What is Donald Trump running away from so hard? Is it the fifth anniversary of his January 6 insurrection, which we will mark on Tuesday? It should be.
It could be Jack Smith’s newly released testimony, which is damning and damaging—and we haven’t even gotten the release date of Volume II of his special counsel report, due sometime in February unless Trump manages to hang it up in court. On balance, Congressman Jim Jordan’s “Weaponization” work is backfiring.
It could also be the Epstein Files. DOJ missed its reporting date to Congress over the weekend, and the full release of the files is still nowhere in sight.
Donald Trump has a lot to try to hide from. It could be all of the above, and it’s all closing in on him this week. In the past, he has always been able to delay or distract just long enough for the public to forget. But this week, the past seems to be catching up with the lame duck president.
That may be at least a partial explanation for Trump’s strike on Venezuela—distract, distract, distract. It’s a better explanation than Trump as a committed warrior against narcoterrorism. That one doesn’t work particularly well for Donald Trump, who pardoned Honduran ex-president Juan Orlando Hernández, a man who former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in our Substack Live on Sunday morning, “personally trafficked tons of cocaine into the United States and actually said at one point he wanted to shove cocaine up the noses of the gringos.” When Trump pardoned Hernández, he said, “If somebody sells drugs in that country, that doesn’t mean you arrest the president and put him in jail for the rest of his life.” As Jake pointed out, and I agree, “the drugs excuse holds no water.”
This week, we’ll be watching Congress—and watching Trump watch Congress, which has been showing a few signs of life lately. I don’t want to oversell that, but this is definitely a week that warrants paying attention, particularly with the privileged War Powers Resolution I mentioned in last night’s post coming to the Senate floor this week. The ball is in Congress’ court.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, as well as to “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” Presidents before and including Trump, as experts at the Brennan Center explain, have tried to claim some of that authority for themselves, using “outdated and overstretched war authorizations like the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force.” Multiple presidents have also “asserted an inherent authority to undertake airstrikes, raids, and other military interventions without prior congressional authorization. When Congress has authorized conflict, such as the War in Afghanistan and Iraq War, presidents have overread Congress’s approval and expanded U.S. military involvement into countries that Congress never contemplated. Compounding the problem, presidents often fail to give Congress the information it needs to oversee these conflicts.” This is not a Trump problem—presidents since at least George H.W. Bush have claimed a share of Congress’ power. But Trump, who is uniquely interested in amassing presidential power, has the potential to move on from Venezuela and keep going, if Congress doesn’t step in and assert itself.
It’s possible for two things to be true at once: it’s possible that Maduro was a corrupt, dangerous leader and also, that our Constitution and the separation of powers demand preserving. Our country does not, and indeed cannot, remove every dangerous leader around the globe from office with in-country strikes. We could strengthen local populations with stability-enhancing programs like USAID (which the Trump administration, of course, has cut) to increase the ability of local populations to act on their own impulses. We can engage in vigorous law enforcement, like the prosecution of Honduras’ former president. But we can do so without permitting our president to freelance as a warlord, especially one with dubious motives. So don’t buy into the false equivalency that says the smash and grab in Venezuela that resulted in Maduro’s arrest was a righteous exercise of the president’s power.
The constitutional prescription for fixing this problem of presidential overreach is Congress. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker had something to say about that over the weekend, in light of the Trump administration’s strike on Venezuela.
Cory Booker@CoryBooker
Today, many leaders will rightly condemn President Donald Trump’s unlawful and unjust actions in Venezuela, and I join them. But just as glaring, and far more damning, is Congress’ ongoing abdication of its constitutional duty. For almost a year now, the legislative branch has
4:40 PM · Jan 3, 2026 · 70.8K Views
415 Replies · 523 Reposts · 1.93K Likes
“Today,” he wrote, “many leaders will rightly condemn President Donald Trump’s unlawful and unjust actions in Venezuela, and I join them.
But then, Senator Booker put the blame precisely where it is due. He continued, “just as glaring, and far more damning, is Congress’ ongoing abdication of its constitutional duty. For almost a year now, the legislative branch has failed to check a president who repeatedly violates his oath, disregards the law, and endangers American interests at home and abroad.”
