the proliferation of firearms, and that danger should count heavily on the side of the ledger against the warrantless intrusion. Nevertheless, she continued, as in this case there can be factors counterbalancing those concerns and nevertheless justify the intrusion, which is why she joined the decision. But she was careful to emphasize in her concurrence that the rule here is not that all warrantless entrances in case of emergency are allowed; rather, the rule is that an assessment of whether there is an “objectively reasonable basis” for entering needs to always be made before such a
warrantless intrusion can potentially be excused.*

> *That conclusion, on the facts of this case, does not mean it will always be objectively reasonable for officers responding to a mental-health crisis to make a warrantless entry. A different mix of information [in this case here] might have led to the conclusion that the officers’ entry itself would put the occupant (and officers) at a greater risk of escalation and serious injury. Because the “objectively reasonable basis” test, as reaffirmed by the Court today, demands careful attention to the case-specific risks that attend mental-health crises, and requires officers to act reasonably in response, I join the Court’s opinion in full.*

[1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-624.html
[2]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-624_b07d.pdf
[3]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9210492700696416594&q=katz+v+united+states&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
[4]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=853695326923033538&q=carpenter&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
[5]: https://www.npr.org/2025/11/08/nx-s1-5585691/ice-facial-recognition-immigration-tracking-spyware
[6]: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/13/ice-using-private-data-to-intimidate-observers-and-activists-advocates-say
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/ice-is-going-on-a-surveillance-shopping-spree/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/justice-gorsuch-reminds-the-fourth-amendment-isnt-dead-yet/

DHS Expands Immigration Ban, Ensuring The Only Way An African Can ...

2026-01-15T19:09:06Z

DHS Expands Immigration Ban, Ensuring The Only Way An African Can Come To The US Is If We Bring Slavery Back

Ever since Trump took office and turned over immigration enforcement to someone who killed pets more often than she’s experienced moments of joy, the [world has been shrinking][1]. It America vs. everyone else at this point, with the Trump administration adding hefty amounts of imperialism to its heady blend of white Christian fascism.

To be non-white is to be less than 2/3rds of a human, which is something I thought we might have moved past during the last 100 years or so. But [everything old is new again][2], especially the stuff that should just be the relics of a shameful history, rather than the latest thing getting gilded by the administration’s ex-Fox News turd polishers.

After an Afghan refugee shot some National Guard troops, Trump and his DHS placed an indefinite pause on immigration applications from a total of 19 countries, including (of course) Afghanistan, a country we hastily exited and turned over to the Taliban.

For no discernible reason, another 20 countries have been added to the immigration ban. Unsurprisingly, none of these countries are mostly white. [Here’s NPR with the details][3] on the administration’s latest burst of xenophobia:

> *U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, [in a memo released Thursday, said][4] it would pause the review of all pending applications for visas, green cards, citizenship or asylum from immigrants from the additional countries. The memo also outlines plans to re-review applications of immigrants from these countries as far back as 2021.*
>
> *The list, which is composed mostly of countries in Africa, includes Angola, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.*

Wow. Imagine that. There’s a pattern developing here, and it’s exactly what you think it is. Here’s the full list of countries whose residents are subject to an indefinite ban on immigration applications:

> *Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Haiti, Iran, Ivory Coast, Laos, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, The Gambia, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe*

Here’s what that looks like:

So, we’ve got more than half of Africa on the blocklist. It will never reach 100% because South Africa is home to some [pretty feisty white colonials][5] the president seems to personally appreciate despite (or because of) their white nationalist leanings.

Give it a few more months and the rest of that continent should be colored in. And while this government will pretend this is about national security and/or thwarting the international drug trade, it’s safe to assume any national security threat posed by autocrats Trump likes (Putin, Bukele, Orban, Erdogan) will be ignored to keep them, um, whitelisted. And any other nation that poses no threat one way or another but happens to be heavily populated by people with more skin pigmentation will find their immigration privileges suspended until at least January 2029.

We’re no longer part of the free world. We’re a nation that’s hastily and deliberately backsliding into the worst version of itself, thanks to the irrational hatred of those in power. We may not have forgotten our history, but we’re being ruled by people who want to doom us to repeat it.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/05/they-came-to-the-u-s-legally-then-trump-stripped-their-status-away/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/04/trump-administration-stops-fucking-around-on-immigration-hangs-official-whites-only-sign/
[3]: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/02/g-s1-104284/dhs-pause-immigration-applications-20-countries
[4]: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/PM-602-0194-PendingApplicationsAdditionalHighRiskCountries-20260101.pdf
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/20/trump-admin-clarifies-only-white-anti-semites-will-be-granted-asylum-in-this-country/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/dhs-expands-immigration-ban-ensuring-the-only-way-an-african-can-come-to-the-us-is-if-we-bring-slavery-back/

Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for ...

2026-01-15T19:03:57Z

Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows License + Windows 11 Pro Bundle

Microsoft Office 2021 Professional is the perfect choice for any professional who needs to handle data and documents. It comes with many new features that will make you more productive in every stage of development, whether it’s processing paperwork or creating presentations from scratch – whatever your needs are. Office Pro comes with MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, OneNote, Publisher, and Access. Microsoft Windows 11 Pro is exactly that. This operating system is designed with the modern professional in mind. Whether you are a developer who needs a secure platform, an artist seeking a seamless experience, or an entrepreneur needing to stay connected effortlessly, Windows 11 Pro is your solution. The [Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows + Windows 11 Pro Bundle][1] is on sale for $39.97 for a very limited time.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-ultimate-microsoft-office-professional-2021-for-windows-lifetime-license-windows-11-pro-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/daily-deal-the-ultimate-microsoft-office-professional-2021-for-windows-license-windows-11-pro-bundle/

State Department Threatens UK Over Grok Investigation, Because ...

2026-01-15T17:25:58Z

State Department Threatens UK Over Grok Investigation, Because Only The US Is Allowed To Ban Foreign Apps

So let me get this straight. The United States government spent years [championing a ban on TikTok][1], [rushed it through the Supreme Court][2] with claims of grave national security threats, [got a 9-0 ruling blessing government censorship][3] of an entire platform used by 170 million Americans… and now it’s the US State Department thinking that it’s all cool to *threaten* the United Kingdom for [considering similar action][4] against X’s Grok chatbot over its generation of sexualized deepfake images, including those of children?

We all know that the US can be hypocritical, but this all seems a bit over the top.

Here’s what actually happened: the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom [opened an investigation][5] into whether X violated the country’s Online Safety Act by allowing Grok to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images (NCII). This isn’t some theoretical concern—as I detailed last week, Grok has been [churning out sexualized images][6] at an alarming rate, with users publicly generating “undressing” content and worse, in many cases targeting real women and girls. UK Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told Parliament that Ofcom could impose fines up to £18 million or [seek a court order to block X entirely][7] if violations are found.

Enter Sarah B. Rogers, the Trump-appointed Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, who decided this was the perfect moment to [threaten a close US ally][8]. In an interview with GB News, Rogers declared:

> *I would say from America’s perspective … nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let’s wait and see what Ofcom does and we’ll see what America does in response.*

She went further, accusing the British government of wanting “the ability to curate a public square, to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes” and claiming that X has “a political valence that the British government is antagonistic to.”

This is weapons-grade nonsense, and Rogers knows it.

The UK isn’t investigating X because they don’t like Elon Musk’s politics. They’re investigating because Grok is being used to create sexualized deepfakes of real people without consent, including minors. Unless Rogers is prepared to stand up and argue that generating non-consensual sexualized imagery of real people—including children—is somehow quintessential “conservative speech” that the US must defend, she’s deliberately mischaracterizing what’s happening here. Is that really the hill the State Department wants to die on? That deepfake NCII is conservative speech?

As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson put it:

> *“It’s about the generation of criminal imagery of children and women and girls that is not acceptable. We cannot stand by and let that continue. And that is why we’ve taken the action we have.”*

But here’s where the hypocrisy becomes truly spectacular: just this week, the Republican-led Senate unanimously [passed the DEFIANCE Act][9] for the second time. This legislation would create a federal civil cause of action allowing victims of non-consensual deepfake intimate imagery to sue the producers of such content. No matter what you think of that particular bill (I have my concerns about the specifics of how the bill works), it’s quite something when you have the State Department’s mafioso-like threat being issued to the UK if they take *any* action to respond to what’s happening on X at the same time the MAGA-led US Senate is voting unanimously to move forward on a bill that could have a similar impact.

So let’s review the US government’s position:

* Banning an entire social media platform because China *might* access data (that they can already buy from data brokers anyway)? Perfectly fine, rush it through SCOTUS.
* Allowing victims to sue over non-consensual sexualized deepfakes? Great idea, unanimous Senate support.
* Another country investigating whether a platform violated laws against generating sexualized deepfakes of minors? UNACCEPTABLE CENSORSHIP, NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE.

The MAGA mindset in a nutshell: performative nonsense when it fits within a certain bucket (in this case the “OMG Europeans censoring Elon”) no matter that it conflicts with stated beliefs elsewhere.

It’s important to consider all of this in light of the whole TikTok ban fiasco. When the Supreme Court blessed Congress’s decision to ban an app based on vague national security concerns—concerns so urgent that the Biden administration immediately decided not to enforce the ban after winning in court and which Trump has continued to not enforce for an entire year—America effectively torched its moral authority to criticize other countries for restricting platforms.

As I wrote when that ruling came down, we essentially said it’s okay to create a Great Firewall of America. We told the world that if you claim “national security” loudly enough, with sufficient “bipartisan support,” you can ban whatever app you want, First Amendment concerns be damned. Chinese officials have pointed to the US’s TikTok ban to justify their own internet restrictions, and now we’re handing authoritarian regimes another gift: the US will threaten retaliation if you try to enforce laws against platforms generating sexualized imagery of children.

When you blow up the principle that countries shouldn’t ban apps based on content concerns, you don’t get to suddenly rediscover those principles when it’s your billionaire’s app on the chopping block.

And make no mistake about what Rogers is really defending here. Grok continues to generate sexualized content at scale. Elon Musk continues running X like an edgelord teenager who knows he’s rich enough to avoid consequences, and women—especially young women—continue facing harassment and abuse via these tools.

The State Department’s threats aren’t about defending free speech. They’re about protecting Musk’s business interests. It’s about maintaining the double standard that got us here: American companies can do whatever they want globally, but foreign companies operating in America face existential threats for far less.

The UK is investigating potential violations of laws against generating sexualized imagery of minors and non-consenting adults. If the State Department thinks that’s “censorship,” they should explain why the Senate just voted unanimously to let victims sue over exactly that conduct.

Look, the UK’s investigation may or may not lead anywhere. Ofcom may find violations, or it may not. They may impose fines, or they may not. They may seek to block X, or they may not. But the one thing the US government absolutely cannot do with a straight face is threaten them for even considering it.

You don’t get to ban TikTok and then act outraged when other countries contemplate similar actions against American companies. You don’t get to pass unanimous legislation allowing lawsuits over deepfake NCII while your State Department calls investigations into that same deepfake NCII “censorship.” You don’t get to spend years claiming that national security justifies any restriction on platforms and then suddenly discover that “free speech” means other countries can’t enforce their laws.

There are no principles here, only sheer abuse of power. And Sarah Rogers’s threat to the UK makes that abundantly clear: the rules we claimed justified banning TikTok apparently only apply when we’re the ones doing the banning.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/18/no-tiktok-is-not-programmable-fentanyl-stop-it/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/19/scotus-turns-tiktok-ban-case-into-tiktok-style-short-attention-span-theater/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/17/scotus-tiktoks-china-connection-is-so-scary-urgent-we-can-ban-an-entire-app-biden-admin-just-kidding-we-wont-enforce-it/
[4]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99kn52nx9do
[5]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/world/europe/grok-ai-images-x-elon-musk-uk.html
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/07/journalistic-malpractice-no-llm-ever-admits-to-anything-and-reporting-otherwise-is-a-lie/
[7]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99kn52nx9do
[8]: https://www.politico.eu/article/us-state-department-threaten-uk-probe-elon-musk-x-grok/
[9]: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/13/congress/deepfake-porn-bill-allowing-victims-to-sue-passes-senate-00725817

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/state-department-threatens-uk-over-grok-investigation-because-only-the-us-is-allowed-to-ban-foreign-apps/

Trump, Ellison Wage War On ‘Woke Netflix’ In Effort To ...

2026-01-15T13:26:48Z

Trump, Ellison Wage War On ‘Woke Netflix’ In Effort To Scuttle Warner Brothers Deal, Dominate U.S. Media

The Trump empire is nothing if not predictable.

Last year we noted repeatedly how the Trump administration and Larry Ellison (owner of CBS) would be [joining forces to try and stop Netflix’s $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers][1]. Larry, if you’re not aware, is attempting to buy up what’s left of America’s soggy-ass corporate media ([and TikTok][2]) to create a propaganda safe space for America’s increasingly unhinged and anti-democratic extraction class.

Warner Brothers rejected Ellison’s higher $108 billion offer for Netflix, citing Saudi money involvement and dodgy financial math as something that might make approval more difficult. When that failed, Ellison [attempted a hostile takeover attempt][3] with the help of the president’s son in law and the Saudis. When **that **didn’t work, Ellison [tried to sue Warner Brothers][4].

With that going nowhere, Ellison has clearly turned to right wing propaganda to help portray the Netflix acquisition as somehow “woke” and dangerous:

The President has also taken to his personal right wing propaganda social media company to cry about woke Netflix (which had the audacity to air a military TV show featuring gay people that [made right wing zealots cry][5] not that long ago):

While Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Brothers likely won’t be great for labor, creatives, or consumers (and Netflix will be eager to debase itself further to get regulatory approval), letting Larry Ellison and his nepobaby son turn the remnants of U.S. corporate media into yet another right wing propaganda empire is arguably a far worse outcome for a country already on the brink of collapse.

When this lazy “woke Netflix” campaign fails, I suspect the Trump DOJ will ultimately launch a bogus antitrust inquiry into the Netflix Warner Brothers merger. This campaign will highlight all manner of real and manufactured horrible impacts of the Netflix deal, ignoring the fact that letting one of the nation’s richest right wing extremists own most of U.S. media would be **decidedly worse**.

Something of note: Netflix has made it clear it only wants the Warner Brothers studio assets. It doesn’t want the sagging-ratings albatrosses that are CNN or the Discovery TV networks. So even if the Netflix deal somehow survives DOJ challenge, it’s still likely those spun-off assets are acquired by Ellison anyway, at which point he’ll [be sure to do the same thing to them he’s currently doing to CBS][6]. Just without the money making IP (DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc.) Warner Brothers owns as a backstop.

Which would still result in a more powerful Larry Ellison agitprop empire, but one slightly more likely to collapse from mismanagement. These are all bad outcomes, but some (authoritarian dominance of the entirety of media of the kind we’ve seen in [Orban’s Hungary][7]) are decidedly worse than others. Competent Dem strategists or fans of Democracy looking to help need to make stopping **that** the top priority, since the ideal outcome (blocking **all** of these deals) simply isn’t realistically on the table.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/19/warner-bros-rejects-larry-ellisons-hostile-takeover-bid-trump-will-likely-intervene-in-2026-to-help-ellison-dominate-u-s-media/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/19/tiktok-deal-done-and-its-somehow-the-shittiest-possible-outcome-making-everything-worse/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/08/paramount-with-jared-kushner-and-saudi-help-launches-108-billion-hostile-takeover-bid-for-warner-brothers/
[4]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/david-ellison-warner-bros-court-paramount-netflix-1236470908/
[5]: https://ew.com/pentagon-slams-netflix-gay-military-drama-boots-11831105
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/05/remaining-cbs-journalists-pen-letter-to-david-ellison-politely-asking-him-to-stop-destroying-whats-left-of-journalism/
[7]: https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/how-hungarys-orban-uses-control-of-the-media-to-escape-scrutiny-and-keep-the-public-in-the-dark/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/15/trump-ellison-wage-war-on-woke-netflix-in-effort-to-scuttle-warner-brothers-deal-dominate-u-s-media/

New Year, But The Same Measles Crises Rages On Meet the new year, ...

2026-01-15T03:54:58Z

New Year, But The Same Measles Crises Rages On

Meet the new year, same as the old year, at least as far as America’s [measles problem][1] goes. We talked a lot about this disease last year, and for good reason. In RFK Jr.’s first year as Secretary of DHS, America managed to suffer its worst measles infection count since 1991. A direct product of the anti-vaxxer bullshit Kennedy and his followers have been pushing for years, America [collected 2,144 confirmed cases of measles in 2025][2]. That number is certainly an under-count, with who knows how many undiagnosed cases existing out there. Three people, including two otherwise healthy children, died. America is all but certain to have lost its [elimination status][3] of the disease. Of all the gravel-mouthed words that spilled out of Kennedy’s mouth in 2025, there were relatively few of them reserved for this highly contagious and deadly disease that is now circulating via various outbreaks in the country who’s health he’s in charge of managing.

The start of 2026 is likely to set us up for an even worse year for measles than the last. Over 5% of the total infections of measles in 2025 were reported in the last week of the year or so. It’s not slowing down. This disaster of a train may be still pulling out of the station, but it’s picking up speed. And while the CDC’s measles website, linked above, isn’t updated more than once a week at most, health officials [are reporting a *ton* of infections][4] in the ongoing South Carolina outbreak alone.

> *In a regularly scheduled update this afternoon, the health department said [99 cases][5] were identified since Tuesday, bringing the outbreak total to [310 cases][6]. There are currently 200 people in quarantine and nine in isolation. However, the outbreak is expanding so quickly and with so many exposure sites that health officials are struggling to trace cases and identify people at risk.*
>
> *“An increasing number of public exposure sites are being identified with likely hundreds more people exposed who are not aware they should be in quarantine if they are not immune to measles,” Linda Bell, state epidemiologist and the health department’s incident commander for the measles outbreak, said in the announcement. “Previous measles transmission studies have shown that one measles case can result in up to 20 new infections among unvaccinated contacts.”*

It’s not just the unvaccinated any longer. As 2025 went on, we began to see an uptick in what are called “breakthrough cases.” Health professionals who know what they’re talking about will tell you that 2 doses of the MMR vaccine are roughly 97% effective in preventing a measles infection. That leaves 3% of people exposed at a minimum and that’s before we get into the discussion of how that number is impacted the lower we get from the 95% immunization target to achieve true herd immunity. And if you followed the reported infection statistics throughout last year as I did, you saw the percentage of infections occurring among those that had gotten either 1 or 2 doses of the MMR vaccine increase.

At the end of the year, 3% of the infected had had one dose of the MMR vaccine, and 4% had two doses. Early in the year, those were hovering between 1% and 2% and then grew. Responsible people who protected not only themselves but their fellow citizens by doing the right thing and getting their shots were put at risk and infected by those who didn’t. This failure of civil responsibility once again went largely unchallenged by RFK Jr. because of some combination of lunacy and his own financial interests.

And the real fun hasn’t even begun yet. Measles is crazy infectious and likes to hide its contagious nature early in the infection, not to mention that the disease causes immunity amnesia for all kinds of other diseases, making those infected susceptible to all kinds of diseases despite inoculation, such as chickenpox and COVID19.

> *The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which only has data as of January 6, has tallied three confirmed cases for this year (two in South Carolina and one in North Carolina, linked to the South Carolina outbreak). Since then, South Carolina [reported 26 cases on Tuesday][7] and 99 today, totaling 125. North Carolina also reported [three additional cases Tuesday][8], again linked to the South Carolina outbreak. In all, that brings the US tally to at least 131 just nine days into the year.*

Do the math. Even if we pretend for a moment that infectious diseases like measles don’t work on an exponential schedule, we’re already on pace for well over 5,000 measles infections this year. Unless something is done, it will be many, many more cases than that. And a possible resurgence of COVID19, something to which I really did think Trump would be particularly allergic.

Unfortunately, rationality appears to have gone out of style. Replaced, I suppose, by a facial rash that then descends into further complications.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/measles/
[2]: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/24/cdc-data-indicates-were-2-months-away-from-america-losing-its-measles-elimination-status/
[4]: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/01/measles-continues-raging-in-south-carolina-99-new-cases-since-tuesday/
[5]: https://dph.sc.gov/news/friday-measles-update-dph-reports-99-new-measles-cases-upstate-bringing-outbreak-total-310
[6]: https://dph.sc.gov/diseases-conditions/infectious-diseases/measles-rubeola/2025-measles-outbreak
[7]: https://dph.sc.gov/news/tuesday-measles-update-dph-reports-26-new-measles-cases-upstate-bringing-outbreak-total-211
[8]: https://www.ncdhhs.gov/news/press-releases/2026/01/06/additional-children-positive-measles-north-carolina

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/new-year-but-the-same-measles-crises-rages-on/

We Found More Than 40 Cases Of Immigration Agents Using Banned ...