He called out the Republican-led Congress for choosing “spineless complicity over its sworn responsibilities.” He condemned its inaction in the face of Signalgate, with Trump’s “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth escaping any censure for “the reckless leaking of classified information that put American troops at risk.” The senator also pointed to the “stunning absence of accountability” for the administration’s “illegal use of military force destroying vessels and killing people in the Caribbean and the Pacific without congressional authorization.”
Booker cited a litany of Congressional failures:
No hearings. No serious investigations. No enforcement of checks and balances. No accountability.
He called Congress cowardly and submissive.
We are long past due for someone to speak so plainly to the country about the Republican-led Congress’ failure to do its constitutional duty. The question is, who is listening, and will it lead to action this week? As my good friend Norm Eisen like to say, I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful.
Booker writes that “Republicans in Congress own this corrosive collapse of our constitutional order” and that their submission to Trump’s will “now stands as one of the greatest dangers to our nation and to the global order America claims to defend.” The fact that Maduro is “a brutal dictator who has committed grave abuses” does not, Booker concludes, suspend the Constitution. And so, he drives home the point of what must come next:
“The Constitution is unambiguous: Congress has the power and responsibility to authorize the use of military force and declare war. Congress has a duty of oversight. Congress must serve as a check, not a rubber stamp, to the President.”
“We face an authoritarian-minded president who acts with dangerous growing impunity. He has shown a willingness to defy court orders, violate the law, ignore congressional intent, and shred basic norms of decency and democracy. This pattern will continue unless the Article I branch of government, especially Republican congressional leadership, finds the courage to act.”
“What happened today [in Venezuela] is wrong. Congressional Republicans would say so immediately if a Democratic president had done the same. Their silence is surrender. And in that surrender lie the seeds of our democratic unraveling.”
“Enough is enough,” Booker concludes. With three years left in this administration, it’s time to stop the (constitutional) bleeding.
Senator Booker wrote at length at a time when many Americans have lost the will or the ability to take in an argument laid out like this. For some people, it’s easier to ignore common sense and stay in the fold of the cult. But Booker’s words are well worth our time and well worth sharing with others. His argument is not subtle or nuanced, and it’s accessible to anyone who has taken a fourth-grade civics class: Congress should do its job, not Donald Trump’s bidding. The future of the Republic depends upon it. They would demand it if a Democratic president had done what Donald Trump did—something that has been true over and over, but is all the more poignant with the anniversary of January 6 staring us in the face. Maybe Congress will remember what that day felt like and how they reacted. Maybe enough of them can muster some courage—if for no other reason than that the history books, and likely voters at the midterms, will condemn them if they don’t.
Make sure you share Senator Booker’s message with your elected officials this week. They need to hear it. They need to know you heard it.
A final note: a development we won’t be following this week, because it won’t be happening, is the federal criminal trial of former FBI Director Jim Comey, which was slated to start on Monday. This trial will not take place because the case was dismissed, in a serious blow to the credibility of Pam Bondi’s Justice Department. There are, in fact, some guardrails that remain in place. And this year, we’re going to rebuild more of them. Get ready to vote.
Where you get your news and analysis is a choice. I’m very appreciative that you’re here, with me, at Civil Discourse. Your subscriptions make it possible for me to devote the time and resources it takes to research and write the newsletter, and I’m very grateful for all of you. This is what community looks like.
Imran Ahmed, the founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), giving evidence to joint committee seeking views on how to improve the draft Online Safety Bill designed to tackle social media abuse. Credit: House of Commons – PA Images / Contributor | PA Images
Imran Ahmed’s biggest thorn in his side used to be Elon Musk, who made the hate speech researcher one of his earliest legal foes during his Twitter takeover.
Now, it’s the Trump administration, which planned to deport Ahmed, a legal permanent resident, just before Christmas. It would then ban him from returning to the United States, where he lives with his wife and young child, both US citizens.
After suing US officials to block any attempted arrest or deportation, Ahmed was quickly granted a temporary restraining order on Christmas Day. Ahmed had successfully argued that he risked irreparable harm without the order, alleging that Trump officials continue “to abuse the immigration system to punish and punitively detain noncitizens for protected speech and silence viewpoints with which it disagrees” and confirming that his speech had been chilled.
US officials are attempting to sanction Ahmed seemingly due to his work as the founder of a British-American non-governmental organization, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).
“An egregious act of government censorship”
In a shocking announcement last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that five individuals—described as “radical activists” and leaders of “weaponized NGOs”—would face US visa bans since “their entry, presence, or activities in the United States have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the US.
Nobody was named in that release, but Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, later identified the targets in an X post she currently has pinned to the top of her feed.
Alongside Ahmed, sanctioned individuals included former European commissioner for the internal market, Thierry Breton; the leader of UK-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI), Clare Melford; and co-leaders of Germany-based HateAid, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon. A GDI spokesperson told The Guardian that the visa bans are “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship.”
While all targets were scrutinized for supporting some of the European Union’s strictest tech regulations, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), Ahmed was further accused of serving as a “key collaborator with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against US citizens.” As evidence of Ahmed’s supposed threat to US foreign policy, Rogers cited a CCDH report flagging Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. among the so-called “disinformation dozen” driving the most vaccine hoaxes on social media.
Neither official has really made it clear what exact threat these individuals pose if operating from within the US, as opposed to from anywhere else in the world. Echoing Rubio’s press release, Rogers wrote that the sanctions would reinforce a “red line,” supposedly ending “extraterritorial censorship of Americans” by targeting the “censorship-NGO ecosystem.”
For Ahmed’s group, specifically, she pointed to Musk’s failed lawsuit, which accused CCDH of illegally scraping Twitter—supposedly, it offered evidence of extraterritorial censorship. That lawsuit surfaced “leaked documents” allegedly showing that CCDH planned to “kill Twitter” by sharing research that could be used to justify big fines under the DSA or the UK’s Online Safety Act. Following that logic, seemingly any group monitoring misinformation or sharing research that lawmakers weigh when implementing new policies could be maligned as seeking mechanisms to censor platforms.
Notably, CCDH won its legal fight with Musk after a judge mocked X’s legal argument as “vapid” and dismissed the lawsuit as an obvious attempt to punish CCDH for exercising free speech that Musk didn’t like.
In his complaint last week, Ahmed alleged that US officials were similarly encroaching on his First Amendment rights by unconstitutionally wielding immigration law as “a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration.”
Both Rubio and Rogers are named as defendants in the suit, as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons. In a loss, officials would potentially not only be forced to vacate Rubio’s actions implementing visa bans, but also possibly stop furthering a larger alleged Trump administration pattern of “targeting noncitizens for removal based on First Amendment protected speech.”
Lawsuit may force Rubio to justify visa bans
For Ahmed, securing the temporary restraining order was urgent, as he was apparently the only target currently located in the US when Rubio’s announcement dropped. In a statement provided to Ars, Ahmed’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, suggested that the order was granted “so quickly because it is so obvious that Marco Rubio and the other defendants’ actions were blatantly unconstitutional.”
Ahmed founded CCDH in 2019, hoping to “call attention to the enormous problem of digitally driven disinformation and hate online.” According to the suit, he became particularly concerned about antisemitism online while living in the United Kingdom in 2016, having watched “the far-right party, Britain First,” launching “the dangerous conspiracy theory that the EU was attempting to import Muslims and Black people to ‘destroy’ white citizens.” That year, a Member of Parliament and Ahmed’s colleague, Jo Cox, was “shot and stabbed in a brutal politically motivated murder, committed by a man who screamed ‘Britain First’” during the attack. That tragedy motivated Ahmed to start CCDH.
He moved to the US in 2021 and was granted a green card in 2024, starting his family and continuing to lead CCDH efforts monitoring not just Twitter/X, but also Meta platforms, TikTok, and, more recently, AI chatbots. In addition to supporting the DSA and UK’s Online Safety Act, his group has supported US online safety laws and Section 230 reforms intended to protect kids online.
“Mr. Ahmed studies and engages in civic discourse about the content moderation policies of major social media companies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union,” his lawsuit said. “There is no conceivable foreign policy impact from his speech acts whatsoever.”
In his complaint, Ahmed alleged that Rubio has so far provided no evidence that Ahmed poses such a great threat that he must be removed. He argued that “applicable statutes expressly prohibit removal based on a noncitizen’s ‘past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations.’”
According to DHS guidance from 2021 cited in the suit, “A noncitizen’ s exercise of their First Amendment rights … should never be a factor in deciding to take enforcement action.”