2026-01-14T23:47:03Z

We Found More Than 40 Cases Of Immigration Agents Using Banned Chokeholds And Other Moves That Can Cut Off Breathing

*This story was [originally published][1] by ProPublica.* *Republished under a [CC BY-NC-ND 3.0][2]* *license. The original version has even more horrifying photographs and videos of agents engaging in this kind of behavior.*

Immigration agents have put civilians’ lives at risk using more than their guns.

An agent in Houston put a teenage citizen into a chokehold, [wrapping his arm around the boy’s neck][3], choking him so hard that his neck had red welts hours later. A black-masked agent in Los Angeles pressed his knee into a woman’s neck while she was handcuffed; she then appeared to [pass out][4]. An agent in Massachusetts jabbed his finger and thumb into the neck and arteries of a young father who refused to be separated from his wife and 1-year-old daughter. The man’s [eyes rolled back in his head and he started convulsing][5].

After George Floyd’s murder by a police officer six years ago in Minneapolis — less than a mile from where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good last week — police departments and federal agencies banned chokeholds and other moves that can restrict breathing or blood flow.

But those tactics are back, now at the hands of agents conducting President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Examples are scattered across social media. ProPublica found more than 40 cases over the past year of immigration agents using these life-threatening maneuvers on immigrants, citizens and protesters. The agents are usually masked, their identities secret. The government won’t say if any of them have been punished.

In nearly 20 cases, agents appeared to use chokeholds and other neck restraints that the Department of Homeland Security prohibits “[unless deadly force is authorized][6].”

About two dozen videos show officers kneeling on people’s necks or backs or keeping them face down on the ground while already handcuffed. Such tactics are not prohibited outright but are often discouraged, including by federal trainers, in part because using them for a prolonged time risks asphyxiation.

We reviewed footage with a panel of eight former police officers and law enforcement experts. They were appalled.

This is what bad policing looks like, they said. And it puts everyone at risk.

“I arrested dozens upon dozens of drug traffickers, human smugglers, child molesters — some of them will resist,” said Eric Balliet, who spent more than two decades working at Homeland Security Investigations and Border Patrol, including in the first Trump administration. “I don’t remember putting anybody in a chokehold. Period.”

“If this was one of my officers, he or she would be facing discipline,” said Gil Kerlikowske, a longtime police chief in Seattle who also served as Customs and Border Protection commissioner under President Barack Obama. “You have these guys running around in fatigues, with masks, with ‘Police’ on their uniform,” but they aren’t acting like professional police.

Over the past week, the conduct of agents has come under intense scrutiny after an ICE officer in Minneapolis killed Good, a mother of three. The next day, a Border Patrol agent in Portland, Oregon, [shot a man and woman][7] in a hospital parking lot.

Top administration officials rushed to defend the officers. Speaking about the agent who shot Good, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said, “This is an experienced officer who followed his training.”

Officials said the same thing to us after we showed them footage of officers using prohibited chokeholds. Federal agents have “followed their training to use the least amount of force necessary,” department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said.

“Officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.

Both DHS and the White House lauded the “utmost professionalism” of their agents.

Our compilation of incidents is far from complete. Just as the government does not count [how often it detains citizens][8] or [smashes through vehicle windows][9] during immigration arrests, it does not publicly track how many times agents have choked civilians or otherwise inhibited their breathing or blood flow. We gathered cases by searching legal filings, social media posts and local press reports in English and Spanish.

Given the lack of any count over time, it’s impossible to know for certain how agents’ current use of the banned and dangerous tactics compares with earlier periods.

But former immigration officials told us they rarely heard of such incidents during their long tenures. They also recalled little pushback when DHS formally banned chokeholds and other tactics in 2023; it was merely codifying the norm.

That norm has now been broken.

### One of the citizens whom agents put in a chokehold was 16 years old.

Tenth grader Arnoldo Bazan and his father were getting McDonald’s before school when their car was pulled over by unmarked vehicles. Masked immigration agents started banging on their windows. As Arnoldo’s undocumented father, Arnulfo Bazan Carrillo, drove off, the terrified teenager began filming on his phone. The video shows the agents repeatedly ramming the Bazans’ car during a slow chase through the city.

Bazan Carrillo eventually parked and ran into a restaurant supply store. When Arnoldo saw agents taking his father violently to the ground, Arnoldo went inside too, yelling at the agents to stop.

One agent put Arnoldo in a chokehold while another pressed a knee into his father’s neck. “I was going to school!” the boy pleaded. He said later that when he told the agent he was a citizen and a minor, the agent didn’t stop.

“I started screaming with everything I had, because I couldn’t even breathe,” Arnoldo told ProPublica, showing where the agent’s hands had closed around his throat. “I felt like I was going to pass out and die.”

DHS’ McLaughlin accused Arnoldo’s dad of ramming his car “into a federal law enforcement vehicle,” but he was never charged for that, and the videos we reviewed do not support this claim. Our examination of his criminal history — separate from any immigration violations — found only that Bazan Carrillo pleaded guilty a decade ago to misdemeanor driving while intoxicated.

McLaughlin also said the younger Bazan elbowed an officer in the face as he was detained, which the teen denies. She said that Arnoldo was taken into custody to confirm his identity and make sure he didn’t have any weapons. McLaughlin did not answer whether the agent’s conduct was justified.

Experts who reviewed video of the Bazans’ arrests could make no sense of the agents’ actions.

“Why are you in the middle of a store trying to grab somebody?” said Marc Brown, a former police officer turned instructor who taught ICE and Border Patrol officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. “Your arm underneath the neck, like a choking motion? No! The knee on the neck? Absolutely not.”

DHS revamped its training curriculum after George Floyd’s murder to underscore those tactics were out of bounds, Brown said. “DHS specifically was very big on no choking,” he said. “We don’t teach that. They were, like, hardcore against it. They didn’t want to see anything with the word ‘choke.’”

### After agents used another banned neck restraint — a carotid hold — a man started convulsing and passed out.

In early November, ICE agents in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, stopped a young father, Carlos Sebastian Zapata Rivera, as he drove with his family. They had come for his undocumented wife, whom they targeted after she was charged with assault for allegedly stabbing a co-worker in the hand with scissors.

Body camera footage from the local police, obtained by ProPublica, captured much of what happened. The couple’s 1-year-old daughter began crying. Agents surrounded the car, looking in through open doors.

According to the footage, an agent told Zapata Rivera that if his wife wouldn’t come out, they would have to arrest him, too — and their daughter would be sent into the foster system. The agent recounted the conversation to a local cop: “Technically, I can arrest both of you,” he said. “If you no longer have a child, because the child is now in state custody, you’re both gonna be arrested. Do you want to give your child to the state?”

Zapata Rivera, who has a pending asylum claim, clung to his family. His wife kept saying she wouldn’t go anywhere without her daughter, whom she said was still breastfeeding. Zapata Rivera wouldn’t let go of either of them.

Federal agents seemed conflicted on how to proceed. “I refuse to have us videotaped throwing someone to the ground while they have a child in their hands,” one ICE agent told a police officer at the scene.

But after more than an hour, agents held down Zapata Rivera’s arms. One, who Zapata Rivera’s lawyer says wore a baseball cap reading “Ne Quis Effugiat” — Latin for “So That None Will Escape” — pressed his thumbs into the arteries on Zapata Rivera’s neck. The young man then appeared to pass out as bystanders screamed.

The technique is known as a carotid restraint. The two carotid arteries carry 70% of the brain’s blood flow; block them, and a person can quickly lose consciousness. The tactic can cause [strokes, seizures, brain damage — and death][10].

“Even milliseconds or seconds of interrupted blood flow to the brain can have serious consequences,” Dr. Altaf Saadi, a neurologist and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, told us. Saadi said she couldn’t comment on specific cases, “but there is no amount of training or method of applying pressure on the neck that is foolproof in terms of avoiding neurologic damage.”

In a bystander video of Zapata Rivera’s arrest, his eyes roll back in his head and he suffers an apparent seizure, convulsing so violently that his daughter, seated in his lap, shakes with him.

“Carotid restraints are prohibited unless deadly force is authorized,” DHS’ [use-of-force policy][11] states. Deadly force is authorized only when an officer believes there’s an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” and there is “no alternative.”

In a social media post after the incident and in its statement to ProPublica, DHS did not cite a deadly threat. Instead, it referenced the charges against Zapata Rivera’s wife and suggested [he had only pretended to have a medical crisis][12] while refusing help from paramedics. “Imagine FAKING a seizure to help a criminal escape justice,” the post said.

[“These statements were lies,”][13] Zapata Rivera alleges in an ongoing civil rights lawsuit he filed against the ICE agent who used the carotid restraint. His lawyer told ProPublica that Zapata Rivera was disoriented after regaining consciousness; the lawsuit says he was denied medical attention. (Representatives for Zapata Rivera declined our requests for an interview with him. His wife has been released on bond, and her assault case awaits trial.)

A police report and bodycam footage from Fitchburg officers at the scene, obtained via a public records request, back up Zapata Rivera’s account of being denied assistance. “He’s fine,” an agent told paramedics, according to footage. The police report says Zapata Rivera wanted medical attention but “agents continued without stopping.”

Saadi, the Harvard neurologist, said that as a general matter, determining whether someone had a seizure is “not something even neurologists can do accurately just by looking at it.”

### DHS policy bars using chokeholds and carotid restraints just because someone is resisting arrest. Agents are doing it anyway.

When DHS issued restrictions on chokeholds and carotid restraints, it stated that the moves “must not be used as a means to control non-compliant subjects or persons resisting arrest.” Deadly force “shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject.”

But videos reviewed by ProPublica show that agents have been using these restraints to do just that.

In Los Angeles in June, masked officers from ICE, Border Patrol and other federal agencies pepper-sprayed and then tackled another citizen, Luis Hipolito. As Hipolito struggled to get away, one of the agents put him in a chokehold. Another pointed a Taser at bystanders filming.

Then Hipolito’s body began to convulse — a possible seizure. An onlooker warned the agents, “You gonna let him die.”

When officers make a mistake in the heat of the moment, said Danny Murphy, a former deputy commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department, they need to “correct it as quickly as possible.”

That didn’t happen in Hipolito’s case. The footage shows the immigration agent not only wrapping his arm around Hipolito’s neck as he takes him down but also sticking with the chokehold after Hipolito is pinned on the ground.

The agent’s actions are “dangerous and unreasonable,” Murphy said.

Asked about the case, McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson, said that Hipolito was arrested for assaulting an ICE officer. Hipolito’s lawyers did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Hipolito [limped into court days after the incident][14]. Another citizen who was with him the day of the incident was also charged, but her case was dropped. Hipolito pleaded not guilty and goes to trial in February.

### Some of the conduct in the footage isn’t banned — but it’s discouraged and dangerous.

A video from Los Angeles shows a Colombian-born TikTokker who often filmed ICE apparently [passed out][15] after officers [pulled her from her Tesla and knelt on her neck][16]. Another video shows a DoorDash driver in Portland, Oregon, [screaming for air as four officers pin him face down in the street][17]. “Aire, aire, aire,”* *he says. “No puedo respirar” — I can’t breathe. Then: “Estoy muriendo”* *— I’m dying. A third video, from Chicago, [shows an agent straddling a citizen and repeatedly pressing his face into the asphalt][18]. Onlookers yell that the man can’t breathe.

Placing a knee on a prone subject’s neck or weight on their back isn’t banned under DHS’ use-of-force policy, but it can be dangerous — and the longer it goes on, the higher the risk that the person won’t be able to breathe.

“You really don’t want to spend that amount of time just trying to get somebody handcuffed,” said Kerlikowske, the former CPB commissioner, of the video of the arrest in Portland.

Brown, the former federal instructor and now a lead police trainer at the University of South Carolina, echoed that. “Once you get them handcuffed, you get them up, get them out of there,” he said. “If they’re saying they can’t breathe, hurry up.”

Taking a person down to the ground and restraining them there can be an appropriate way to get them in handcuffs, said Seth Stoughton, a former police officer turned law professor who also works at the University of South Carolina. But officers have long known to make it quick. By the mid-1990s, the federal government was advising officers against keeping people prolongedly in a prone position.

When a federal agent kneeled on the neck of an intensive care nurse in August, she said she understood the danger she was in and tried to scream.

“I knew that the amount of pressure being placed on the back of my neck could definitely hurt me,” said Amanda Trebach, a citizen and activist who was arrested in Los Angeles while monitoring immigration agents. “I was having a hard time breathing because my chest was on the ground.”

McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson, said Trebach impeded agents’ vehicles and struck them with her signs and fists.

Trebach denies this. She was released without any charges.

### **Protesters have also been choked and strangled.**

In the fall, a protester in Chicago refused to stand back after a federal agent told him to do so. Suddenly, the [agent grabbed the man by the throat and slammed him to the ground][19].

“No, no!” one bystander exclaims. “He’s not doing anything!”

DHS’ McLaughlin did not respond to questions about the incident.

Along with two [similar][20] [choking incidents][21] at protests outside of ICE facilities, this is one of the few videos in which the run-up to the violence is clear. And the experts were aghast.

“Without anything I could see as even remotely a deadly force threat, he immediately goes for the throat,” said Ashley Heiberger, a retired police captain from Pennsylvania who frequently testifies in use-of-force cases. Balliet, the former immigration official, said the agent turned the scene into a “pissing contest” that was “explicitly out of control.”

“It’s so clearly excessive and ridiculous,” Murphy said. “That’s the kind of action which should get you fired.”

“How big a threat did you think he was?” Brown said, noting that the officer slung his rifle around his back before grabbing and body-slamming the protester. “You can’t go grab someone just because they say, ‘F the police.’”

### Roving patrols + unplanned arrests = unsafe tactics.

In November, Border Patrol agents rushed into the construction site of a future Panda Express in Charlotte, North Carolina, to check workers’ papers. When one man tried to run, an officer put him in a chokehold and later marched him out, bloodied, to a waiting SUV.

The [Charlotte operation][22] was one of Border Patrol’s many forays into American cities, as agents led by [commander-at-large Gregory Bovino][23] claimed to target “criminal illegal aliens” but frequently [chased down][24] [landscapers][25], construction workers and [U.S. citizens][26] in roving patrols through predominantly immigrant or Latino communities.

Freelance photographer [Ryan Murphy][27], who had been following Border Patrol’s convoys around Charlotte, documented the Panda Express arrest.

“Their tactics are less sophisticated than you would think,” he told ProPublica. “They sort of drive along the streets, and if they see somebody who looks to them like they could potentially be undocumented, they pull over.”

Experts told ProPublica that if officers are targeting a specific individual, they can minimize risks by deciding when, where and how to take them into custody. But when they don’t know their target in advance, chaos — and abuse — can follow.

“They are encountering people they don’t know anything about,” said Scott Shuchart, a former assistant director at ICE.

“The stuff that I’ve been seeing in the videos,” Kerlikowske said, “has been just ragtag, random.”

There may be other factors, too, our experts said, including quotas and a [lack of consequences amid gutted oversight][28]. With officers wearing masks, Shuchart said, “even if they punch grandma in the face, they won’t be identified.”

As they sweep into American cities, immigration officers are unconstrained — and, the experts said, unprepared. Even well-trained officers may not be trained for the environments where they now operate. Patrolling a little-populated border region takes one set of skills. Working in urban areas, [where citizens — and protesters — abound][29], takes another.

DHS and Bovino did not respond to questions about their agents’ preparation or about the chokehold in Charlotte.

### Experts may think there’s abuse. But holding officers to account? That’s another matter.

Back in Houston, immigration officers dropped 16-year-old Arnoldo off at the doorstep of his family home a few hours after the arrest. His neck was bruised, and his new shirt was shredded. Videos taken by his older sisters show the soccer star struggling to speak through sobs.

Uncertain what exactly had happened to him, his sister Maria Bazan took him to Texas Children’s Hospital, where staff identified signs of the chokehold and moved him to the trauma unit. Hospital records show he was given morphine for pain and that doctors ordered a dozen CT scans and X-rays, including of his neck, spine and head.

From the hospital, Maria called the Houston Police Department and tried to file a report, the family said. After several unsuccessful attempts, she took Arnoldo to the department in person, where she says officers were skeptical of the account and their own ability to investigate federal agents.

Arnoldo had filmed much of the incident, but agents had taken his phone. He used Find My to locate the phone — at a vending machine for used electronics miles away, close to an ICE detention center. The footage, which ProPublica has reviewed, backed the family’s account of the chase.

The family says Houston police still haven’t interviewed them. A department spokesperson told ProPublica it was not investigating the case, referring questions to DHS. But the police have also not released bodycam footage and case files aside from a top sheet, citing an open investigation.

“We can’t do anything,” Maria said one officer told her. “What can HPD do to federal agents?”

Elsewhere in the country, some officials are trying to hold federal immigration officers to account.

In California, the state Legislature passed bills prohibiting immigration officers from wearing masks and requiring them to display identification during operations.

In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker signed a law that allows residents to sue any officer who violates state or federal constitutional rights. (The Trump administration quickly filed legal challenges against California and Illinois, claiming their new laws are unconstitutional.)

In Colorado, Durango’s police chief saw a recent [video of an immigration officer using a chokehold on a protester][30] and [reported it to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation][31], which announced it was looking into the incident.

In Minnesota, state and local leaders are collecting evidence in Renee Good’s killing even as the federal government [cut the state out][32] of its investigation.

Arnoldo is still waiting for Houston authorities to help him, still terrified that a masked agent will come first. Amid soccer practice and making up schoolwork he missed while recovering, he watches and rewatches the videos from that day. The car chase, the chokehold, his own screams at the officers to leave his dad alone. His father in the driver’s seat, calmly handing Arnoldo his wallet and phone while stopping mid-chase for red lights.

The Bazan family said agents threatened to charge Arnoldo if his dad didn’t agree to be deported. DHS spokesperson McLaughlin did not respond when asked about the alleged threat. Arnoldo’s dad is now in Mexico.

Asked why an officer choked Arnoldo, McLaughlin pointed to the boy’s alleged assault with his elbow, adding, “The federal law enforcement officer graciously chose not to press charges.”

### How We Did It

ProPublica journalists Nicole Foy, McKenzie Funk, Joanna Shan, Haley Clark and Cengiz Yar gathered videos via Spanish and English social media posts, local press reports and court records. We then sent a selection of these videos to eight police experts and former immigration officials, along with as much information as we could gather about the lead-up to and context of each incident. The experts analyzed the videos with us, explaining when and how officers used dangerous tactics that appeared to go against their training or that have been banned under the Department of Homeland Security’s use-of-force policy.

We also tried to contact every person we could identify being choked or kneeled on. In some cases, we also reached out to bystanders.

Research reporter Mariam Elba conducted criminal record searches of every person we featured in this story. She also attempted to fact-check the allegations that DHS made about the civilians and their arrests. Our findings are not comprehensive because there is no universal criminal record database.

We also sent every video cited in this story to the White House, DHS, CBP, ICE, border czar Tom Homan and Border Patrol’s Gregory Bovino. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin provided a statement responding to some of the incidents we found but she did not explain why agents used banned tactics or whether any of the agents have been disciplined for doing so.