To prevent deportation based solely on viewpoints, Rubio was supposed to notify chairs of the House Foreign Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations, and House and Senate Judiciary Committees, to explain what “compelling US foreign policy interest” would be compromised if Ahmed or others targeted with visa bans were to enter the US. But there’s no evidence Rubio took those steps, Ahmed alleged.
“The government has no power to punish Mr. Ahmed for his research, protected speech, and advocacy, and Defendants cannot evade those constitutional limitations by simply claiming that Mr. Ahmed’s presence or activities have ‘potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,’” a press release from his legal team said. “There is no credible argument for Mr. Ahmed’s immigration detention, away from his wife and young child.”
X lawsuit offers clues to Trump officials’ defense
To some critics, it looks like the Trump administration is going after CCDH in order to take up the fight that Musk already lost. In his lawsuit against CCDH, Musk’s X echoed US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) by suggesting that CCDH was a “foreign dark money group” that allowed “foreign interests” to attempt to “influence American democracy.” It seems likely that US officials will put forward similar arguments in their CCDH fight.
Rogers’ X post offers some clues that the State Department will be mining Musk’s failed litigation to support claims of what it calls a “global censorship-industrial complex.” What she detailed suggested that the Trump administration plans to argue that NGOs like CCDH support strict tech laws, then conduct research bent on using said laws to censor platforms. That logic seems to ignore the reality that NGOs cannot control what laws get passed or enforced, Breton suggested in his first TV interview after his visa ban was announced.
Breton, whom Rogers villainized as the “mastermind” behind the DSA, urged EU officials to do more now defend their tough tech regulations—which Le Monde noted passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and very little far-right resistance—and fight the visa bans, Bloomberg reported.
“They cannot force us to change laws that we voted for democratically just to please [US tech companies],” Breton said. “No, we must stand up.”
While EU officials seemingly drag their feet, Ahmed is hoping that a judge will declare that all the visa bans that Rubio announced are unconstitutional. The temporary restraining order indicates there will be a court hearing Monday at which Ahmed will learn precisely “what steps Defendants have taken to impose visa restrictions and initiate removal proceedings against” him and any others. Until then, Ahmed remains in the dark on why Rubio deemed him as having “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” if he stayed in the US.
Ahmed, who argued that X’s lawsuit sought to chill CCDH’s research and alleged that the US attack seeks to do the same, seems confident that he can beat the visa bans.
“America is a great nation built on laws, with checks and balances to ensure power can never attain the unfettered primacy that leads to tyranny,” Ahmed said. “The law, clear-eyed in understanding right and wrong, will stand in the way of those who seek to silence the truth and empower the bold who stand up to power. I believe in this system, and I am proud to call this country my home. I will not be bullied away from my life’s work of fighting to keep children safe from social media’s harm and stopping antisemitism online. Onward.”
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
Everyone in tRump’s admin can see him failing and each one is pushing hard to get their personal desire / goal / profit done before he gets so bad the public can see he is not really making the decisions. This is one of these. Plus tRump is driven to put his name on every thing, every building, every aspect of government because he is terrified that people will realize how failing / stupid / bad / and scared he is of being forgotten because he never really accomplished anything naming worthy. But we have to remember that each member of his cabinet and inner circle have their own goals and things they want to do under tRump’s name. They realize they are fast running out of time. Hugs
The Trump administration is extending its wrecking ball to yet more historic buildings in Washington as the president’s pet projects — including his golden ballroom and triumphal arch — press forward.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appears before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Capitol Hill on Dec. 11, 2025.Mark Schiefelbein / AP Photo
The Trump administration is looking to tear down more historic buildings in Washington as the president, nearly a year into his final term, looks for ways to leave his mark on the District of Columbia.
This includes the destruction of the East Wing of the White House to make way for the president’s grand ballroom, which he now says will cost some $400 million, as well as a massive so-called arc de Trump.
But a memo uncovered by The Washington Post on Tuesday shows the administration using a new justification (that is, other than Trump’s vanity) to explain its latest effort to raze a part of D.C.’s history: a so-called emergency.
The Post reports Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose agency has engaged in some rather lavish spending on her behalf this year, issued a memo earlier this month “seeking to fast-track the demolition of more than a dozen historic buildings at St. Elizabeths in Southeast Washington,” which officials have been converting into a sprawling headquarters for DHS over more than a decade in accordance with historic preservation of treasured landmarks.
Per The Post:
‘Demolition is the only permanent measure that resolves the emergency conditions,’ Noem wrote in the memo. A risk assessment report undertaken by her agency ‘supports immediate corrective action,’ she wrote. The assessment report, which Noem included with her memo, concludes the vacant buildings ‘may be accessed by unauthorized individuals seeking to cause harm to personnel.’ The structures ‘provide a tactical advantage for carrying out small arms or active shooter scenarios,’ the report states.
MS NOW has not independently confirmed the memo. A spokesperson for the General Services Administration, which is overseeing development of the St. Elizabeths campus, confirmed to The Post that the agency had been alerted by the DHS about “a present security risk to life and property” at the campus “that may require us to demolish buildings.”
The report notes the push is being opposed by multiple preservationist groups, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has also sought to thwart Trump’s ballroom project.
It’s yet to be seen whether there’s any true risk in need of being resolved by Trump’s demolition of yet more historic buildings. But if past is prologue, there’s certainly reason to doubt the administration’s “emergency” claims here: namely, the president’s obvious desire to remake the nation’s capital and his administration’s tendency to use claims of “emergencies” to impose a slew of radical policies.
Criminal Israel has violated every aspect of the “ceasefire” and made a mockery of the promises of security guarantees tRump gave Hamas / the Palestinians. It should make Ukraine really nervous of the same things he has promised them. All tRump can see or cares about is his personal profit of building on Palestinian lands making profits over the dead bodies of the Palestinians. He is OK with Israel hurrying up the slaughter to get to that profit point. I hate this. You should also. Hugs
People attend the funeral of Dr. Hussein Najjar, a member of the Doctors Without Borders team who was killed by shrapnel from an Israeli airstrike, in Deir al Balah, Gaza on September 16, 2025
(Photo by Alaa Y. M. Abumohsen/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“The humanitarian response in Gaza is already highly restricted, and cannot afford further dismantlement,” the renowned organization warned.
The Israeli government said Tuesday that Doctors Without Borders, one of the largest medical organizations currently operating in Gaza, is among the 25 humanitarian groups that will be suspended at the start of the new year for their alleged failure to comply with Israel’s widely criticized new registration rules for international NGOs.
According to the Associated Press, Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs “said the organizations that will be banned on January 1 did not meet new requirements for sharing staff, funding, and operations information.” The Israeli government specifically accused Doctors Without Borders, known internationally as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), of “failing to clarify the roles of some staff that Israel accused of cooperation with Hamas and other militant groups,” AP reported.
In addition to providing medical assistance to desperate Palestinians, MSF has been an outspoken critic of what has it described as Israel’s “campaign of total destruction” in Gaza. The group said in a report released last December that its teams’ experiences on the ground in Gaza were “consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organizations concluding that genocide is taking place.”
Ahead of Tuesday’s announcement, Doctors Without Borders warned that the looming withdrawal of registration from international NGOs “would prevent organizations, including MSF, from providing essential services to people in Gaza and the West Bank.”
“With Gaza’s health systemalready destroyed, the loss of independent and experienced humanitarian organizations’ access to respond would be a disaster for Palestinians,” the group said in a statement last week. “The humanitarian response in Gaza is already highly restricted, and cannot afford further dismantlement.”
“If Israeli authorities revoke MSF’s access to Gaza in 2026, a large portion of people in Gaza will lose access to critical medical care, water, and lifesaving support,” the group added. “MSF’s activities serve nearly half a million people in Gaza through our vital support to the destroyed health system. MSF continues to seek constructive engagement with Israeli authorities to continue its activities.”
Pascale Coissard, MSF’s emergency coordinator for Gaza, noted that “in the last year, MSF teams have treated hundreds of thousands of patients and delivered hundreds of millions of liters of water.”
“MSF teams are trying to expand activities and support Gaza’s shattered health system,” said Coissard. “In 2025 alone, we carried out almost 800,000 outpatient consultations and handled more than 100,000 trauma cases.”
Israel’s announcement came shortly after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with US President Donald Trump in Florida, where both dodged questions about their supposed “peace plan” for Gaza after more than two years of relentless bombing. The Israeli military has been accused of violating an existing ceasefire agreement hundreds of times since it took effect in October.