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/videos-ice-dhs-immigration-agents-using-chokeholds-citizens
[2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[3]: https://www.instagram.com/p/DQUtnnViSSc/?hl=en
[4]: https://www.tiktok.com/@trendy_viewz_1/video/7539167585011551501
[5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-q83KCOZw
[6]: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf
[7]: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/01/portland-police-responding-to-report-of-shooting-by-federal-immigration-agent.html
[8]: https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will
[9]: https://projects.propublica.org/trump-ice-smashed-windows-deportation-arrests/
[10]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2774482
[11]: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/23_0206_s1_use-of-force-policy-update.pdf
[12]: https://x.com/dhsgov/status/1986881395432820927
[13]: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72041374/zapata-rivera-v-unknown-federal-agent-john-doe/
[14]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-27/are-you-gonna-let-him-die-agents-pile-on-protester-who-convulses-and-struggles-to-breathe
[15]: https://www.tiktok.com/@trendy_viewz_1/video/7539167585011551501
[16]: https://x.com/WUTangKids/status/1956854632203878890
[17]: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/10/i-cant-breathe-man-tells-ice-agents-in-spanish-five-times-during-portland-arrest.html
[18]: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/ERClkyY4Cj/files/fi-ee68b78b-2ba0-4355-b2a1-49e1d5243c7c/fv-946d3e13-2b8d-4317-bb54-fbe69fd3ef09/2025.10.31.MP4
[19]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/51miOmd1qUM
[20]: https://x.com/fordfischer/status/1969150886422155594
[21]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ice-throw-elderly-woman-to-the-ground_n_690271b2e4b0e763a61c8a22
[22]: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/11/15/dhs-launches-operation-charlottes-web-target-criminal-illegal-aliens-terrorizing
[23]: https://x.com/CMDROpAtLargeCA/status/1995599514078732776?s=20
[24]: https://x.com/CMDROpAtLargeCA/status/1995599514078732776?s=20
[25]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuaPCS67Ii8
[26]: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article312950879.html
[27]: https://www.ryanmurphyphoto.com/bio
[28]: https://www.propublica.org/article/homeland-security-crcl-civil-rights-immigration-border-patrol-trump-kristi-noem
[29]: https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-agents-detained-mistreated-citizens-congressional-investigation
[30]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St5aTGJd4Rw
[31]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/03/us/politics/durango-colorado-ice-protester.html
[32]: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/fbi-will-investigate-after-ice-agent-shoots-renee-good-in-minneapolis

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/we-found-more-than-40-cases-of-immigration-agents-using-banned-chokeholds-and-other-moves-that-can-cut-off-breathing/

ICE Is Going On A Surveillance Shopping Spree U.S. Immigration ...

2026-01-14T21:09:46Z

ICE Is Going On A Surveillance Shopping Spree

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a new budget under the current administration, and they are going on a surveillance tech shopping spree. Standing at [$28.7 billion dollars for the year 2025 (nearly triple their 2024 budget)][1] and at least another $56.25 billion over the next three years, ICE’s budget would be the envy of many national militaries around the world. Indeed, this budget would put ICE as the [14th most well-funded military in the world, right between Ukraine and Israel][2].

There are many different agencies under U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that deal with immigration, as well as non-immigration related agencies such as Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ICE is specifically the enforcement arm of the U.S. immigration apparatus. Their stated mission is to “[p]rotect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.”

Of course, ICE doesn’t just end up targeting, [surveilling][3], [harassing][4], [assaulting][5], [detaining][6], and [torturing][7] people who are undocumented immigrants. They have [targeted people][8] on [work permits][9], [asylum seekers][10], [permanent residents][11] (people holding “green cards”), [naturalized citizens][12], and [even citizens by birth.][13]

While the NSA and FBI might be the first agencies that come to mind when thinking about surveillance in the U.S., ICE should not be discounted. ICE has always engaged in [surveillance][14] and intelligence-gathering as part of their mission. A [2022 report][15] by Georgetown Law’s Center for Privacy and Technology found the following:

* ICE had scanned the driver’s license photos of 1 in 3 adults.
* ICE had access to the driver’s license data of 3 in 4 adults.
* ICE was tracking the movements of drivers in cities home to 3 in 4 adults.
* ICE could locate 3 in 4 adults through their utility records.
* ICE built its surveillance dragnet by tapping data from private companies and state and local bureaucracies.
* ICE spent approximately $2.8 billion between 2008 and 2021 on new surveillance, data collection and data-sharing programs.

With a budget for 2025 that is 10 times the size of the agency’s total surveillance spending over the last 13 years, ICE is going on a shopping spree, creating one of the largest, most comprehensive domestic surveillance machines in history.

## How We Got Here

The entire surveillance industry has been allowed to grow and flourish under both Democratic and Republican regimes. For example, President Obama dramatically expanded ICE from its more limited origins, while at the same time narrowing its focus to undocumented people accused of crimes. Under the first and second Trump administrations, ICE ramped up its operations significantly, increasing raids in major cities far from the southern border and casting a much wider net on potential targets. ICE has most recently expanded its partnerships with sheriffs across the U.S., and deported more than 1.5 million people cumulatively under the Trump administrations (600,000 of those were just during the first year of Trump’s second term [according to DHS statistics][16]), not including the 1.6 million people DHS claims have “self-deported.” More horrifying is that in just the last year of the current administration, [4,250 people][17] detained by ICE [have][18] [gone][19] [missing][20], and 31 have
died [in custody][21] or while [being detained][22]. In contrast, [24 people died in ICE custody during the entirety of the Biden administration][23].

ICE also has openly stated that they plan to spy on the American public, looking for [any signs of left-wing dissent][24] against their domestic military-like presence. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said in a[ recent interview][25] that his agency “was dedicated to the mission of going after” Antifa and left-wing gun clubs.

On a long enough timeline, any surveillance tool you build will eventually be used by people you don’t like for reasons that you disagree with. A surveillance-industrial complex and a democratic society are fundamentally incompatible, regardless of your political party.

EFF recently [published a guide][26] to using government databases to dig up homeland security spending and compiled our own [dataset][27] of companies selling tech to DHS components. In 2025, ICE entered new contracts with several private companies for location surveillance, social media surveillance, face surveillance, spyware, and phone surveillance. Let’s dig into each.

## Phone Surveillance Tools

One common surveillance tactic of immigration officials is to get physical access to a person’s phone, either while the person is detained at a border crossing, or while they are under arrest. [ICE renewed an $11 million contract][28] with a company called Cellebrite, which helps ICE unlock phones and then can take a [complete image of all the data on the phone][29], including apps, location history, photos, notes, call records, text messages, and even Signal and WhatsApp messages. ICE also signed a [$3 million contract][30] with Cellebrite’s main competitor Magnet Forensics, makers of the Graykey device for unlocking phones. DHS has had contracts with Cellebrite since 2008, but the number of phones they search has risen dramatically each year, reaching a [new high of 14,899 devices searched][31] by ICE’s sister agency U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) between April and June of 2025.

If ICE can’t get physical access to your phone, that won’t stop them from trying to gain access to your data. They have also [resumed a $2 million contract with the spyware manufacturer, Paragon][32]. Paragon makes the Graphite spyware, [which made headlines in 2025][33] for being found on the phones of several dozen members of Italian civil society. Graphite is able to harvest messages from multiple different encrypted chat apps such as Signal and WhatsApp without the user ever knowing.

Our concern with ICE buying this software is the likelihood that it will be used against undocumented people and immigrants who are here legally, as well as U.S. citizens who have spoken up against ICE or who work with immigrant communities. Malware such as Graphite can be used to read encrypted messages as they are sent, other forms of spyware can also download files, photos, location history, record phone calls, and even discretely turn on your microphone to record you.

### How to Protect Yourself

The most effective way to protect yourself from smartphone surveillance would be to not have a phone. But that’s not realistic advice in modern society. Fortunately, for most people there are other ways you can make it harder for ICE to spy on your digital life.

The first and easiest step is to keep your phone up to date. Installing security updates makes it harder to use [malware against you][34] and makes it less likely for Cellebrite to break into your phone. Likewise, both iPhone ([Lockdown Mode][35]) and Android ([Advanced Protection][36]) offer special modes that lock your phone down and can help protect against some malware.

Having your phone’s software up to date and locked with a strong alphanumeric password will offer some protection against Cellebrite, depending on your model of phone. However, the strongest protection is simply to keep your phone turned off, which puts it in “before first unlock” mode and has been typically harder for law enforcement to bypass. This is good to do if you are at a protest and expect to be arrested, if you are crossing a border, or if you are expecting to encounter ICE. Keeping your phone on airplane mode should be enough to protect against cell-site simulators, but turning your phone off will offer extra protection against cell-site simulators and Cellebrite devices. If you aren’t able to turn your phone off, it’s a good idea to at least turn off [face/fingerprint unlock][37] to make it harder for police to force you to unlock your phone. While EFF continues to fight to strengthen our legal protections against compelling people to decrypt their devices, there is
currently less protection against compelled face and fingerprint unlocking than there is against compelled password disclosure.

## Internet Surveillance

ICE has also spent $5 million to acquire at least two location and social media surveillance tools: Webloc and Tangles, [from a company called Pen Link][38], an established player in the open source intelligence space. [Webloc gathers the locations of millions of phones][39] by gathering data from mobile data brokers and linking it together with other information about users. Tangles is a social media surveillance tool which combines web scraping with access to social media application programming interfaces. These tools are able to build a dossier on anyone who has a public social media account. Tangles is able to link together a person’s posting history, posts, and comments containing keywords, location history, tags, social graph, and photos with those of their friends and family. Penlink then sells this information to law enforcement, allowing law enforcement to avoid the need for a warrant. This means ICE can look up historic and current locations of many people all across the
U.S. without ever having to get a warrant.

ICE also has established contracts with other social media scanning and AI analysis companies, such as [a $4.2 million contract with a company called Fivecast][40] for the social media surveillance and AI analysis tool ONYX. [According to Fivecast][41], ONYX can conduct “automated, continuous and targeted collection of multimedia data” from all major “news streams, search engines, social media, marketplaces, the dark web, etc.” ONYX can build what it calls “digital footprints” from biographical data and curated datasets spanning numerous platforms, and “track shifts in sentiment and emotion” and identify the level of risk associated with an individual.

Another contract is with ShadowDragon for their product Social Net, [which is able to monitor publicly available data from over 200 websites][42]. In an [acquisition document from 2022][43], ICE confirmed that ShadowDragon allowed the agency to search “100+ social networking sites,” noting that “[p]ersistent access to Facebook and Twitter provided by ShadowDragon SocialNet is of the utmost importance as they are the most prominent social media platforms.”

ICE has also indicated that they intend to [spend between 20 and 50 million dollars][44] on building and staffing a [24/7 social media monitoring office with at least 30 full time agents][45] to comb every major social media website for leads that could generate enforcement raids.

### How to protect yourself

For U.S. citizens, making your account private on social media is a good place to start. You might also consider having accounts under a pseudonym, or deleting your social media accounts altogether. For more information, [check out our guide to protecting yourself on social media][46]. Unfortunately, people immigrating to the U.S. might be subject to greater scrutiny, including [mandatory social media checks][47], and should consult with an immigration attorney before taking any action. For people traveling to the U.S., new rules will soon likely require them to reveal [five years of social media history and 10 years of past email addresses][48] to immigration officials.

## Street-Level Surveillance

But it’s not just your digital habits ICE wants to surveil; they also want to spy on you in the physical world. ICE has contracts with multiple automated license plate reader (ALPR) companies and is able to follow the driving habits of a large percentage of Americans. ICE uses this data to [track down specific people][49] anywhere in the country. ICE has a [$6 million contract through a Thomson Reuters subsidiary to access ALPR data from Motorola Solutions][50]. ICE has also persuaded local law enforcement officers to [run searches on their behalf through Flock Safety’s massive network][51] of ALPR data. CBP, including Border Patrol, also operates a [network][52] of [covert ALPR systems][53] in many areas.

ICE has also invested in biometric surveillance tools, such as [face recognition software called Mobile Fortify][54] to scan the faces of people they stop to determine if they are here legally. Mobile Fortify checks the pictures it takes against a database of 200 million photos for a match (the source of the photos is unknown). Additionally, ICE has a [$10 million contract with Clearview AI][55] for face recognition. ICE has also contracted with [iris scanning company BI2 technologies][56] for even more invasive biometric surveillance. ICE agents have also been [spotted wearing Meta’s Ray-Ban video recording][57] sunglasses.

[ICE has acquired trucks equipped][58] with [cell-site simulators (AKA Stingrays)][59] from a company called TechOps Specialty Vehicles (likely the cell-site simulators were manufactured by another company). This is not the first time ICE has bought this technology. According to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, [ICE deployed cell-site simulators at least 466 times between 2017 and 2019][60], and ICE more than 1,885 times between 2013 and 2017, [according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News][61]. Cell-site simulators can be used to track down a specific person in real time, with more granularity than a phone company or tools like Webloc can provide, though Webloc has the distinct advantage of being used without a warrant and not requiring agents to be in the vicinity of the person being tracked.

### How to protect yourself

Taking public transit or bicycling is a great way to keep yourself off ALPR databases, but an even better way is to go to your local city council meetings and demand the city cancels contracts with ALPR companies, like people have done in Flagstaff, Arizona; Eugene, Oregon; and Denver, Colorado, among others.

If you are at a protest, putting your phone on airplane mode could help protect you from cell-site simulators and from apps on your phone disclosing your location, but might leave you vulnerable to advanced targeted attacks. For more advanced protection, turning your phone completely off protects against all radio based attacks, and also makes it harder for tools like Cellebrite to break into your phone as discussed above. But each individual will need to weigh their need for security from advanced radio based attacks against their need to document potential abuses through photo or video. For more information about protecting yourself at a protest, [head over to SSD][62].

There is nothing you can do to change your face, which is why we need more stringent privacy laws such as [Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act][63].

## Tying All the Data Together

Last but not least, ICE uses tools to combine and search all this data along with the data on Americans they have acquired from private companies, the IRS, TSA, and other government databases.

To search all this data, ICE uses ImmigrationOS, a system that came from a [$30-million contract with Palantir][64]. What Palantir does is hard to explain, even for people who work there, but essentially they are plumbers. Palantir makes it so that ICE has all the data they have acquired in one place so it’s easy to search through. Palantir links data from different databases, like IRS data, immigration records, and private databases, and enables ICE to view all of this data about a specific person in one place.

The true civil liberties nightmare of Palantir is that they enable governments to link data that should have never been linked. There are [good civil liberties reasons][65] why IRS data was never linked with immigration data and was never linked with social media data, but Palantir breaks those firewalls. Palantir has labeled themselves as a progressive, human rights centric company historically, but their recent actions have given them away as just another tech company enabling surveillance nightmares.

## Threat Modeling When ICE Is Your Adversary

Understanding the capabilities and limits of ICE and how to threat model helps you and your community fight back, remain powerful, and protect yourself.

One of the most important things you can do is to not spread rumors and misinformation. Rumors like “ICE has malware so now everyone’s phones are compromised” or “Palantir knows what you are doing all the time” or “Signal is broken” don’t help your community. It’s more useful to spread facts, ways to protect yourself, and ways to fight back. For information about how to create a [security plan][66] for yourself or your community, and other tips to protect yourself, read our [Surveillance Self-Defense guides][67].

## How EFF Is Fighting Back

One way to fight back against ICE is in the courts. EFF currently has a lawsuit against ICE over their pressure on Apple and Google to [take down ICE spotting apps, like ICEBlock][68]. We also represent multiple labor unions [suing ICE over their social media surveillance practices][69].

We have also demanded the [San Francisco Police Department stop sharing data illegally with ICE][70], and issued a statement condemning the [collaboration between ICE and the malware provider Paragon][71]. We also continue to maintain our [Rayhunter][72] project for detecting cell-site simulators.

Other civil liberties organizations are also suing ICE. [ACLU has sued ICE over a subpoena to Meta][73] attempting to identify the owner of an account providing advice to protestors, and another coalition of groups has thus far [successfully sued the IRS to stop sharing taxpayer data with ICE][74].

We need to have a hard look at the surveillance industry. It is a key enabler of vast and untold violations of human rights and civil liberties, and it continues to be used by aspiring autocrats to threaten our very democracy. As long as it exists, the surveillance industry, and the data it generates, will be an irresistible tool for anti-democratic forces.

*Republished from the [EFF’s Deeplinks blog][75].*

[1]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/big-budget-act-creates-deportation-industrial-complex
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
[3]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/ice-wants-go-after-dissenters-well-immigrants
[4]: https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will
[5]: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/12/06/vancouver-ice-alleged-crushing-legs/
[6]: https://kstp.com/kstp-news/local-news/woman-says-she-was-detained-by-ice-in-minneapolis-for-being-a-citizen-observer/
[7]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/12/estados-unidos-nuevas-investigaciones-revelan-violaciones-de-derechos-humanos-en-los-centros-de-detencion-de-alligator-alcatraz-y-krome-en-florida/
[8]: https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-citizens-arrested-detained-against-will
[9]: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/30/tacoma-hillsboro-victor-cruz-ice-immigration-oregon-law-enforcement/
[10]: https://truthout.org/articles/ice-kidnapped-my-neighbor-in-broad-daylight-the-aftermath-left-me-reeling/
[11]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/15/ice-lawsuit-violent-assault
[12]: https://sahanjournal.com/immigration/ice-arrest-cedar-riverside-minneapolis-somali-man/
[13]: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/i-m-citizen-ice-wrongfully-detained-me-21244415.php
[14]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/ice-releases-documents-detailing-electronic-surveillance-problems-and-then-demands
[15]: https://americandragnet.org/
[16]: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/10/thanks-president-trump-and-secretary-noem-more-25-million-illegal-aliens-left-us
[17]: https://web.archive.org/web/20251217221208/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_Trump_administration
[18]: https://sourcenm.com/2025/03/17/ice-has-disappeared-48-new-mexico-residents-attorneys-say/
[19]: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article312042943.html
[20]: https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/could-ice-have-lost-3000-immigrant-arrestees-in-chicago/3844220/
[21]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/04/ice-2025-deaths-timeline
[22]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-farmworker-dies-immigration-raid-rcna218467
[23]: https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting
[24]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/
[25]: https://pod.wave.co/podcast/the-glenn-beck-program/glenns-tough-message-to-the-ice-shooters-mom-guests-todd-lyons-dr-jay-bhattacharya-92525
[26]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/homeland-security-spending-trail-how-follow-money-through-us-government-databases
[27]: https://www.eff.org/document/us-border-homeland-security-tech-vendors-dataset
[28]: https://reason.com/2025/09/29/ice-doesnt-want-you-to-know-why-they-bought-a-phone-cracking-system/
[29]: https://sls.eff.org/technologies/forensic-extraction-tools
[30]: https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/18/ice-unit-signs-new-3-million-contract-for-phone-hacking-tech/
[31]: https://www.wired.com/story/phone-searches-at-the-us-border-hit-a-record-high/
[32]: https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/02/ice-reactivates-contract-with-spyware-maker-paragon/
[33]: https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/05/paragon-spyware-used-to-target-citizens-across-europe-says-italian-government/
[34]: https://ssd.eff.org/module/mobile-phones-malware#malware
[35]: https://ssd.eff.org/module/how-to-enable-lockdown-mode-on-iphone
[36]: https://ssd.eff.org/module/how-to-get-to-know-android-privacy-and-security-settings#enable-advanced-protection
[37]: https://ssd.eff.org/module/attending-protest#remove-fingerprint-or-face-unlock
[38]: https://www.404media.co/ice-to-buy-tool-that-tracks-locations-of-hundreds-of-millions-of-phones-every-day/
[39]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-lapd-is-using-controversial-mass-surveillance-tracking-software/
[40]: https://perma.cc/K7CJ-S5YK
[41]: https://perma.cc/K7CJ-S5YK
[42]: https://www.404media.co/the-200-sites-an-ice-surveillance-contractor-is-monitoring/
[43]: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/ICE%20ShadowDragon%20Justification%20for%20Exception%20to%20Fair%20Opp..pdf
[44]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26331575-forecast-record-acquisition-planning-forecast-system/
[45]: https://www.wired.com/story/ice-social-media-surveillance-24-7-contract/
[46]: https://ssd.eff.org/module/protecting-yourself-social-networks
[47]: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/19/g-s1-73572/us-resumes-visas-foreign-students-access-social-media
[48]: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/us-to-inspect-tourists-social-media-history-from-past-5-years-.html
[49]: https://www.404media.co/ice-adds-random-person-to-group-chat-exposes-details-of-manhunt-in-real-time/
[50]: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/records-reveal-ice-using-mass-surveillance-database-track-people-aid-local-law
[51]: https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/
[52]: https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveillance-drivers-ice-trump-9f5d05469ce8c629d6fecf32d32098cd
[53]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-identify-automated-license-plate-readers-us-mexico-border
[54]: https://www.404media.co/inside-ices-supercharged-facial-recognition-app-of-200-million-images/
[55]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/08/ice-to-pay-10-million-for-clearview-facial-recognition-to-investigate-agent-assaults/
[56]: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202508/ices-biometric-surveillance-reach-expands-with-bi2-iris-scanning-tech
[57]: https://www.404media.co/border-patrol-agent-recorded-raid-with-metas-ray-ban-smart-glasses/
[58]: https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/07/ice-bought-vehicles-equipped-with-fake-cell-towers-to-spy-on-phones/
[59]: https://sls.eff.org/technologies/cell-site-simulators-imsi-catchers
[60]: http://techcrunch.com/2020/05/27/aclu-ice-stingray-documents/
[61]: http://buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/this-is-how-many-times-the-department-of-homeland-security
[62]: https://ssd.eff.org/module/attending-protest
[63]: https://www.aclu-il.org/en/campaigns/biometric-information-privacy-act-bipa
[64]: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ice-immigrationos-palantir-ai-track-immigrants/
[65]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/eff-us-court-appeals-protect-taxpayer-privacy
[66]: https://ssd.eff.org/module/your-security-plan
[67]: https://ssd.eff.org/
[68]: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-demands-answers-about-ice-spotting-app-takedowns
[69]: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/labor-unions-eff-sue-trump-administration-stop-surveillance-free-speech-online
[70]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/09/eff-aclu-sfpd-stop-illegally-sharing-data-ice-and-anti-abortion-states?language=es
[71]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/09/eff-statement-ice-use-paragon-solutions-malware
[72]: https://rayhunter.eff.org/
[73]: https://www.aclunc.org/news/dhs-withdraws-subpoena-seeking-unmask-instagram-users-who-posted-about-ice-raids
[74]: https://democracyforward.org/updates/court-orders-irs-to-stop-sharing-confidential-taxpayer-information-with-immigration-and-customs-enforcement/
[75]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/01/ice-going-surveillance-shopping-spree

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/ice-is-going-on-a-surveillance-shopping-spree/

Bari Weiss Is Sad That People Aren’t Enjoying Her Clumsy ...

2026-01-14T19:01:49Z

Bari Weiss Is Sad That People Aren’t Enjoying Her Clumsy Destruction Of CBS News

If you missed it, Trump-allied billionaire Larry Ellison and his nepobaby son David hired an unqualified troll named Bari Weiss to “run” CBS News. And by “run” CBS news, I mean destroying what little journalism was left at the media giant and [creating an alternate-reality safe space for right wing billionaires and their increasingly radical ideologies][1]. While pretending to be “restoring trust in journalism.”

It’s… not going well.

Weiss’ inaugural “town hall” with opportunistic right wing grifter Erika Kirk [was a ratings dud][2], Weiss’ new nightly news broadcast has been [an error-prone hot mess][3], and her [murder of a 60 Minutes story about Trump concentration camps][4] continues to plague the network and cause a [continued revolt][5] among remaining journalists. Meanwhile, the new CBS is now the [butt of jokes at the Golden Globes][6].

Weiss is, [according to a new New York Times article][7], not enjoying all the criticism and, like any good leader, blaming her subordinates for the problems she’s causing:

> *“Privately, Ms. Weiss has been deeply frustrated by the negative reaction to her decisions, and has blamed some subordinates for not stanching the criticism, three people familiar with internal discussions said.”*

It’s always important to reiterate that CBS wasn’t doing all that well when Weiss got there. The network’s previous owners’ very first response to surging U.S. authoritarianism was to [hire more on-air authoritarians][8]. The last act of the outgoing CBS leadership was to [bribe our authoritarian president to get a terrible new merger approved][9]. It’s only gone downhill since then.

The “entertaining” bit is that Weiss doesn’t appear to be good at either journalism (because she’s barely done any) or agitprop (arguably the whole reason the Ellison family hired her). That’s causing some weird frictions, including this bit in the Times article where Weiss insists she doesn’t want CBS to report the news, she wants it to “be” the news:

> *“The goal for this road show is not to deliver the news so much as it is to *drive the news*,” Ms. Weiss wrote in a note obtained by The New York Times. “We need to *be the news* for these 10 days.”*

That is an intentional misrepresentation of journalism’s function by somebody who **wants** to be an effective engagement troll that chases virality, but *clearly doesn’t really know how to go about it* at this sort of scale. Weiss built a weird little contrarian trolling blog, but that’s a completely different animal from creating a mass media propaganda machine. Just ask Roger Aisles.

I think, like many in the extraction-class funded engagement trolling industry, Weiss has deluded herself into *genuinely believing she’s helping* *fix journalism*. But again, that’s not what the weird mishmash of 80s ski comedy villains at Ellison’s Paramount want. And I suspect that if Weiss doesn’t start doing a better job of **lying to the electorate in a more exciting and ratings-grabbing way** pretty soon, she’ll be replaced by a much bigger asshole (and more effective culture war troll) before the summer arrives.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/07/cbs-remaining-journalists-seem-confused-as-to-why-bari-weiss-sucks-at-journalism/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/16/nobody-including-advertisers-cared-about-bari-weiss-new-cbs-town-hall/
[3]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2026/01/06/tony-dokoupil-cbs-evening-news-debut/88043680007/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/22/bari-weiss-shows-her-true-colors-kills-a-60-minutes-story-critical-of-the-presidents-concentration-camps/
[5]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/05/bari-weiss-cbs-news?CMP=share_btn_url
[6]: https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/nikki-glaser-golden-globes-monologue-jokes-epstein-cbs-news-1236624543/
[7]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/business/media/cbs-evening-news-bari-weiss.html
[8]: https://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-news-exec-says-hiring-more-republicans-expect-midterm-win-2022-3
[9]: http://s-fcc-will-now-help-cbs-pretend-its-shitty-merger-is-good-for-journalism-and-the-public/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/bari-weiss-is-sad-that-people-arent-enjoying-her-clumsy-destruction-of-cbs-news/

Daily Deal: The Complete CompTIA And IT Exam Prep Bundle The ...

2026-01-14T18:56:40Z

Daily Deal: The Complete CompTIA And IT Exam Prep Bundle

The [Complete CompTIA and IT Exam Prep Bundle][1] has a variety of courses, labs, and exam simulators to help you prepare for certification courses. You’ll have access to Cramwise (an exam simulator), DojoLab (labs, practice exams, and PBQs), CodeDirect (beginner Python courses), ExamsDigest (labs and PBQs focusing on CompTIA, Cisco, and AWS), and LinuxPath. It’s on sale for $40.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/the-complete-comptia-it-exam-lifetime-access-training-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/daily-deal-the-complete-comptia-and-it-exam-prep-bundle/

Prosecutors Flee DOJ After Being Told To Investigate The Murdered ...

2026-01-14T17:28:59Z

Prosecutors Flee DOJ After Being Told To Investigate The Murdered Woman, Not The Murderer

Last week, we wrote about how ICE agent Jonathan Ross [murdered Renee Nicole Good][1], a 37-year-old poet and mother, on a Minneapolis street in broad daylight. We wrote about how the Trump administration immediately began lying about it despite multiple video angles showing exactly what happened. We wrote about how the media called documented murder a “dispute.”

This week, we’re writing about how career Justice Department prosecutors—people who’ve spent their careers putting away fraudsters, drug dealers, and actual criminals—looked at how the administration is handling this case and said: we want no part of this.

Because apparently the DOJ’s response to an ICE agent murdering an unarmed American citizen wasn’t to investigate the agent who pulled the trigger. It was [to investigate the victim and her widow][2].

A federal agent shot an unarmed woman multiple times in the head at close range. Video evidence directly contradicts every administration claim about what happened. And the Justice Department’s priority is figuring out what activist groups the dead woman might have been associated with?

Really?

According to reporting from the New York Times, at least six federal prosecutors in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office [resigned on Tuesday][3] over this approach:

> *Joseph H. Thompson, who was second in command at the U.S. attorney’s office and oversaw a* [*sprawling fraud investigation*][4] *that has roiled Minnesota’s political landscape, was among those who quit on Tuesday, according to three people with knowledge of the decision.*
>
> *Mr. Thompson’s resignation came after senior Justice Department officials pressed for a criminal investigation into the actions of the widow of* [*Renee Nicole Good*][5]*, the Minneapolis woman killed by an ICE agent on Wednesday.*
>
> *Mr. Thompson, 47, a career prosecutor, objected to that approach, as well as to the Justice Department’s refusal to include state officials in investigating whether the shooting itself was lawful, the people familiar with his decision said.*

Read that again. Senior DOJ officials pressed for a criminal investigation into the *widow*. The woman whose wife was just murdered by a federal agent. That’s what prompted career prosecutors to walk out the door.

And Thompson wasn’t alone. The Times reports that Harry Jacobs (Thompson’s deputy on the fraud cases), Melinda Williams (who ran the criminal division and successfully prosecuted sex traffickers and fentanyl dealers), and Thomas Calhoun-Lopez (chief of violent and major crimes) all quit as well.

The Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office wasn’t the only place seeing an exodus.

According to MS Now, at least six leaders of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division—the unit that’s supposed to investigate police killings—[also resigned in protest][6]:

> *Top leaders of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division have left their jobs to register their frustration with the department after the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon decided not to investigate the ICE officer’s* [*fatal shooting of Renee Good*][7] *last week.* [*The criminal section of the division would normally investigate*][8] *any fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer and specializes in probing potential or alleged abuse or improper use of force by law enforcement.*
>
> *The departures – including that of the chief of the section, as well as the principal deputy chief, deputy chief and acting deputy chief – represent the most significant mass resignation at the Justice Department since February.*

So we potentially have twelve or more DOJ officials walking out the door because of how this administration is handling a single case. Career prosecutors who spent years working for the DOJ and at least a year under this administration. People who had no apparent problem with everything else this DOJ has been doing. But investigating a murder victim while protecting her killer was apparently the line they couldn’t cross.

Let me say it plainly: when career prosecutors who’ve stuck around through a year of this administration’s chaos decide *this* is the moment to quit, it tells you something important about just how far outside normal law enforcement practice this has gone.

Also, remember why ICE supposedly flooded Minneapolis in the first place? Daycare fraud. A viral video from a small-time MAGA grifter claiming day cares were running scams, which the administration used to justify what it called “the largest immigration enforcement operation in history.”

And who was the lead prosecutor on those fraud cases? Joe Thompson. The same guy who just quit because the DOJ would rather investigate a murder victim’s activist connections than the agent who killed her.

As Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara put it to the NY Times:

> *“When you lose the leader responsible for making the fraud cases, it tells you this isn’t really about prosecuting fraud,”*

No shit.

If you want evidence of just how upside-down the Justice Department’s priorities have become, look no further than what they’re actually investigating. A separate Times report from Sunday laid out how the FBI’s inquiry into the shooting is focused not on the agent’s actions, but on Good’s “[possible connections to activist groups][9]“:

> *The decision by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to scrutinize Ms. Good’s activities and her potential connections to local activists is in line with the White House’s strategy of deflecting blame for the shooting away from federal law enforcement and toward opponents they have described as domestic terrorists, often without providing evidence.*

Let’s summarize again: an ICE agent murders a woman in broad daylight. The division specifically designed to investigate when cops kill people has decided not to investigate the murderer. Instead, the DOJ is being told to investigate the dead woman and her widow’s social media connections.

And long term DOJ officials are rushing out the door, wanting absolutely nothing to do with any of this nonsense.

Meanwhile, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon was busy on social media retweeting posts warning people not to “ram ICE officers” because they’ll use deadly force—you know, completely prejudging the case she’s supposed to be overseeing. As former DOJ domestic terrorism counsel Thomas Brzozowski put it to the NY Times:

> *“It’s not appropriate for officials to characterize this incident as domestic terrorism before the investigation is complete,” said Thomas E. Brzozowski, the former counsel for domestic terrorism in the Justice Department’s national security division. “There used to be a process, deliberate and considered, to figure out if behavior could be legitimately described as domestic terrorism.”*
>
> *“And when it’s not followed,” Mr. Brzozowski said, “then the term becomes little more than a political cudgel to bash one’s enemies.”*

“There used to be a process.” Past tense. That’s where we are now.

The administration’s approach makes sense only if you understand that the goal was never justice—it was narrative control. The White House needs Good to be a terrorist, not a victim, because acknowledging that an ICE agent murdered an unarmed American citizen for no reason undermines everything they’ve been saying about their immigration crackdown. So they investigate the victim. They investigate the widow. They investigate the “activist groups.” Anything but investigate the guy who actually pulled the trigger.

Former Trump attorney and current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s statement was revealing: “there is currently no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation into the ICE agent.”

No basis. A federal agent shot an unarmed woman multiple times in the head. Video shows her trying to drive away, not toward officers. And there’s “no basis” for investigation. There’s a reason why every time a Trump legal move is flailing around, Blanche seems to show up and wave his arms theatrically yelling “nothing to see here folks.”

What would constitute a basis, exactly? Does the agent need to announce “I am now violating this person’s civil rights” before pulling the trigger?

Minnesota officials aren’t buying it. Governor Tim Walz called Thompson “a principled public servant” and added that his resignation is “the latest sign Trump is pushing nonpartisan career professionals out of the justice department, replacing them with his sycophants.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called the resigned prosecutors “heroes” and the people pushing to prosecute Good’s widow “monsters.”

Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension—the state agency that normally investigates police shootings and which the DOJ has deliberately excluded from this investigation—put it simply:

> *“We’re losing a true public servant,” said Mr. Evans. “We really need professional prosecutors.”*
>
> *The absence of a credible and comprehensive investigation into Ms. Good’s killing stands to “undermine trust in our public safety agencies,” Mr. Evans added.*

We’re well past that point. When the Justice Department investigates murder victims while shielding their killers, “trust” has already been destroyed.

The mass resignations tell us something crucial: there are still at least a few people inside the system who know the difference between law enforcement and state-sanctioned murder. Though, it raises the question of whether there’s anyone left who knows that distinction.

Thompson and his colleagues apparently decided they’d rather walk away from careers they spent decades building than participate in the investigation of a grieving widow while her wife’s killer walks free.

But their departures also mean the fraud cases—the ones the administration claimed justified this whole Minneapolis operation—are now in serious jeopardy. The prosecutor who knew every defendant, every transaction, who’d built those cases from the ground up over years, just walked out the door. If the administration actually cared about prosecuting fraud in Minnesota, they’d be begging Thompson to stay. Instead, they drove him out because protecting an ICE agent from accountability matters more to them than the stated reason they sent ICE to Minneapolis in the first place.

Renee Nicole Good was murdered by her own government. And the Justice Department’s response was to investigate her.

That’s the country we live in now.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/fbi-renee-good-ice-shooting.html
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/prosecutors-doj-resignation-ice-shooting.html
[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/us/fraud-minnesota-somali.html
[5]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/10/us/rennee-good-ice-shooting-minnesota.html
[6]: https://www.ms.now/news/doj-civil-rights-division-officials-quit-harmeet-dhillon
[7]: https://www.ms.now/news/new-video-ice-officer-shooting-renee-good-minneapolis
[8]: https://www.justice.gov/crt/law-enforcement-misconduct#iap
[9]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/fbi-renee-good-ice-shooting.html

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/prosecutors-flee-doj-after-being-told-to-investigate-the-murdered-woman-not-the-murderer/

DHS Wants To Harvest Biometric Data From Anyone Helping A ...

2026-01-14T13:26:14Z

DHS Wants To Harvest Biometric Data From Anyone Helping A Foreigner Stay In This Country Legally

We’ve always known the ultimate goal was to [subject *everyone*][1] to biometric collections, whether it’s at border crossings or international airports. At some point, the tech will move inland and become an annoying part of traveling from Point A to B because national security or whatever the fuck.

The acceleration was a bit more limited during the Biden years, but the desire to turn everyone into data points for government exploitation remained. Now that Trump is back in office, what was previously used to track inherently suspicious foreigners (that would be all the ones [that *aren’t* white][2]) will soon be used to track *everyone.*

This was first pitched by the DHS back in November, as “Papers Please” reports. Public comments are being accepted, but probably not being welcomed unless they’re sufficiently congratulatory of this expansion of surveillance power. Here’s what Papers Please has to say about it in its recent post:

> *As part of an array of [proposals][3] and [rules][4] issued by components of the US Department of Homeland Security to collect a widening array of biometric information and systems from widening categories of individuals, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is [proposing][5] a new rule that would authorize collection of any form of biometric information or samples from anyone, including US citizens, “encountered” by USCIS or “associated with” any applicant for admission to the US, US residency, or US citizenship.*
>
> *The [proposed rule][6] would give USCIS blanket authority, at its discretion, to order any such individual to report to any location worldwide specified by USCIS, and to submit to collection of facial images (“digital image, specifically for facial recognition”), fingerprints, palm prints, iris scans, retinal scans, voice prints, and/or DNA samples.*

“Associated with” is a pretty broad term — one that could cover any business employing foreigners or any school accepting applicants with student visas. And that’s not Papers Please editorializing the DHS/USCIS proposal. That’s a direct quote of its [Federal Register posting][7]:

> *The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations governing
> biometrics use and collection. DHS proposes to require submission of biometrics **by any individual, regardless of age**, filing or associated with an immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, unless exempted; expand biometrics collection authority upon alien arrest; define ‘‘biometrics;’’ codify reuse requirements; codify and expand DNA testing, use and storage; establish an ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ standard to excuse a failure to appear at a biometric services appointment; modify how VAWA self-petitioners and T nonimmigrant status applicants **demonstrate good moral character**; and clarify biometrics collection purposes*.

This means family members, friends, immigration lawyers, and the above-mentioned schools and businesses could all be expected to submit their biometric information to the DHS. There’s also the weird thing about “good moral character,” which presumably means someone’s character aligns with the current MAGA leadership, no matter its evident lack of good moral character. It also seeks to codify stuff it’s already doing and expand its power to do more of that same stuff elsewhere for other reasons and under other conditions.

The laundry list of people expected to bring their eyeballs, faces, and fingerprints to the DHS is described in a bit more detail later in the DHS proposal:

> *Using biometrics for identity verification and management will assist DHS’s efforts to combat trafficking, confirm the results of biographical criminal history checks, and deter fraud. Therefore, DHS proposes in this rule that any applicant, petitioner, sponsor, supporter, derivative, dependent, beneficiary, or individual filing or associated with a benefit request or other request or collection of information, including U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals and lawful permanent residents, and without regard to age, must submit biometrics unless DHS otherwise exempts the requirement.*

If you ask me, this is less about a hunger for data than an attempt to dissuade people from assisting migrants, students, or temporary laborers from seeking a path to permanent residence. Our immigration processes have left us largely unaffected by terrorists or international criminal cartels, despite the government’s persistent (and consistently louder) claims otherwise. A vast majority of immigrants are hardworking, tax-paying people who commit fewer crimes than US citizens.

Then there’s this, which says the DHS will now be allowed to track/reject/kick out applicants based on their sexual identity:

> *Similarly, under this rule, DHS may expressly require, request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results (which include a partial DNA profile) as evidence to determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits or to perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. **For example, DHS may request DNA evidence to prove or disprove an individual’s biological sex in instances where that determination will impact benefit eligibility.***

Neat. As if this whole shit show needed any more Nazi added to it. As was noted above, the public has been invited to comment on this proposal. But I can almost guarantee you the opposition will be ignored in favor of ensuring the GOP has a Fatherland to rule for the foreseeable future.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/21/tsa-confirms-biometric-scanning-soon-wont-be-optional-even-for-domestic-travelers/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/20/trump-admin-clarifies-only-white-anti-semites-will-be-granted-asylum-in-this-country/
[3]: https://papersplease.org/wp/2025/12/10/cbp-wants-all-visitors-to-install-and-use-its-smartphone-app/
[4]: https://papersplease.org/wp/2025/11/26/cbp-finalizes-rule-for-mug-shots-of-all-foreigners-entering-or-leaving-the-us/
[5]: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCIS-2025-0205
[6]: https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCIS-2025-0205-0002/content.pdf
[7]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26455708-uscis-2025-0205-0002-content/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/14/dhs-wants-to-harvest-biometric-data-from-anyone-helping-a-foreigner-stay-in-this-country-legally/

Trump Tries To Disappear Impeachment References At Smithsonian ...

2026-01-14T04:03:49Z

Trump Tries To Disappear Impeachment References At Smithsonian

**Donald Trump is the only president in American history to have been impeached twice. That is a simple fact of history. **

I can imagine it’s a fact that Donald Trump doesn’t like very much. He might even be embarrassed over it. But it’s a fact that remains no matter what the fragile ego in chief desires.

But with this administration on a blitz to [erase][1] all kinds of American history, largely over concerns about so-called DEI and “woke” content, it seems that Dear Leader [has a couple of personal asks][2] to add to this Orwellian project.

> *President Donald Trump’s photo portrait display at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery has had references to his two impeachments removed, the latest apparent change at the collection of museums he has accused of bias as he asserts his influence over how official presentations document U.S. history.*
>
> *The wall text, which summarized Trump’s first presidency and noted his 2024 comeback victory, was part of the museum’s “American Presidents” exhibition. The description had been placed alongside a photograph of Trump taken during his first term. Now, a different photo appears without any accompanying text block, though [the text was available online.][3] Trump was the only president whose display in the gallery, as seen Sunday, did not include any extended text.*

**Donald Trump is the only president in American history to have been impeached twice. That is a simple fact of history.**

Now, I wouldn’t have thought it possible to Streisand Effect something so monumental in our shared history, given its high profile nature, but here we are anyway. Trump’s exact impeachment from his first term is now back in the news, fodder for active discussion purely because his shakey psyche needed to remove references to it in America’s museum.

And, hey, I suppose it’s worth remembering that those impeachments happened over half a decade ago. There are some number of people who have no doubt had a political awakening between then and now. People who paid very little to politics due to their age. Children who are now at an age to actually understand how our government works and what mechanisms like impeachment votes mean. Youngsters who perhaps didn’t grasp the gravity of events such as January 6th, or who didn’t understand the importance of a president attempting to have another sovereign nation perform political dirty tricks in exchange for military assistance.

> *“The museum is beginning its planned update of the America’s Presidents gallery which will undergo a larger refresh this Spring,” the gallery statement said. “For some new exhibitions and displays, the museum has been exploring quotes or tombstone labels, which provide only general information, such as the artist’s name.”*
>
> *For now, references to Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton being impeached in 1868 and 1998, respectively, remain as part of their portrait labels, as does President Richard Nixon’s 1974 resignation as a result of the Watergate scandal.*
>
> *And, the gallery statement noted, “The history of Presidential impeachments continues to be represented in our museums, including the National Museum of American History.”*

**Donald Trump is the only president in American history to have been impeached twice. That is a simple fact of history.**

The museum can try to explain this away as normal maintenance all they like. Nobody is buying it. The AP post notes that they reached out to the Trump administration asking if they had requested this change, but did not receive a response. A response is plainly not needed. Of *course* they did. It’s not as though Trump himself has shied away from authoring plaques for presidential portraits in the past.

> *At the White House, Trump has designed a notably partisan and subjective [“Presidential Walk of Fame”][4] featuring gilded photographs of himself and his predecessors — with the exception of Biden, who is represented by an autopen — along with plaques describing their presidencies.*
>
> *The White House said at the time that Trump himself was a primary author of the plaques. Notably, Trump’s two plaques praise the 45th and 47th president as a historically successful figure while those under Biden’s autopen stand-in describe the 46th executive as “by far, the worst President in American History” who “brought our Nation to the brink of destruction.”*

And so the president is all too happy behave as the shit-poster in chief. He’s cruel. He’s an egomaniac. He’s in charge. But none of that changes the following:

**Donald Trump is the only president in American history to have been impeached twice. That is a simple fact of history.**

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/erasing-history/
[2]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-smithsonian-impeachment-national-portrait-gallery-photo-47a192aa3fdb9c434e405812a36b455a
[3]: https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.2022.158.1?destination=edan-search/default_search%3Fedan_local%3D1%26edan_q%3Dtrump
[4]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-plaques-presidential-walk-fame-e6b496f68862f4b678bbe608a0efde95

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/trump-tries-to-disappear-impeachment-references-at-smithsonian/

Online Gaming’s Final Boss: The Copyright Bully Since earliest ...

2026-01-13T23:25:28Z

Online Gaming’s Final Boss: The Copyright Bully

Since earliest days of computer games, people have tinkered with the software to customize their own experiences or share their vision with others. From the dad who changed the game’s male protagonist to a girl so his daughter could see herself in it, to the developers who got their start in modding, games have been a medium where you don’t just consume a product, you participate and interact with culture.

For decades, that participatory experience was a key part of one of the longest-running video games still in operation: Everquest. Players had the official client, acquired lawfully from EverQuest’s developers, and modders figured out how to enable those clients to communicate with their own servers and then modify their play experience – creating new communities along the way.

Everquest’s copyright owners implicitly blessed all this. But the current owners, a private equity firm called Daybreak, want to end that independent creativity. They are using copyright claims to threaten modders who wanted to customize the EverQuest experience to suit a different playstyle, running their own servers where things worked the way they wanted.

One project in particular is in Daybreak’s crosshairs: “The Hero’s Journey” (THJ). Daybreak claims THJ has infringed its copyrights in Everquest visuals and character, cutting into its bottom line.

Ordinarily, when a company wants to remedy some actual harm, its lawyers will start with a cease-and-desist letter and potentially pursue a settlement. But if the goal is intimidation, a rightsholder is free to go directly to federal court and file a complaint. That’s exactly what Daybreak did, using that shock-and-awe approach to cow not only The Hero’s Journey team, but unrelated modders as well.

Daybreak’s complaint seems to have dazzled the judge in the case by presenting side-by-side images of dragons and characters that look identical in the base game and when using the mod, without explaining that these images are the ones provided by EverQuest’s official client, which players have lawfully downloaded from the official source. The judge wound up short-cutting the copyright analysis and issuing a ruling that has proven devastating to the thousands of players who are part of EverQuest modding communities.

Daybreak and the developers of The Hero’s Journey are now in private arbitration, and Daybreak has wasted no time in sending that initial ruling to other modders. The order doesn’t bind anyone who’s unaffiliated with The Hero’s Journey, but it’s understandable that modders who are in it for fun and community would cave to the implied threat that they could be next.

As a result, [dozens of fan servers have stopped operating][1]. Daybreak has also persuaded the maintainers of the shared server emulation software that most fan servers rely upon, EQEmulator, to adopt terms of service that essentially ban any but the most negligible modding. The terms also provide that “your operation of an EQEmulator server is subject to Daybreak’s permission, which it may revoke for any reason or no reason at any time, without any liability to you or any other person or entity. You agree to fully and immediately comply with any demand from Daybreak to modify, restrict, or shut down any EQEmulator server.”

This is sadly not even an uncommon story in fanspaces—from the dustup over changes to the Dungeons and Dragons [open gaming license][2] to the “guidelines” issued by CBS for [Star Trek fan films][3], we see new generations of owners deciding to alienate their most avid fans in exchange for more control over their new property. It often seems counterintuitive—fans are creating new experiences, for free, that encourage others to get interested in the original work.

Daybreak can claim a shameful victory: it has imposed unilateral terms on the modding community that are far more restrictive than what fair use and other user rights would allow. In the process, it is alienating the very people it should want to cultivate as customers: hardcore Everquest fans. If it wants fans to continue to invest in making its games appeal to broader audiences and serve as testbeds for game development and sources of goodwill, it needs to give the game’s fans room to breathe and to play.

If you’ve been a target of Daybreak’s legal bullying, we’d love to hear from you; email us at info@eff.org.

*Republished from [EFF’s Deeplinks blog][4].*

[1]: https://massivelyop.com/2025/09/27/the-everquest-emu-community-scrambles-as-multiple-servers-lose-hosting-and-the-subreddit-goes-dark/
[2]: https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634
[3]: https://www.startrek.com/fan-films
[4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/online-gamings-final-boss-copyright-bully

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/online-gamings-final-boss-the-copyright-bully/

Elon Musk Plays Disinfo Telephone: How Oregon’s Mundane Voter ...

2026-01-13T21:07:24Z

Elon Musk Plays Disinfo Telephone: How Oregon’s Mundane Voter Roll Cleanup Is Turned Into False Claim Of ‘Fake Voters’

I made the mistake of opening up X yesterday to look something up, and the very first post that appeared in my feed was a perfect, almost pedagogical example of how the game of “disinformation telephone” gets played. Let’s walk through it, because understanding how this works is important.

The game works like this: Someone takes a factual but largely unremarkable story, gives it a slight spin, and passes it along. The next person picks it up, adds another layer of spin, and passes *that* along. By the time it reaches someone with a massive audience—say, the richest man in the world—the original mundane fact has been transformed into a full-blown conspiracy theory. And that final, mangled version is what millions of people see and believe.

So let’s trace this particular game of telephone from start to finish.

Oregon’s Secretary of State, Tobias Read, recently [announced that the state would be purging “inactive voters”][1] from its rolls. This is routine voter roll maintenance that happens in every state. In Oregon’s case, “inactive voters” are generally voters whose mail-in ballots were returned as undeliverable—in other words, people who moved and didn’t update their registration.

This is important: **these people did not vote**. They ***could not*** vote. Oregon is a mail-in ballot state. If you’re marked “inactive,” **you don’t get a ballot**. No ballot, no vote. The system worked exactly as designed. The state identified people who had moved, marked them inactive so they couldn’t accidentally vote from an old address, and is now cleaning up the rolls by removing those inactive entries:

> *About 800,000 more voters’ registration status is inactive because their mail, including ballots or official notices, from county elections offices has been returned undelivered.*
>
> *Active voters get ballots; inactive voters, Read emphasizes, do not.*

All of this is actually a sign of *how well* the system works. If you mail-in ballot bounces back, Oregon makes you ineligible to vote until you re-register with a valid address. It’s evidence not of “fake voters,” but rather a system that makes sure only valid voters are active on the voter rolls.

The reason there are so many—reportedly around 800,000—is because Oregon stopped doing this routine maintenance about a decade ago and is only now getting back to it. So you have a decade or so of accumulated returned ballots marked as inactive. You can complain that they should have been on top of this earlier, but there’s nothing nefarious here. It’s bureaucratic backlog, not fraud.

And there are reasons to keep inactive voters (marked as inactive) on the rolls: mainly for if they ever get around to reregistering to vote so they can vote in future elections.

Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, saw an opportunity. His organization had [filed a lawsuit against Oregon over voter roll maintenance][2] back in the fall of 2024, so he quickly claimed credit for the purge. But here’s the thing: that lawsuit is still ongoing and has nothing to do with this routine removal of inactive voters. Also, that lawsuit isn’t going very well as the judge [dismissed most of the key claims][3], leaving just one left and only for one party (not Judicial Watch, who was found not to have standing).

But, nonetheless, Fitton, who loves attention, took credit for Read’s announcement:

His tweet:

> *HUGE: After @JudicialWatch lawsuit, Oregon Secretary of State announces he will now clean 800,000 names from voter rolls.*

Notice his careful wording in his post. He doesn’t actually say his lawsuit *caused* the change. He just notes, temporally, that Oregon announced the cleanup *after* his lawsuit was filed. It’s a classic “correlation implies causation” move, designed to let his followers draw the conclusion he wants without him having to actually claim something false.

Sneaky, but still within the bounds of “*technically* not lying.” The story at this point is still basically accurate, just with some self-serving framing.

Then some rando X account called “Upstate Federalist” quote-tweeted Fitton’s post. And here’s where the telephone game really kicks in.

This account claimed that the purge of these inactive voters meant 20% of Oregon’s registered voters were “fake.”

> *Hold on. Oregon’s population is only 4.25M…. 20% of their registered voters were fake?*

This is wrong on multiple levels.

First, these weren’t “fake” voters. They were real people who had previously registered to vote, then moved, and whose registration information became outdated. That’s not “fake.” That’s just… people moving.

Second, they weren’t voters at all in any meaningful sense. They were marked inactive precisely *because* the system identified that they had moved. Their unfilled out ballots had been returned to the state. They weren’t sent future ballots. They *couldn’t* vote. The system prevented them from voting.

Third, the “20%” framing is designed to make it sound like Oregon’s elections were riddled with fraud. But again: these people did not vote. The number of inactive registrations on a voter roll has nothing to do with the integrity of actual votes cast and it’s only that high because Oregon neglected to clean up the inactive list for a decade.

(For what it’s worth, some people tried to point this out to “Upstate Federalist” and he mocked them as “leftists.”)

And then Elon Musk, with his hundreds of millions of followers, saw the quote tweet of the quote tweet and amplified it, claiming “That’s a lot of fake voters…”

Except it’s not. It’s the opposite of “fake” voters. It’s Oregon’s safeguards working.

Did he click through to understand the original story? No.

Did he ask any of the countless experts who would take his call? No.

Did he ask experts on his own platform, X, to explain what was happening in Oregon? No.

Did he even ask his own AI, Grok, which actually would have told him the truth? No.

(Incredibly, despite on tons of posts it being common to see someone somewhere reply to any claim with “@grok is this true?” either those are being hidden under Elon’s posts, or none of his rabid followers care. It took many, many, many scrolls before I found one person not asking if it was true, but to explain it, and Grok, properly told him that it was about accounts that had their addresses changed, not fraud. At the time I looked at that Grok post, it had… 16 total views, including mine):

Either way, Elon just saw something that fit the narrative he’s been pushing about election fraud, and he amplified it to his massive audience as if it had to be true. The original mundane story about routine voter roll maintenance had now become, through the magic of disinfo telephone, “evidence” that Oregon had 800,000 fake voters, that they had to be forced to purge from the voter rolls.

Here’s the thing: I guarantee we’ll be hearing from MAGA folks for years that Oregon had 800,000 fake voters on the rolls. This “fact” will get cited in arguments about election integrity. It will show up in lawsuits. It will be used to justify restrictive voting laws. It will absolutely be a talking point on podcasts and Fox News.

And never, not once, will anyone confront Elon over spreading this bullshit. Nor will he admit he passed along blatant misinformation that was trivially easy to debunk if he’d spent thirty seconds checking, as I did.

This is how the information environment gets polluted. Not through some grand conspiracy, but through a series of small distortions, each building on the last, until a mundane truth becomes an inflammatory lie. And when the person at the end of the telephone chain has the largest megaphone on the planet and zero interest in accuracy, that lie reaches millions of people who will never see any correction.

The richest man in the world, with effectively unlimited resources to verify information, chose instead to just… not. Because the lie was more useful to him than the truth.

And that’s how disinfo telephone works.

[1]: https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2026/01/09/oregon-election-officials-to-begin-purging-rolls-of-inactive-voters/
[2]: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69303762/judicial-watch-inc-v-griffin-valade/
[3]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.182713/gov.uscourts.ord.182713.34.0.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/elon-musk-plays-disinfo-telephone-how-oregons-mundane-voter-roll-cleanup-is-turned-into-false-claim-of-fake-voters/

Trump’s Loyalist Prosecutors Continue To Get Kicked Off Cases ...

2026-01-13T19:08:05Z

Trump’s Loyalist Prosecutors Continue To Get Kicked Off Cases Because They’re Not Legally Appointed

Trump’s binge-and-purge approach to handling the DOJ definitely isn’t working out for him. The administration has been steadily [pushing prosecutors out][1] for failing to be MAGA enough, especially when it comes to Trump’s steady stream of vindictive, [politically motivated prosecutions][2].

Not only are prosecutors finding themselves trumped (pun intended) by grand juries when trying to lock up people for exercising their First Amendment right to protest anti-immigration efforts, but career DOJ prosecutors are quitting (or getting fired) for refusing to be part of Trump’s lawfare.

This leaves the DOJ with a lot of openings it can’t easily fill. And the openings at the top — US attorneys and assistant US attorneys — can’t just be filled by anyone Trump happens to like. These are appointed positions that must be approved by the legislative branch. Trump has constantly ignored this co-equal branch of the government in order to stock his cabinet with loyalists, like Trump’s former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, who was apparently qualified to be a US attorney thanks to her several years of experience as [squints at bio] [an insurance lawyer][3].

Halligan has already seen high-profile prosecutions set aside by courts because she doesn’t legally hold this position. Now, there’s another Trump toady going through the same thing Halligan experienced for the same reason: [he doesn’t have any legal claim to the position he’s currently in][4].

> *A federal judge on Thursday disqualified the Trump loyalist [top prosecutor in upstate New York][5] and tossed subpoenas his office has issued to state Attorney General Letitia James.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, appointed by President Barack Obama, [wrote in a 24-page opinion][6] that John Sarcone III has been unlawfully serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.*

Here’s how the administration attempted to keep John Scarone operative long enough to pursue its vindictive prosecution of Letitia James, taken from the 24-page [decision][7] [PDF]:

> *Mr. Sarcone’s service was and is unlawful because it bypassed the statutory requirements that govern who may exercise the powers of a U.S. Attorney. U.S. Attorneys must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. When a vacancy arises, federal law provides limited alternatives to fill the position temporarily. None authorized Mr. Sarcone to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney on August 5, 2025, when he relied on the authority of the office to request the subpoenas.*
>
> *The U.S. Attorney General initially appointed Mr. Sarcone as Interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days. When that term expired, this District’s judges declined to use their statutory authority to extend his tenure. Federal law then required the use of other statutory procedures to fill the position. The Department of Justice did not follow those procedures. Instead**, on the same day that the judges declined to extend Mr. Sarcone’s appointment, the Department took coordinated steps — through personnel moves and shifting titles — to install Mr. Sarcone as Acting U.S. Attorney. Federal law does not permit such a workaround**.*

Not all that clever. But no one expects anything more (or is it anything *less*?) from this administration. We’ll have to wait and see if Sarcone will respect this ruling and relegate himself to a lower position. I mean, it’s not impossible to think this *might* happen. After all, others in his same (ill-gotten) position have taken themselves out of the equation, rather than create further legal problems for Trump’s vindictive prosecutions.

> *In early December, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba [resigned ][8]following an appeals court ruling upholding [her disqualification][9]. Shortly thereafter, Delaware U.S. Attorney Julianne Murray also [left her post][10], citing the Habba ruling.*

Then again, Sarcone might decide he’s just another Lindsey Halligan. Halligan has also been told by the court that she cannot legally hold the US Attorney title due to the same sort of Trump shenanigans. And those rulings [have seen the indictments][11] she managed to secure against former FBI director James Comey and NY Attorney General Letitia James thrown out by a federal judge.

And yet, she refuses to learn anything from this experience. Worse, she’s apparently so enthralled with her position of power she can’t even be bothered to *pretend* someone else in the DOJ (who has secured their position *legally*) [is handling the cases she’s no longer allowed to lead][12].

> *A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Lindsey Halligan to explain why she continues to identify herself as a U.S. attorney despite a different judge finding her appointment as the top federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia was invalid.*
>
> *U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits in Richmond, [gave Halligan][13] seven days to provide the basis for her use of the title and ordered her to explain why her identification as U.S. attorney “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.”*
>
> *Novak also instructed Halligan to lay out the reasons why the court “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” from an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in early December. Halligan’s name is listed on the [indictment][14] and her title as “United States attorney and special attorney.”*

This [order][15] [PDF] is much shorter, probably because this federal district has already said the same thing to Halligan previously in longer opinions and orders. But those didn’t change anything about how Halligan refers to herself in court filings. According to the CBS News report, the DOJ itself sent out a memo instructing everyone to refer to Halligan by the title she legally doesn’t have.

But as the court has already noted, Pam Bondi’s attempt to [retcon Halligan into legality][16] on September 22, 2025 didn’t actually make that happen. All it did was provide more evidence showing the administration knew Halligan had bypassed the required appointment process and hoped it could just slip her through the door without anyone noticing.

All of this just goes to show we’re dealing with a bunch of people who have decided they don’t serve their country or their offices. They only serve their chosen king. And that’s something even Trump voters didn’t vote for, because you don’t elect a king. Halligan is, of course, welcome to continue to ignore these court orders. But all that means for Trump’s DOJ is that every case it brings in the Eastern District of Virginia will be tossed as soon as it hits the docket.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/22/doj-purge-continues-with-firing-of-prosecutor-who-refused-to-go-after-trumps-personal-enemies/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/29/trumps-bumblefuck-doj-continues-revenge-tour-with-semi-botched-indictment-of-james-comey/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/25/trumps-former-insurance-lawyer-fucked-up-his-revenge-prosecution-of-james-comey-in-so-many-ways/
[4]: http://politico.com/news/2026/01/08/john-sarcone-ruling-us-attorney-00716067
[5]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/04/john-sarcone-letitia-james-subpoeanas-00677169
[6]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.149556/gov.uscourts.nynd.149556.50.0.pdf
[7]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26467154-beat-it-lindsey/
[8]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/08/alina-habba-steps-down-as-new-jerseys-top-federal-prosecutor-00680823
[9]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/01/alina-habba-appeals-court-ruling-00671224
[10]: https://x.com/Murray4DE/status/1999475044494532645
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/25/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-tossed-because-trumps-insurance-lawyer-wasnt-legally-appointed-to-the-doj/
[12]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsey-halligan-us-attorney-title-judge/
[13]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586310/gov.uscourts.vaed.586310.16.0.pdf
[14]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.1.0.pdf
[15]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26467155-beat-it-lindsey-2/
[16]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.137.1.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/trumps-loyalist-prosecutors-continue-to-get-kicked-off-cases-because-theyre-not-legally-appointed/

Daily Deal: Headway Premium Unlock a world of knowledge with a ...

2026-01-13T19:02:56Z

Daily Deal: Headway Premium

Unlock a world of knowledge with a [Headway Premium subscription][1]. This exclusive deal gives you unlimited access to Headway’s massive library of 1500+ book summaries, with 30-50 new ones added monthly. Cover any topic you can imagine, from personal development and business strategies to health and wellness. It’s on sale for $60 for new users only.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/headway-premium-lifetime-subscription?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/daily-deal-headway-premium-23/

The EU Fired Their Censor. Ours Kept His Job The Trump ...

2026-01-13T17:33:25Z

The EU Fired Their Censor. Ours Kept His Job

The Trump administration has spent months shrieking about EU “censorship” while [actively censoring people][1] themselves. While I’ve long been [a critic of parts of the DSA][2], Americans—particularly MAGA officials—keep [crying wolf][3] over the DSA’s non-censorial aspects, then turn around and abuse their own power to silence speech they dislike. They seem to get a thrill out of the hypocrisy.

Want to see how differently the US and EU actually handle government overreach on speech? Look at what happened to two would-be censors: Thierry Breton and Brendan Carr.

If you don’t recall, Thierry Breton is the former EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, which made him the lead enforcer of the DSA, a role he took to gleefully, [regularly threatening tech companies][4] if their actions didn’t comply with what Breton wanted them to do.

He got so drunk on his own power that he [demanded Elon Musk not platform Donald Trump][5]. Clear attack on basic free speech principles, exactly the kind of censorial overreach that validates MAGA complaints about the DSA.

Here’s what happened next: EU politicians [collectively called bullshit][6] on Breton, told him he was abusing the law, and [kicked him out][7] weeks later.

The system worked. Someone abused their power, the system caught it, corrected it, removed him. That’s how institutions are supposed to respond to overreach.

Now, let’s come over to this side of the Atlantic. Remember Brendan Carr? The same FCC chair who [threatened to abuse the power of the FCC][8] to punish Disney for not kicking Jimmy Kimmel off the air? That temporarily *worked.* Disney pulled Kimmel off the air that very day and only brought him back the next week after they saw millions of cancellations of Disney+ as the public protested.

Unlike Breton, Carr actually succeeded. He used his government position to censor speech he didn’t like, and it worked. And what happened to him? Nothing. He’s still there, still threatening [TV][9] and [radio][10] stations whenever they say things that upset Trump or MAGA. No consequences, no correction, just more threats.

Now, with [the US government banning Breton][11] from getting a visa to ever come to the US again as “punishment” for his “censorship” effort that failed and got him fired, it seems like maybe people should be asking why Trump and Rubio are punishing Breton and not Carr.

Carr succeeded where Breton failed. Carr is still in power and still threatening. Breton got fired and now banned from the US.

Of course, we all know how this double standard works. Carr is allowed to do this because he’s abusing his powers to stifle speech Donald Trump doesn’t like. Breton must be punished because he tried to stifle speech Trump does like.

There’s nothing more sophisticated to it than that, but the similar nature of both politicians’ attempts to abuse the law to silence speech they didn’t like is notable. Frankly, I don’t think either the US or the EU should have anyone who has the power to abuse laws to enable censorship.

But only one system actually responded to the abuse of power by removing the abuser. And it wasn’t ours.

The contrast here reveals something more troubling than simple hypocrisy. When Breton overstepped, EU institutions checked him immediately. When Carr overstepped, US institutions… did nothing. No real pushback from Congress (Ted Cruz whining doesn’t count), no internal accountability, no consequences whatsoever. The system that’s supposed to prevent government censorship just sat there and watched it happen.

So when you hear the next MAGA official shrieking about EU censorship, remember: the EU’s institutions worked. They caught the abuse, stopped it, and removed the abuser. Our institutions failed. They enabled the abuse, rewarded it with continued power, and are now punishing the guy from the system that actually worked.

That’s not a story about two bad actors. That’s a story about which democratic system still has functioning antibodies against authoritarian overreach—and which one doesn’t.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/09/trump-admits-we-took-the-freedom-of-speech-away/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/02/dsa-framers-insisted-it-was-carefully-calibrated-against-censorship-then-thierry-breton-basically-decided-it-was-an-amazing-tool-for-censorship/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/08/elons-crying-censorship-over-an-eu-fine-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-censorship/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/11/sure-theres-disinfo-on-extwitter-but-the-eu-should-not-be-demanding-censorship/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/13/breton-wields-dsa-as-censorship-tool-musk-tells-him-to-go-fuck-his-own-face/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/14/eu-officials-seem-pretty-pissed-off-at-thierry-breton-for-his-censorial-letter-to-elon/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/17/eus-top-censor-out-of-a-job/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/17/cowardly-disney-caves-to-brendan-carrs-bogus-censorial-threats-pulling-jimmy-kimmel/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/18/trump-brendan-carr-threaten-to-censor-some-more-comedians-for-the-crime-of-comedy/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/23/fcc-boss-brendan-carr-bullied-bay-area-am-radio-station-for-telling-locals-the-truth/
[11]: https://www.ms.now/opinion/marco-rubio-imran-ahmed-thierry-breton-censorship

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/the-eu-fired-their-censor-ours-kept-his-job/

DHS Tells Reporter That Filming ICE Officers ‘Sounds Like ...

2026-01-13T13:26:53Z

DHS Tells Reporter That Filming ICE Officers ‘Sounds Like Obstruction Of Justice’

ICE activity has increased exponentially since Trump’s return to office, bringing with it an exponential increase in rights violations committed by federal officers. Multiple lawsuits have been filed and, without exception, courts have safeguarded the rights of people to peacefully protest and document federal officers as they perform their duties.

Meanwhile, the people running DHS and its components continue to claim that merely recording officers is a criminal act. But it’s not. It’s [protected by the Constitution][1] whether ICE likes it or not. Under Trump, ICE and DHS are taking a bold new stance against recording officers, telling those with boots on the ground [deliberately false things][2], like this:

> *[T]he guidance urges officers to consider a range of nonviolent behavior and common protest gear—like masks, flashlights, and **cameras**—as **potential precursors to violence**, telling officers to prepare “from the point of view of an adversary.”*
>
> *Protesters on bicycles, skateboards, or even “on foot” are framed as potential “scouts” conducting reconnaissance or searching for “items to be used as weapons.” **Livestreaming is listed alongside “doxxing” as a “tactic” for “threatening” police**. Online posters are cast as ideological recruiters—or as participants in **“surveillance sharing.”***

That guidance was released to federal officers back in July. The rhetoric has only ramped up since then, with DHS officials publicly stating that they’re going to treat protected First Amendment activity as a crime. The responses delivered by these officials following this July reporting was indicative of their mindset:

> *DHS Secretary Kristi Noem [told][3] reporters in July that it was “violence” to be “doxing” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin [reiterated][4] the point in August that “videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online is doxing our agents.… And we will prosecute those who illegally harass ICE agents.”*

[A memorandum issued at the beginning of December][5] provided guidance for DOJ prosecutors seeking to punish people for utilizing their constitutional rights. According to the memo, people who follow officers to observe, record, or protest their actions are to be treated as criminal obstructionists, if not as actual domestic terrorists.

When [reached for comment on this memo by CJ Ciaramella of Reason][6], the DHS doubled down on its decision to treat this right as a crime:

> *In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”*

Filming or even being in the general area of federal officers engaged in their public duties isn’t “obstruction.” Neither is identifying officers — officers who, by the way, should be wearing stuff that makes them identifiable, rather than the blend of army surplus and balaclavas that [further separates][7] them from accountability.

And, of course, the DHS refers to that especially meaningless stat (“1150% increase in assaults”), as though that somehow justifies its decision to use the Constitution as a door mat. All that actually means is that there have been 115 more “assaults” as compared to 2024. [Back when the DHS][8] was touting its “690% increase in assaults” as an argument against preventing ICE officers from wearing masks, it was comparing 79 alleged assaults through the first six months of this year against the 10 that had been committed from January-June 2024.

That’s just an empty stat that allows DHS spokespeople to trot out a gaudy number that will grab eyeballs but otherwise just allows the MAGA-cooked to continue to pretend “Democrat cities” are being destroyed by violent anti-ICE protests.

Even if it were true that it’s exceptionally dangerous to be an ICE officer at this point in time, that doesn’t justify pretending the First Amendment simply doesn’t exist. Actual assaults are criminal acts. Filming federal officers who don’t want to be filmed definitely isn’t.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/21/yes-you-have-the-right-to-film-ice/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/18/dhs-filming-cops-ice-officers-is-a-violent-tactic/
[3]: https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/secretary-kristi-noem-addresses-surge-in-attacks-on-ice-agents-in-tampa-dhs-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-agents-florida-department-of-homeland-security-july-13-2025
[4]: https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2025/09/09/dhs-says-making-and-posting-videos-of-ice-agents-is-violence/
[5]: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/leak-fbi-list-of-extremists-is-coming
[6]: https://reason.com/2025/12/22/dhs-says-recording-or-following-law-enforcement-sure-sounds-like-obstruction-of-justice/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/21/ice-boss-thinks-journalists-shouldnt-be-asking-about-masked-officers-disappearing-people/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/02/assaults-on-ice-officers-are-up-700-which-just-means-there-have-been-69-more-assaults-than-last-year/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/13/dhs-tells-reporter-that-filming-ice-officers-sounds-like-obstruction-of-justice/

A Non-Existent ‘Stranger Things’ Secret Episode Briefly Broke ...

2026-01-13T04:05:57Z

A Non-Existent ‘Stranger Things’ Secret Episode Briefly Broke Netflix

The story of Netflix these past several years has been a fairly consistent one, told primarily across a few main pillars. The company has begun hitting subscriber adoption issues as it [raised prices][1], raised them [some more][2], and then raised them [even further][3], all as the company attempts to gobble up more live content, largely [sports streaming][4], all while [experiencing occasional service failures][5] with the backend not being able to keep up with the usership. It’s a strange confluence of events, with Netflix clearly attempting to build up more content, particularly live content, all while not having enough beef behind the platform to support peak usage *despite* consistently raising prices.

But it’s one thing to occasionally experience usage disruption in the middle of a massive live event, such as the Mike Tyson fight from a few months ago. It’s an entirely new level of embarrassing when content that *doesn’t* exist causes service disruption, as [just happened briefly this past week][6].

If you have no idea what “Conformity Gate” is, I’m both jealous and curious how you ducked it. Netflix recently aired the series finale of *Stranger Things*. It got mixed reviews, but a very vocal crowd had major problems with it and explained it all away with the idea that it was a fake ending (I won’t go into details, it’s all out there for you to find if you like) and that a secret new ending episode would be dropped on January 7th. While Netflix was mostly silent on this theory that exploded throughout social media and the internet, the show’s stars and creators were fairly vocal about how the theory wasn’t true. Enough people didn’t belive them, however, such that on January 7th the [platform briefly had trouble keeping up][7] with the number of people attempting to log in and find this non-existent episode.

> *Netflix experienced a service disruption on January 7, 2026, at around 8 p.m. ET, which coincided with the time fans anticipated a secret ninth episode of Stranger Things 5 dubbed “Conformity Gate.”*
>
> *The theory, widely circulated on platforms like TikTok and Reddit, falsely claimed that the finale released on December 31 was a decoy and that a real ending would be revealed in a surprise episode. “Netflix crashed after many fans thought a secret final episode of ‘Stranger Things’ was dropping tonight,” posted [Culture Crave][8] on X (formerly Twitter). [Pop Base][9] confirmed, “Netflix crashed as ‘Stranger Things’ fans anticipated a secret ninth episode of the final season. Nothing dropped.”*

Again, we have a confluence of failures here that all contributed to this. Netflix clearly didn’t invest enough of its price-hike money into its platform to be able to handle peak load generally for situations like this. The platform also didn’t do nearly enough to temper the public’s expectations as speculation and this Conformity Gate conspiracy theory ran wild. Netflix did finally put some messaging out with a vague confirmation that all of the series episodes were currently live for streaming. That obviously wasn’t enough.

Was this a huge deal? Probably not. Was it a prolonged outage? Not really. But it’s an event that exposed where Netflix has placed its priorities when it comes to its streaming platform and how it has spent the millions of extra dollars it has raked in through price hike after price hike.

And if the company really wants to expand into more and more live streaming events, it’s not a great sign that a *non-event* could crash the platform like this.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/05/netflix-eyes-yet-another-price-hike-as-it-slowly-devolves-into-comcast/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/05/netflix-eyes-yet-another-price-hike-as-it-slowly-devolves-into-comcast/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/23/users-once-again-annoyed-as-netflix-once-again-raises-prices/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/21/nfl-inks-deal-with-netflix-to-stream-a-handful-of-xmas-day-games-only/
[5]: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5925844/2024/11/16/netflix-buffering-freezing-jake-paul-mike-tyson/
[6]: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tv/articles/stranger-things-conformity-gate-episode-030801885.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFkTmR4oV9Up8iQ9e1ZGok_U-3qIYe17LCGmj8qajTL0-z5WwJ_a_3wWAaGf9RoKLn0k5kAGKiVmsXwCYerdqP_TzpVcUAaHd0A-iha4CBIOY-RNYZRu3xUmrPHH--rjMc_56KrUmHtK_7hvDqhM6MDqNTZafebEK7K1ZP9DWtT4
[7]: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tv/articles/stranger-things-conformity-gate-episode-030801885.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFkTmR4oV9Up8iQ9e1ZGok_U-3qIYe17LCGmj8qajTL0-z5WwJ_a_3wWAaGf9RoKLn0k5kAGKiVmsXwCYerdqP_TzpVcUAaHd0A-iha4CBIOY-RNYZRu3xUmrPHH--rjMc_56KrUmHtK_7hvDqhM6MDqNTZafebEK7K1ZP9DWtT4
[8]: https://x.com/CultureCrave/status/2009070598924951854?s=20
[9]: https://x.com/PopBase/status/2009089674325970954?s=20

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/a-non-existent-stranger-things-secret-episode-briefly-broke-netflix/

Kristi Noem: ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Says ICE Can Legally Thwart ...

2026-01-12T23:26:27Z

Kristi Noem: ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Says ICE Can Legally Thwart Congressional Oversight

Whatever the stated reasons for doing this, we all know what this really is: another effort from the Trump regime to put as much distance between it and accountability.

[Even before DHS head][1] Kristi Noem decided it’s now suddenly legal to force congressional oversight to notify ICE of impending inspections, her agency was making public statements claiming it was going to start arresting visiting congressional reps for obstruction if they failed to comply with ICE’s unlawful refusals to provide access to detention centers.

Those assertions were followed almost immediately by ICE doing exactly what Noem and other officials promised: [a middle finger][2] to the law and its oversight. The following months [brought more reports][3] of ICE denying access to members of Congress, as well as other attempted arrests or threats of obstruction prosecutions.

Then it got quiet for a bit as ICE did other, far more awful things all around the nation, often while accompanied by CBP and Border Patrol officers, if not members of the US military. But now that ICE has once again lets its murderous impulses get the better of it, Kristi Noem is now pretending she has the legal authority [to demand prior notice for detention facility inspections][4].

> *A day after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem [quietly ordered][5] new restrictions on congressional visits to immigration detention facilities.*
>
> *That order, put into effect Thursday by the Trump administration and [revealed in court late Saturday][6], forces lawmakers to seek a week’s advance notice before conducting oversight visits to ICE facilities. That new policy appears to explain a conflict that unfolded Saturday, when three House Democrats from Minnesota were denied entry to a detention facility in the Whipple federal building in Minneapolis.*

The [order][7] [PDF] isn’t actually an order. It’s just a memo saying Kristi Noem wants this to happen and thinks she has the legal authority to make it stick. Here’s the opening of the memo, which pretends ICE has been suffering such an onslaught of protests, this is the only way to make sure it remains intact in the future.

> *In June 2025, following significant and sometimes violent incidents at ICE facilities, I directed that requests by Members of Congress to visit an ICE facility be submitted at least seven days in advance of the visit. DHS also determined that because ICE field offices, including holding facilities, are not detention facilities, they are not subject to the same requirements as detention facilities. On December 17, 2025, in Neguse v. ICE, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stayed this guidance, concluding that DHS’s policy is inconsistent with Section 527(b) of the Department’s appropriation.*

First, no request needs to be made. Second, no request is legally subject to the DHS’s arbitrary seven-day waiting period. Third, the memo explicitly admits its policy is illegal under current law and court precedent.

Here’s where the memo gets particularly Trumpian:

> *I disagree with this decision, but as even the district court explicitly acknowledged, funds deriving from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) “are not subject to Section 527’s limitations.” Accordingly, effective immediately, and to ensure compliance with this court order, I am issuing this new policy.*

There it is: Kristi Noem saying she’s going to start demanding seven-day’s notice because “I disagree with this decision.” It’s also a very selective quoting [of the order by the DC Court][8], which made it clear that (1) DHS couldn’t pretend ICE field offices were subject to the same oversight inspection rules, and (2) that even though additional funding from the Big Beautiful Big might be exempt from Section 527’s oversight provisions, there was nothing on the record indicating this additional funding was being used to solely to fund detention centers. That means the funding is intermingled with funds covered by Section 527, which means ICE can’t claim its facilities are exempt from that funding’s requirements.

The end around Kristi Noem proposes is this: that any visits by congressional oversight should be logged so they any ICE expenses during these inspections are taken from the Big Beautiful Bill funding, rather than ICE’s regular budget. It’s a meaningless distinction, since it’s just ICE securing funds after the fact to justify the seven-day lead time demand. It’s a budget being reverse-engineered for the sole purpose of thwarting accountability efforts.

And because it’s just a dodge meant to head off future litigation and congressional action, it is of course couched in the us vs. them language this administration is so fond of:

> *The basis for this policy is that advance notice is necessary to ensure adequate protection for Members of Congress, Congressional staff, detainees, and ICE employees alike. Unannounced visits require pulling ICE officers away from their normal duties. **Moreover, there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate government oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions. ***

This is the Trump regime cliché: anything it doesn’t like is just a “stunt” being pulled by the people it considers to be its political inferiors, if not inferior human beings. The Trump administration is nothing but a string of political stunts, punctuated occasionally by illegal actions and acts of unjustified violence. There’s no irony being lost here. This is a post-irony presidency. This is hypocrisy at scale, perpetrated by people who are leaning into this hypocrisy as hard as they can because they honestly don’t care what anyone thinks as long as they’re able to get what they want.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/12/dhs-proudly-declares-it-might-arrest-congressional-reps-for-doing-their-oversight-job-settles-for-arresting-the-local-mayor/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/16/ice-again-gives-the-law-the-finger-denies-member-of-congress-access-to-detention-facility/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/10/ice-dhs-again-pretend-congress-members-dont-have-the-legal-right-to-engage-in-unannounced-detention-facility-inspections/
[4]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/10/minnesota-democrats-ice-00721211
[5]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26466440/icepolicy.pdf
[6]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200.39.0.pdf
[7]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26467165-icepolicy-1/
[8]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200/gov.uscourts.dcd.283200.36.0_7.pdf

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/kristi-noem-big-beautiful-bill-says-ice-can-legally-thwart-congressional-oversight/

I Support The Protests I support the protests. I want to say this ...

2026-01-12T21:06:19Z

I Support The Protests

I support the protests.

I want to say this out loud. I *support* them.

If you support the protests, you should tell everyone you know that you support them.

Some of us have jobs, commitments, health conditions, or other circumstances that prevent us from marching with our fellow citizens in the streets. But for those of us who cannot march out of love for our country and to protect our fellow citizens from the criminal bullies who have stolen our federal government, we must feel free to tell everyone that we support the marchers.

Tell your boss at work. Tell your coworkers. Tell your neighbors. Tell your family. Let everyone know you support the marchers.

This does not make you a radical. It makes you part of the human race.

The marchers are defending constitutional government. They’re defending the rule of law. They’re defending your rights and mine. They’re standing up to criminals who wage unconstitutional war, who shoot citizens in the streets, who violate every principle this country was founded on.

Supporting them isn’t extreme. Silence is extreme. Silence is collaboration. Silence is choosing the side of the criminals.

You don’t have to march to matter. You don’t have to risk arrest to resist. You just have to stop pretending neutrality is an option when your government is killing people.

Say it: I support the protests.

Say it to everyone. Say it at work. Say it at home. Say it to strangers.

This is how majorities recognize they’re majorities. This is how isolated people realize they’re not alone. This is how the criminals learn there are more of us than there are of them.

I support the protests. So should you. And you should say so.

Out loud. To everyone.

That’s not radicalism. That’s citizenship.

*Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his [Notes From the Circus][1]*.

[1]: https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/i-support-the-protests

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/i-support-the-protests/

Following Murder Of Renee Good By ICE Officers, ICE Blocks ...

2026-01-12T19:01:11Z

Following Murder Of Renee Good By ICE Officers, ICE Blocks Congressional Reps From Its Detention Facility

[ICE killed a US citizen in broad daylight][1] for the apparent crime of not being sufficiently intimidated when surrounded by ICE officers. Renee Good was shot by ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who selectively leaked his recording to a right-wing news outlet in apparent hopes of shoring up the administration’s swiftly crumbling narrative.

The wagons are circling even tighter — a metaphor that ICE has made extremely apt now that it’s just the extension of the administration’s xenophobic id: an invading force that’s meant to rid America of anyone not sufficiently white enough to “deserve” to live in the United States.

It’s back [on its old bullshit][2], continuing to pretend it’s not legally obligated to allow members of Congress to tour its detention facilities. DHS and ICE have claimed (without legal support) that [they need advance notice][3], citing unspecified “security” concerns of the “national” variety. The government continues to [place obstacles][4] in the path of congressional representatives who are engaged in acts that are supported by law and legal precedent: oversight of ICE operations.

To be sure, there are plenty of reasons ICE doesn’t want congressional reps touring its detention facilities. First and foremost, ICE doesn’t seem all that interested in treating its indefinite detainees humanely. Even when confronted by courts about these constitutional deficiencies, [ICE has flat out refused][5] to comply with court orders demanding a full accounting of detainee conditions. Not only that, but visiting reps are more likely than not to come across the occasional US citizen who’s being denied their rights while ICE [decides whether or not][6] to believe the citizenship documents it’s been provided.

Last December, the [DC Circuit Appeals Court ruled against ICE][7], upholding Congress’s right to inspect immigration detention facilities. Not that it matters to ICE and other federal components (and it’s pretty much all of them) involved in Trump’s mass deportation program. And I’m sure the DHS will just pretend that ruling has no bearing on its recent obstruction efforts in Minneapolis, Minnesota, even though the federal law it’s violating is effective everywhere in the nation — not just in places where the government has been successfully sued.

[Here’s how things look in Minneapolis][8], one of the more recent targets of Trump’s vindictive, anti-Democratic party wrath:

> *Three Democratic members of Congress from Minnesota, including House representative [Ilhan Omar][9], were blocked from entering an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center located near Minneapolis on Saturday morning.*
>
> *[…]*
>
> *During a press briefing, Omar explained that they were initially allowed inside the facility but were soon told to leave. “Shortly after we were let in, two officials came in and said that they received the message that we were no longer allowed to be in the building and that they were rescinding our invitation to come in and declining any further access to the building,” she said.*

First of all, Congress has a right to perform unannounced inspections. No one needs an “invitation.” Since congressional reps don’t need an invitation, ICE doesn’t have the option of “rescinding” something it never had the right to offer in the first place.

Following that by kicking out the people who oversee your work and vote on your budget is so fucked up that it boggles the mind. It’s like a tenant evicting a landlord. Things just don’t work that way and these reps should have called ICE’s bluff and bore witness to any efforts made by officers to restrict access and/or force these representatives to leave the building. So, while it’s nice to have this flouting of the law on the record, the end result looks like a missed opportunity to further expose the administration’s utter disrespect for the rule of law.

At least we have whatever the hell *this* is to take with us from this secondhand experience:

> *Omar and her colleagues said they were informed the reason for the denial of access was because the facility’s funding came through the Big Beautiful Bill Act, and that this funding source was being used to justify restricting their visit.*

Do what now?

ICE is claiming that because the facility was funded with federal funds derived from a federal budget bill members of the federal government who voted for (or against) this funding bill were not allowed on the premises. Never mind the thing I said about evicting the landlord. There’s nothing in the common vernacular that’s analogous to this bizarre assertion by the government.

Unfortunately, the party in power will make sure violating the law remains the status quo. Court orders are being ignored and violated regularly by federal agencies and officers. And the Democratic party still seems unwilling to deploy some of its more nuclear options, either out of fear of failure or a fear of jeopardizing their own political futures. But we’re well past the point of considering these tactics to be optional. If they’re not willing to sacrifice themselves to save a nation, they’re in the wrong business.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/10/ice-dhs-again-pretend-congress-members-dont-have-the-legal-right-to-engage-in-unannounced-detention-facility-inspections/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/23/ice-is-now-trying-to-convince-congress-members-it-needs-72-hours-notice-before-facility-inspections/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/16/ice-again-gives-the-law-the-finger-denies-member-of-congress-access-to-detention-facility/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/judge-tears-into-ice-over-its-inhumane-facilities-insane-amount-of-lying/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/29/even-real-id-cant-save-you-from-being-arrested-as-an-illegal-immigrant/
[7]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/17/trump-ice-immigration-detention-facilities-congress-visits
[8]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/10/ilhan-omar-house-members-ice-facility-minnesota
[9]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ilhan-omar

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/following-murder-of-renee-good-by-ice-officers-ice-blocks-congressional-reps-from-its-detention-facility/

Daily Deal: The 2026 Canva Bundle The [2026 Canva Bundle][1] has ...

2026-01-12T18:57:00Z

Daily Deal: The 2026 Canva Bundle

The [2026 Canva Bundle][1] has six courses to help you learn about graphic design. From logo design to business cards to branding to bulk content creation, these courses have you covered. It’s on sale for $20.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-2025-6-course-canva-bundle-from-beginner-to-pro?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/daily-deal-the-2026-canva-bundle/

Tom Homan: If Democrats Don’t Stop Calling Us Murderers, ...

2026-01-12T17:28:51Z

Tom Homan: If Democrats Don’t Stop Calling Us Murderers, We’re Just Going To Be Forced To Keep Murdering You

The [murder of Renee Nicole Good][1] by ICE officer Jonathan Ross has certainly created quite the divide between the reality-based majority of the population who doesn’t want masked unaccountable federal law enforcement goons invading cities they have no business being in and shooting people for saying “dude, I’m not mad at you” and trying to drive away… and the fantasy-land MAGA folks who are bending over backwards to justify the murder.

Late last week the video from Ross’s phone was released (why Ross was filming Good is a whole separate issue, but shows how Homeland Security is much more [focused on producing memes][2], not doing actual law enforcement), which MAGA cultists pretended exonerated Ross. It did no such thing. It made him look way, way worse.

He deliberately placed himself in front of the vehicle. He walked around the car filming Good and her partner. As can be clearly seen in the video, Good turned steering wheel of her car all the way to the right such that the car was not heading towards Ross and *could not* hit him. And he shot her three times anyway, once through the windshield and twice through the open driver-side window. Even if you could (and you can’t) argue the first should was potentially justified if he thought the car was coming towards him, the fact that he easily stepped aside and then continued firing shows that it was not justified at all.

And, of course, his first words after murdering a woman in broad daylight in the middle of the street was: “fucking bitch.”

So her last words: “Dude, I’m not mad at you.” His first words after murdering her: “fucking bitch.”

And then, of course, there’s what was discussed last week: how the MAGA faithful immediately began lying and claiming she was a “domestic terrorist” with multiple people trying to twist the story to claim she somehow “deserved” this.

One of the leaders of the goons, “border czar” Tom Homan, (who appears to have [gotten away with taking $50,000 in a paper bag][3] from federal officials pretending to be business owners seeking favors from Donald Trump) went on Meet the Press on Sunday and talked about how Democrats need to stop calling ICE murderers or they’ll have no choice but to murder again:

> Homan: "We gotta stop the hateful rhetoric. Saying this officer is a murderer is dangerous. It's just ridiculous. It's gonna infuriate people more which means there's gonna be more incidents like this."
>
> — [Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)][4] [2026-01-11T14:52:54.795Z][5]

The transcript is as ridiculous as it is chilling:

> *We gotta stop the hateful rhetoric. Saying this officer is a murderer is dangerous. It’s just ridiculous. It’s gonna infuriate people more which means there’s gonna be more incidents like this, because the hateful rhetoric is not only continuing, it’s gonna be double down or triple down.*

It’s the classic abuser’s lament: if you didn’t want me to hit you, why were you so mean to me.

First of all, the ones ramping up the “hateful rhetoric” have been the MAGA faithful. They’re the ones spreading baseless conspiracy theories, insisting that Good was a “domestic terrorist” or a “paid agitator.” This is the same thing Homan, Gregory Bongino, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Donald Trump have been doing for months, encouraging ICE to see the public as enemies to be fought, not a public they are supposed to be protecting.

Second, if federal agents are so fragile that people calling them names means they’re going to murder people, they shouldn’t be federal agents at all. They shouldn’t be allowed to handle firearms, frankly.

This is textbook authoritarian blame-shifting: create the conditions for violence through dehumanizing rhetoric, then blame the victims when violence inevitably occurs. And it’s not just Homan. The entire MAGA ecosystem is working overtime to justify this murder and preemptively excuse the next one.

Case in point: Fox News columnist Dave Marcus, who wrote this weekend that “wine moms” protesting ICE’s occupations, invasions, and law breaking is [somehow a criminal conspiracy of “wine moms.”][6]

Say what?

Marcus’s piece is transparently absurd—he’s claiming that citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize federal agents constitute a criminal conspiracy—but he gives away the real game a few paragraphs in. Good and these other “wine moms'” actual “crime” wasn’t obstructing justice. It was mocking ICE agents in a manner that hurt their feelings:

> *The video of Good and her partner heckling and, let’s be honest, goading ICE officers with an obnoxious smugness that makes most people’s skin crawl, is just one of many.*

It’s difficult to think of something more “obnoxiously smug” than a Fox News columnist insisting that after an ICE agent murdered a woman in broad daylight for protesting ICE’s actions… we should blame protesting women.

> *We see these self-important White women doing it in video after video after video, taunting cops, insulting journalists or even bystanders, often with a weird and disturbing glee.*

The inclusion of “journalists” in that list is also telling in multiple ways. First off, the MAGA world is way more famous for “insulting journalists.” Hell, it’s part of Trump’s daily activities to insult and taunt journalists. I can’t find any example of Marcus complaining about that. But it sounds like if wine moms make fun of *him* for *his* journalism, well, that just means they deserve to be shot in the face?

But, more to the point: obnoxious smugness, heckling, and even goading federal officers is textbook First Amendment-protected speech. Criticizing government officials, even obnoxiously, is perhaps *the* core function of the First Amendment. Marcus seems to have confused “speech that annoys federal agents” with “criminal conspiracy.” And he’s using his own confusion to justify murder.

All of this, of course, is coming straight from the top. Late yesterday, Donald Trump told the press gaggle on his plane that murdering Good was acceptable because “the woman and her friend were highly disrespectful to law enforcement” and that “law enforcement should not be in a position where they have to put up with this stuff.”

> Q: "Do you believe that deadly force was necessary?"Trump: "It was highly disrespectful of law enforcement. The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement…Law enforcement should not be in a position where they have to put up with this stuff."
>
> — [The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com)][7] [2026-01-12T02:14:26.775Z][8]

Yes, he is literally justifying murder by his personal police force by claiming that being “highly disrespectful” (i.e., engaging in First Amendment-protected speech) makes the use of deadly force “necessary.”

Also note how Trump himself reveals that all the retconning nonsense by his MAGA faithful that the shooting had nothing to do with how Good spoke to Ross was all pretext. This was always about whether or not you kiss the boot in front of you. If you don’t—if you are “highly disrespectful”—Trump and his cronies think they can shoot you. And if you complain about it, they can shoot more people.

The state sponsored murders of wine moms will continue until morale improves.

You can see how fragile and pathetic these men are. They are so desperate to subjugate and suppress people who disagree with them politically. They seemed to think that once they were in power, the public would love and admire them for their power. Instead, the vast majority of Americans see them for what they are: pathetic, insecure man-babies in way over their heads.

So, now their only recourse is to ramp up the threats. To say that if you actually call out their criminal actions, such as murder, for what they are, they’ll just be forced to murder more critics and protestors.

They will never take responsibility for their own actions. They will never reflect on their own culpability. Because to reflect would require admitting what everyone already knows: they have no argument. They have no legal justification. They have no constitutional authority for what they’re doing.

All they have is the authoritarian’s playbook: dehumanize your critics, commit violence, blame the victims, and threaten more violence if the criticism doesn’t stop. It’s the logic of every tinpot dictator in history, now being deployed by federal law enforcement on American streets.

There is no question that they’ll murder again. Homan has already promised they will. And it’s why we need to keep exercising our First Amendment rights to speak out against this authoritarian nonsense, rather than capitulating and letting them win.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/30/trumps-government-of-spite-political-performance-art-for-assholes/
[3]: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/not-answer-more-questions-tom-170237565.html
[4]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc?ref_src=embed
[5]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3mc5roxkysk2g?ref_src=embed
[6]: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/david-marcus-impeding-federal-law-enforcement-not-protest-its-crime
[7]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:aunpu65mdrhwfie7ynymlzeh?ref_src=embed
[8]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:aunpu65mdrhwfie7ynymlzeh/post/3mc6xrnkdsh2x?ref_src=embed

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/tom-homan-if-democrats-dont-stop-calling-us-murderers-were-just-going-to-be-forced-to-keep-murdering-you/

Microsoft CEO Laments Criticism Of “AI Slop,” Causing The ...

2026-01-12T13:28:53Z

Microsoft CEO Laments Criticism Of “AI Slop,” Causing The Whole Internet To Double Down On Criticism Of “Microslop”

We’ve noted more than a few times how Microsoft’s [use of AI in journalism has been an embarrassing mess][1]. Microsoft’s steadily deteriorating MSN websites have been criticized for years for the lazy use of AI slop, resulting in [numerous false headlines, fake stories, and low-quality engagement trash][2]. Like Google and others, the pursuit of impossible scale has made quality and usefulness an afterthought.

Microsoft’s also been broadly criticized elsewhere when it comes to its rushed adoption of AI, whether it’s the [privacy implications of the company’s Windows 11 “recall” feature][3], or forcing the install of Microsoft’s Copilot AI assistant on smart TV owners [who never wanted it and can’t uninstall it][4]. Microsoft also adores forcing copilot integration into Windows 11 in ways, again, [nobody asked for and often can’t disable][5].

Copilot may very well be useful to some people; but like most tech companies, Microsoft’s rushed, ham-fisted adoption has been a bit of a tone-deaf mess. And it actively undermines the stuff that LLMs can actually accomplish. This is before you get to the environmental impact of AI, or its quickly-expanding, guardrail-optional use in global military imperialism at the hands of insane autocrats.

This all recently resulted in some fairly significant backlash for Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Nadella recently shared a fairly innocuous [end-of-year post at LinkedIn][6].

Most of the short post isn’t really all that interesting or incorrect; he notes that AI is stumbling through a phase where we’re beginning to sort between “spectacle” and “substance,” something that’s likely to result in a big bubble pop this year due the chasm between real-world usefulness and broad tech company misrepresentation of AI (he doesn’t really acknowledge that latter part, of course).

Where Nadella got into trouble was apparently this part, where he fairly innocuously laments the rising criticism of “AI slop.” It was [first highlighted by Windows Central][7]:

> *“We need to get beyond the arguments of slop vs sophistication,” Nadella laments, emphasizing hopes that society will become more accepting of AI, or what Nadella describes as “cognitive amplifier tools.” “…and develop a new equilibrium in terms of our “theory of the mind” that accounts for humans being equipped with these new cognitive amplifier tools as we relate to each other.”*

Nadella’s problem here is he dismissively puts the onus on the consumer when it comes to “getting beyond” concerns about AI slop. That dodges any responsibility for the very rich people and companies dictating the entire trajectory of AI to start using it more responsibly.

They aren’t so far; most wealthy tech leaders see AI [largely as a way to undermine labor][8] and create a [giant lazy badly-automated ouroboros of shallow clickbait garbage that shits out ad engagement cash with very low lift][9]. Often these efforts redirect money away from human artists and journalists and creators into the [pockets of some very sleazy people][10] operating [with clearly zero ethical guardrails][11].

The press aggregation machine (much of it ironically now badly automated) latched on to Nadella’s demand that people stop calling it AI slop, immediately resulting in people doubling down on AI slop criticism in a way that made [“Microslop” trend across the internet][12].

Automation, broadly, certainly has its uses and is, generally, not going away. The backlash to AI is, in many ways, tethered tightly and unavoidably to a growing disdain for wealth disparity at the hands of the authoritarian-simping extraction class keen on **eliminating literally all ethical oversight of industry**.

A great way for billionaires like Nadella to diffuse this growing animosity about their rushed, clumsy, non-transparent, integration of language learning models into everything (whether you like it or not) in ways that aren’t ethical or useful is to, you know, **stop doing that**. Another great step might be to stop kissing the ass of authoritarians who are actively destroying democracy, civil rights, and the rule of law?

It sounds like many people might be willing to get over AI slop once the billionaires in charge of its development, trajectory, and implementation stop doubling down on AI slop, and **stop being tone deaf, irresponsible assholes**.

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/06/microsofts-use-of-ai-in-journalism-has-been-an-irresponsible-mess/
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/tech/microsoft-ai-news/index.html
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/12/microsoft-tries-to-address-privacy-backlash-over-new-windows-11-recall-feature/
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/24/lg-forces-tv-owners-to-use-microsoft-ai-copilot-app-you-cant-uninstall-and-nobody-asked-for/
[5]: https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/windows-11/ai-in-windows-11-bloat-brilliance-or-something-in-between
[6]: https://snscratchpad.com/posts/looking-ahead-2026/
[7]: https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-really-wants-you-to-stop-calling-ai-slop-in-2026
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/12/politicos-union-journalists-win-key-ruling-in-battle-against-lazy-undercooked-ai/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/the-real-money-in-modern-journalism-now-involves-filling-the-internet-with-ai-generated-garbage/
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/07/18/the-real-money-in-modern-journalism-now-involves-filling-the-internet-with-ai-generated-garbage/
[11]: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/01/no-grok-cant-really-apologize-for-posting-non-consensual-sexual-images/
[12]: https://www.windowscentral.com/artificial-intelligence/microslop-trends-on-social-media-backlash-to-microsofts-on-going-ai-obsession-continues

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/12/microsoft-ceo-laments-criticism-of-ai-slop-causing-the-whole-internet-to-double-down-on-criticism-of-microslop/

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt This ...

2026-01-11T20:31:09Z

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is **David** with a comment about [the murder of Renee Good by ICE][1]:

> ***Kristi Noem is right about one thing:***
>
> > *It was an act of domestic terrorism. *
>
> *Indeed. And that is the main purpose of ICE as it is currently being deployed.*

In second place, it’s [That One Guy][2] with a comment about [culpability for Trump’s actions][3]:

> ***An entire congress and military worth of collaborators***
>
> *As horrible as Trump is never forget…*
>
> *The republican controlled congress could have stopped him at any time **but chose not to**.*
>
> *The US military could have responded to his orders to bomb boats on nothing but a declaration of guilt, finish off the survivors the one time there were any, and invade another country and kidnap it’s leader** but chose not to**.*
>
> *Trump is responsible for a whole slew of horrible things but without a lot of people in the government and military backing him up the amount of damage he could do would be drastically lower, meaning they share just as much if not more responsibility for what has, is, and will happen as he does.*

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from [Thad][4] about the fear of [impeaching Trump and getting President Vance][5]:

> *Vance is just as evil as Trump and not as stupid (low bar), but nobody likes him. He doesn’t have Trump’s cult. He wouldn’t be able to wield stochastic terrorism as effectively as Trump does. And in the hypothetical event that Trump’s been successfully removed from office, that means Senate Republicans are finally done being a rubber stamp for him, a guy who was extremely popular with their supporters, so I wouldn’t expect them to be a rubber stamp for Vance, a guy who isn’t.*
>
> *All that said, I have a hard time believing that’s going to happen. They didn’t support his impeachment after he tried to have them murdered; I don’t think there’s anything that will make them support it. I think the likelier path toward President Vance is that Trump dies in office. I’m not talking about violence; I’m saying look at that motherfucker, he looks like he could keel over any day.*

Next, it’s [MrWilson][6] with a comment about the ridiculous proposal from Arizona to [study “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and the broad definition it uses][7]:

> *Not only can that broad definition apply to his base, but it also can apply to authentic reactions to Trump’s actually inhumane cruelty and greed, such that it’s a rational response that a moral person would experience, and not derangement at all. Which is why the derangement smear is such bullshit.*
>
> *Pretending someone is irrational if they don’t like a person who is intentionally hurting others is derangement. And it’s not like Trump’s cruelty is in dispute. His base loves that he is cruel (to other people). “This is what I voted for,” as they remind us when people get kidnapped and sent to torture camps.*
>
> *But it’s just another cognitive dissonance stance that they wear proudly. He’s both absurdly cruel and you’re crazy for getting upset that he’s absurdly cruel.*

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment about New York’s law requiring websites to [post warnings about social media addiction][8]:

> *Techdirt is way too addictive to my taste.
> See you in court Mike.*

In second place, it’s **Pixelation** with [a comment about Hilton Hotels][9]:

> *Hey Hilton, you are providing the wrong kind of ICE. We want only the other kind in your hotels.*

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of jokes about journalists reporting LLM generations as “admissions” and “apologies”. First up is **tanj** with [one comparison][10]:

> *I asked my Magic 8 Ball to comment on this and it responded “Outlook not so good”.
> Fortunately, I use Thunderbird.*

Finally, it’s an anonymous commenter with [a not-dissimilar joke][11]:

> *It’s an apology in the same sense that a speak-and-spell can get married by saying “I do”.*

That’s all for this week, folks!

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/#comment-4979049
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/thatoneguy/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/trump-the-anti-lincoln/#comment-4980109
[4]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/thad/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/08/abolish-ice-before-they-kill-again-impeach-trump-noem-before-they-incite-more-murder/#comment-4979281
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/05/az-state-senator-proposes-law-to-spend-state-resources-studying-trump-derangement-syndrome/#comment-4974758
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/05/ny-orders-apps-to-lie-about-social-media-addiction-will-lose-in-court/#comment-4974513
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/07/dear-hilton-lose-my-number/#comment-4978192
[10]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/07/journalistic-malpractice-no-llm-ever-admits-to-anything-and-reporting-otherwise-is-a-lie/#comment-4977450
[11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/07/journalistic-malpractice-no-llm-ever-admits-to-anything-and-reporting-otherwise-is-a-lie/#comment-4979639

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/11/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-191/

This Week In Techdirt History: January 4th – 10th **Five Years ...

2026-01-10T20:01:07Z

Daily Deal: The Courses Digest, Labs Digest, and Exams Digest ...

2026-01-10T16:19:36Z

Daily Deal: The Courses Digest, Labs Digest, and Exams Digest Bundle

The [Courses Digest, Labs Digest, and Exams Digest Bundle][1] gives you unlimited access to expertly crafted online courses, interactive labs and study tools. Whether you’re aiming for industry-recognized certifications or expanding your tech expertise, this bundle will help you get there with courses on CompTIA, AWS, Microsoft, Cisco, Salesforce, and more. It’s on sale for $69.97 for a very limited time.

*Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.*

[1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/lifetime-access-for-courses-exams-labs-for-comptia-aws-comptia-aws-microsoft-more?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/daily-deal-the-courses-digest-labs-digest-and-exams-digest-bundle-6/

Rep. Luna Threatens Journalist With Prison For Posting… Public ...

2026-01-10T16:19:31Z

Rep. Luna Threatens Journalist With Prison For Posting… Public University Bio

If you want to understand how far MAGA Republicans have strayed from any actual “free speech” principles, look no further than this: [Congress issued a subpoena][1] to Rolling Stone journalist Seth Harp, because he posted on X a *publicly available online biography* of someone involved in the illegal and unconstitutional kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro. There was no private information shared. There was no “doxxing” in any sense of the word.

Just to be crystal clear about what we’re talking about here: a member of Congress subpoenaed a journalist and referred him for criminal prosecution for **posting information that was publicly available on a university website**. Information that a university proudly displays on its own website. Information that, even if it were classified (which it isn’t), would still be constitutionally protected to publish.

Yet, because MAGA folks always need to attack anyone who makes them look silly, they went crazy. First, they got X to lock his account until he deleted the post. Harp explained how there’s no way you could consider this to be doxxing.

If you can’t read that screenshot, Harp’s detailed explanation of why he did nothing wrong is quite thorough and quite obviously true:

> *Yesterday, X admins locked my account and required me to delete certain posts in order to log back in. No explanation was given, but I had posted the publicly available, online bio of a Delta Force commander, a full-bird colonel, whose identity is not classified and which anyone skilled at FOIA can ascertain.*
>
> *In no way did I “doxx” the officer. I did not post any personally identifying information about him, such as his birthday, social security number, home address, phone number, email address, the names of his family members, or pictures of his house. What I posted is still online on Duke University’s website for all the world to see.*
>
> *If you serve in the US military, your personnel documents are public records, as they should be. Because I served in the Army myself, anyone can obtain my records, which show the units in which I served. Nothing exempts Delta Force from this basic transparency.*
>
> *To illustrate these points, I also posted the records of deceased special operators, obtained through FOIA, that specifically say “Delta Force” on them, unredacted. In the spirit of fairness, I also posted my own service record. X required me to delete those posts, too.*
>
> *Nothing about this should distract from the larger issue: Delta Force, acting on President Trump’s unlawful orders, which contravened every principle of international law and sovereignty, as well as the Congress’s prerogative to declare war, invaded Venezuela, killed scores of Venezuelans who posed no threat to the United States, and kidnapped the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, as well as his wife.*
>
> *Every civilian official and military officer in the American chain of command who participated in this outrageously illegal and provocative act of war – which a supermajority of Americans oppose is the legitimate subject of journalistic scrutiny, and X has no business censoring my timely and accurate reporting.*

And just to underscore how ridiculous this entire affair is: Duke University, apparently spooked by the controversy, has now scrubbed the bio from its website. The officer’s name and photo remain, but the biographical text—which revealed nothing even remotely sensitive—[has been deleted][2]. So Luna’s intimidation campaign worked, at least in getting a university to memory-hole publicly available information about one of its own fellows. This is exactly how chilling effects operate in practice.

And, for that, he gets a subpoena driven by MAGA Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who falsely claimed he was “leaking classified information.” She then followed it up by referring Harp to the DOJ:

That’s Rep. Luna misleading everyone and misrepresenting what Harp did, saying:

> *I have referred Seth Harp to the DOJ for investigation and to pursue criminal charges regarding the intentional publication of information related to Operation Absolute Resolve, including the doxxing of a U.S. Delta Force operator. That conduct is not protected journalism. It was reckless, dangerous, and put American lives at risk. The First Amendment does not give anyone a license to expose elite military personnel, compromise operations, or assist our adversaries under the guise of reporting.*
>
> *Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate when national security is endangered, and no one is above oversight. It is also well within my constitutional authority to work with the DOJ to ensure that justice is served. I look forward to the results of a very thorough investigation and the potential filing of charges for violations of multiple U.S. codes.*
>
> *I have confirmation that the DOJ has received the letter, and we look forward to their findings.*

The only truthful part of that is that she has, in fact (ridiculously), referred Harp to the DOJ.

She’s wrong on every other account. He did not “doxx” anyone. And even if he was revealing “information related to Operation Absolute Resolve,” that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

It’s not even a close call. We did this 55 years ago [in the Pentagon Papers case][3], where the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that of course the First Amendment protects journalists publishing even secret government documents about military operations (which isn’t even what Harp did here)—documents that were actually classified, **unlike the public university bio that Harp posted**.

Take a moment to review all this: In 1971, the Nixon administration tried to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers—genuinely secret documents about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court told Nixon to pound sand. Now, in 2026, we have a member of Congress going even further, not just trying to stop publication (which already failed half a century ago), but criminally referring a journalist for publishing **information that was publicly available on a university website**.

In a concurring opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Hugo Black wrote poetically about the power of the First Amendment protecting journalists especially when they are embarrassing the government:

> *In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that
> led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.*

Rep. Luna either hasn’t read that, doesn’t understand it, or doesn’t care. Because what she is engaging in is out-and-out harassment of journalists doing their jobs, in an effort to intimidate and chill speech of reporters who report information that Luna and the MAGA Trump world would prefer not see the light of day.

That’s not how this works. It’s not how journalism works. It’s not how the First Amendment works, and it’s not how free speech works.

As Seth Stern from Freedom of the Press [said in response to this][4]:

> *Journalists don’t work for the government and can’t ‘leak’ government information — to the contrary, it’s their job to find and publish the news, whether the government wants it made public or not. Identifying government officials by name is not doxxing or harassment, no matter how many times Trump allies say otherwise. Reporters have a constitutional right to publish even classified leaks, as long as they don’t commit any crimes to obtain them, but Harp merely published information that was publicly available about someone at the center of the world’s biggest news story.*

You may recall that after the election in 2024, President Trump [demanded that Republicans in the Senate kill the PRESS Act][5], which had been approved in the house with broad bipartisan support. That law, which would make it even more explicit how the First Amendment protects journalists was killed because Trump and the MAGA base have known all along that they need to violate the First Amendment rights of journalists to try to intimidate and silence them.

This fits a pattern that’s become impossible to ignore: the same people who spent years screaming about “big tech censorship” and “free speech” are now wielding actual government power to silence journalists who embarrass them. The same crowd that insisted Trump would “bring free speech back” is now cheering as he and his congressional allies deploy subpoenas and criminal referrals against reporters.

Remember, it was just a few years ago that Rep. Luna herself was apoplectically accusing the Biden administration of colluding with Twitter to censor users… because [she didn’t understand what Jira is][6]. Yet, here, she’s helping the bastardized remains of Twitter, X, silence a journalist herself.

In normal times you could trust that the DOJ would laugh at Rep. Luna’s call for prosecution. But these aren’t normal times. We’ve seen [case][7] after [case][8] after [case][9] of the DOJ bringing bogus, bullshit federal criminal cases against perceived enemies for no reason other than intimidation. That most of those cases are failing in the courts is besides the point. The process itself is the punishment.

And here, Rep. Luna is holding the censor’s axe, abusing her power as an elected official to intimidate and suppress the speech of journalists who were just *reporting publicly available information*. The First Amendment doesn’t stop applying just because the subject of journalism is inconvenient for the government. But Luna and her MAGA colleagues seem to think it does—or at least, they’re betting that their base won’t care about constitutional principles when it’s “their guy” doing the censoring.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/01/08/seth-harp-first-amendment-luna-subpoena/
[2]: https://substack.com/@jackpoulson/note/c-195787873
[3]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/713/
[4]: https://freedom.press/issues/house-committee-approves-subpoena-of-journalist-for-venezuela-reporting/
[5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/25/trump-orders-republicans-to-kill-journalism-shield-law-they-had-supported/
[6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/15/extraordinarily-confused-congressional-rep-thinks-social-media-companies-are-secretly-communicating-with-govt-censors-via-jira/
[7]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/james-comey/
[8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/25/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-tossed-because-trumps-insurance-lawyer-wasnt-legally-appointed-to-the-doj/
[9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/26/federal-prosecutors-thrown-sandwiches-are-a-felony-but-openly-carrying-rifles-isnt-a-problem/

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/rep-luna-threatens-journalist-with-prison-for-posting-public-university-bio/

Fair Use Is A Right. Ignoring It Has Consequences. Fair use is ...

2026-01-10T16:19:25Z

Fair Use Is A Right. Ignoring It Has Consequences.

Fair use is not just an excuse to copy—it’s a pillar of online speech protection, and disregarding it in order to lash out at a critic should have serious consequences. That’s what we [told a federal court][1] in *Channel 781 News v. Waltham Community Access Corporation*, our case fighting copyright abuse on behalf of citizen journalists.

Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC), a public access cable station in Waltham, Massachusetts, records city council meetings on video. Channel 781 News (Channel 781), a group of volunteers who report on the city council, curates clips from those recordings for its YouTube channel, along with original programming, to spark debate on issues like housing and transportation. WCAC sent a series of takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), accusing Channel 781 of copyright infringement. That led to YouTube deactivating Channel 781’s channel just days before a critical municipal election. Represented by EFF and the law firm Brown Rudnick LLP, [Channel 781 sued WCAC][2] for misrepresentations in its takedown notices under an important but underutilized provision of the DMCA.

The DMCA gives copyright holders a powerful tool to take down other people’s content from platforms like YouTube. The “notice and takedown” process requires only an email, or filling out a web form, in order to accuse another user of copyright infringement and have their content taken down. And multiple notices typically lead to the target’s account being suspended, because doing so helps the platform avoid liability. There’s no court or referee involved, so anyone can bring an accusation and get a nearly instantaneous takedown.

Of course, that power [invites abuse][3]. Because filing a DMCA infringement notice is so easy, there’s a temptation to use it at the drop of a hat to take down speech that someone doesn’t like. To prevent that, before sending a takedown notice, a copyright holder has to consider whether the use they’re complaining about is a fair use. Specifically, the copyright holder needs to form a “good faith belief” that the use is not “authorized by the law,” such as through fair use.

WCAC didn’t do that. They didn’t like Channel 781 posting short clips from city council meetings recorded by WCAC as a way of educating Waltham voters about their elected officials. So WCAC fired off DMCA takedown notices at many of Channel 781’s clips that were posted on YouTube.

WCAC claims they considered fair use, because a staff member watched a video about it and discussed it internally. But WCAC ignored three of the four fair use factors. WCAC ignored that their videos had no creativity, being nothing more than records of public meetings. They ignored that the clips were short, generally including one or two officials’ comments on a single issue. They ignored that the clips caused WCAC no monetary or other harm, beyond wounded pride. And they ignored facts they already knew, and that are central to the remaining fair use factor: by excerpting and posting the clips with new titles, Channel 781 was putting its own “spin” on the material – in other words, transforming it. All of these facts support fair use.

Instead, WCAC focused only on the fact that the clips they targeted were not altered further or put into a larger program. Looking at just that one aspect of fair use isn’t enough, and changing the fair use inquiry to reach the result they wanted is hardly the way to reach a “good faith belief.”

That’s why we’re [asking][4] the court to rule that WCAC’s conduct violated the law and that they should pay damages. Copyright holders need to use the powerful DMCA takedown process with care, and when they don’t, there needs to be consequences.

*Reposted from the [EFF’s Deeplinks blog][5].*

[1]: https://www.eff.org/document/summary-judgment-brief-channel-781-v-wcac
[2]: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/journalists-sue-massachusetts-tv-corporation-over-bogus-youtube-takedown-demands
[3]: https://www.eff.org/takedowns
[4]: https://www.eff.org/document/summary-judgment-brief-channel-781-v-wcac
[5]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/fair-use-right-ignoring-it-has-consequences

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/fair-use-is-a-right-ignoring-it-has-consequences/

Ctrl-Alt-Speech Spotlight: Five Years Of The Oversight Board, ...

2026-01-10T16:19:20Z

Ctrl-Alt-Speech Spotlight: Five Years Of The Oversight Board, From Experiment To Essential Institution

**[Ctrl-Alt-Speech][1] is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and [Everything in Moderation][2]‘s Ben Whitelaw. **

**Subscribe now on [Apple Podcasts][3], [Overcast][4], [Spotify][5], [Pocket Casts][6], [YouTube][7], or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to [the RSS feed][8].**

In this sponsored Spotlight episode of Ctrl-Alt-Speech, host Ben Whitelaw talks to Oversight Board co-chair Paolo Carozza (Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana) and Board member Julie Owono (Executive Director of Internet Without Borders and research affiliate at Berkman Klein Centre) about the Board’s five-year journey and its plans for the future.

Together, Ben, Paolo and Julie discuss the Board’s recently published report, [*From Bold Experiment to Essential Institution*][9]*, *and what it means to call Board “essential” in today’s ever-evolving internet landscape. They also talk about how the Board has changed, the criticisms it faces around cost and influence, and what comes next in 2026 and beyond.

This episode is brought to you in partnership with the [Oversight Board][10]. To sponsor a Spotlight episode of Ctrl-Alt-Speech, get in touch via email ([podcast@ctrlaltspeech.com][11]) or visit [ctrlaltspeech.com][12]

[1]: https://ctrlaltspeech.com/
[2]: https://www.everythinginmoderation.co/
[3]: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ctrl-alt-speech/id1734530193
[4]: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734530193
[5]: https://open.spotify.com/show/1N3tvLxUTCR7oTdUgUCQvc
[6]: https://pca.st/zulnarbw
[7]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcky6_VTbejGkZ7aHqqc3ZjufeEw2AS7Z
[8]: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2315966.rss
[9]: https://www.oversightboard.com/news/from-bold-experiment-to-essential-institution/
[10]: https://www.oversightboard.com
[11]: mailto:podcast@ctrlaltspeech.com
[12]: http://ctrlaltspeech.com

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/ctrl-alt-speech-spotlight-five-years-of-the-oversight-board-from-experiment-to-essential-institution/

Senator Cassidy Has More Words, But No Actions, For RFK Jr. ...

2026-01-10T16:19:14Z

Senator Cassidy Has More Words, But No Actions, For RFK Jr.

Rinse, lather, repeat. That is supposed to be the self-serving message on the back of a shampoo bottle, but it can easily be applied to Senator Bill Cassidy’s response to all the bullshit [RFK Jr.][1] continues to pull when it comes to vaccines.

The last time we saw this was back in October of last year. In the wake of an absolutely insane press conference in which Kennedy and Trump decided to point the finger at Tylenol, of all things, as a major cause of autism spectrum disorder, Cassidy bravely took to social media and the radio to [criticize][2] the HHS Secretary for essentially not having a single fucking idea about which he was speaking… and then he did absolutely fuck all about it. And now, days after Kennedy’s CDC [altered][3] the agency’s childhood vaccine schedule recommendations, he’s once more out in public [spilling all kinds of words in response][4].

> *Cassidy, a physician and longtime proponent of vaccinations, said this move will “make America sicker.”*
>
> *“As a doctor who treated patients for decades, my top priority is protecting children and families. Multiple children have died or were hospitalized from measles, and South Carolina continues to face a growing outbreak. Two children have died in my state from whooping cough. All of this was preventable with safe and effective vaccines,” Cassidy [wrote ][5]on the social media platform X.*
>
> *“The vaccine schedule IS NOT A MANDATE. It’s a recommendation giving parents the power. Changing the pediatric vaccine schedule based on no scientific input on safety risks and little transparency will cause unnecessary fear for patients and doctors, and will make America sicker,” he added.*

Well, gosh golly gee, Senator, if only there was someone in some kind of position of power that could actually do something about it. Maybe a respected figure in the Republican majority, one who is a doctor by background and who cast and whipped up critical votes to confirm Kennedy’s appointment, who could do more than offer stern warnings about how horrible this is all going to be. I’d like to find someone like that and implore them to take action. Like… *any action*. Do literally anything other than flap their lips, as though that were accomplishing anything.

The incredible part of all of this is the context in which [Kennedy’s betrayal of Cassidy has occurred][6]. According to Cassidy, Kennedy committed to the following, either in confirmation hearings or to him personally:

1. Not changing vaccine review processes or slowing down vaccine approvals
2. Leave the CDC’s ACIP committee unchanged
3. Not changing the CDC website’s language debunking misinformation about vaccines and autism
4. Basing vaccine approvals and schedule recommendations on established and peer-reviewed science

Lie, lie, lie, and lie! It’s a superfecta of broken promises made to a sitting senator that has the stature, standing, and ability to do something about it. He could back the [effort to impeach Kennedy][7], as he absolutely should. He could hit him in funding. He could haul him before Congress and demand answers, using his bully pulpit to expose the dangers further than some ExTwitter posts.

> *“Senator Cassidy put his personal political preservation above all by casting the deciding vote to confirm RFK Jr., even after raising many valid concerns over Kennedy’s pursuit of a dangerous anti-vaccine agenda,” said **Kayla Hancock, Director of Public Health Watch, a project of Protect Our Care.** “It is obvious that Kennedy was always hellbent on pushing vaccine misinformation to AmericansAmericans no matter how much the data and science show them to be safe and effective. And now, with each new baseless attack on vaccine safety and efficacy that Secretary Kennedy carries out — like gutting the child vaccine schedule — more American lives are needlessly put in jeopardy. Dr. Cassidy knows this better than anyone, and it’s time he backs up his empty words of ‘concern’ with serious action.”*

Instead, we have Cassidy’s mere words. Inaction is tacit endorsement, as far as I’m concerned. And every day that goes by in which Cassidy continues to not lift a single finger to protect his own constituents at a minimum, and all Americans more generally, is another violation of the Hippocratic Oath he once took.

It’s “do no harm”, Senator. Not “do nothing.”

[1]: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/rfk-jr/
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/02/senator-cassidy-takes-to-extwitter-radio-to-rail-against-rfk-jr-whom-he-voted-to-confirm/
[3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/06/rfk-jr-cdc-alter-childhood-vaccine-schedule-to-mimic-denmarks/
[4]: https://www.aol.com/articles/cassidy-rips-rfk-jr-vaccine-224207268.html
[5]: https://x.com/SenBillCassidy/status/2008278922350256150
[6]: https://www.protectourcare.org/when-will-sen-bill-cassidy-turn-his-feigned-shock-over-rfk-jr-s-harmful-vaccine-rollbacks-into-action/
[7]: https://stevens.house.gov/media/press-releases/hitting-airwaves-rep-haley-stevens-moves-impeach-rfk-jr-reckless-cuts-anti

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/09/senator-cassidy-has-more-words-but-no-actions-for-rfk-jr/