Al Jazeera reported Tuesday that “Israeli forces have carried out strikes across the Gaza Strip as they continue with their near-daily violations of the ceasefire agreement, with Israel’s genocidal war on the besieged enclave continuing apace and displaced Palestinians enduring the destruction of their few remaining possessions in flooding brought about by heavy winter rains.”
Please note the article is 4 months old. However in this time of constant AI talk and every company trying to push us into using it against out will I think we also realize how dangerous AI can be. Hugs
Open AI to change way it responds to users in mental distress as parents of Adam Raine allege bot not safe
Adam Raine’s parents are suing Open AI after he discussed a method of suicide with ChatGPT on several occasions, including shortly before taking his own life. Photograph: the Raine Family
The makers of ChatGPT are changing the way it responds to users who show mental and emotional distress after legal action from the family of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who killed himself after months of conversations with the chatbot.
Open AI admitted its systems could “fall short” and said it would install “stronger guardrails around sensitive content and risky behaviors” for users under 18.
The $500bn (£372bn) San Francisco AI company said it would also introduce parental controls to allow parents “options to gain more insight into, and shape, how their teens use ChatGPT”, but has yet to provide details about how these would work.
Adam, from California, killed himself in April after what his family’s lawyer called “months of encouragement from ChatGPT”. The teenager’s family is suing Open AI and its chief executive and co-founder, Sam Altman, alleging that the version of ChatGPT at that time, known as 4o, was “rushed to market … despite clear safety issues”.
The teenager discussed a method of suicide with ChatGPT on several occasions, including shortly before taking his own life. According to the filing in the superior court of the state of California for the county of San Francisco, ChatGPT guided him on whether his method of taking his own life would work.
It also offered to help him write a suicide note to his parents.
A spokesperson for OpenAI said the company was “deeply saddened by Mr Raine’s passing”, extended its “deepest sympathies to the Raine family during this difficult time” and said it was reviewing the court filing.
Mustafa Suleyman, the chief executive of Microsoft’s AI arm, said last week he had become increasingly concerned by the “psychosis risk” posed by AI to users. Microsoft has defined this as “mania-like episodes, delusional thinking, or paranoia that emerge or worsen through immersive conversations with AI chatbots”.
In a blogpost, OpenAI admitted that “parts of the model’s safety training may degrade” in long conversations. Adam and ChatGPT had exchanged as many as 650 messages a day, the court filing claims.
Jay Edelson, the family’s lawyer, said on X: “The Raines allege that deaths like Adam’s were inevitable: they expect to be able to submit evidence to a jury that OpenAI’s own safety team objected to the release of 4o, and that one of the company’s top safety researchers,Ilya Sutskever, quit over it. The lawsuit alleges that beating its competitors to market with the new model catapulted the company’s valuation from $86bn to $300bn.”
Open AI said it would be “strengthening safeguards in long conversations”.
“As the back and forth grows, parts of the model’s safety training may degrade,” it said. “For example, ChatGPT may correctly point to a suicide hotline when someone first mentions intent, but after many messages over a long period of time, it might eventually offer an answer that goes against our safeguards.”
Open AI gave the example of someone who might enthusiastically tell the model they believed they could drive for 24 hours a day because they realised they were invincible after not sleeping for two nights.
It said: “Today ChatGPT may not recognise this as dangerous or infer play and – by curiously exploring – could subtly reinforce it. We are working on an update to GPT‑5 that will cause ChatGPT to de-escalate by grounding the person in reality. In this example, it would explain that sleep deprivation is dangerous and recommend rest before any action.”
Texans voting at Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Dallas, Texas. (AP Photo/Emil Lippe)
When Dallas County Republicans announced they would hand count every ballot cast in the upcoming GOP primary election in March, state party chairman Allen West described the effort as a “highly visible initiative to restore confidence in an electoral process.”
“Not only are the eyes of Texas upon us, but the eyes of America,” West said in a social media post earlier this month. The former GOP congressman concluded by quoting Gene Kranz, “a famed Texan” and the NASA flight director who oversaw the moon landing: “failure is not an option.”
On Tuesday, the nation looked on as West admitted that failure was very much an option, announcing that the Dallas County Republican Party (DCRP) will now forgo the hand count.
“This approach reduces the liabilities of DCRP and protects the organization, while affording us an opportunity to maintain better control,” West said. “In this case, discretion is the better part of valor.”
The DCRP voted on a resolution in September to authorize a hand count if they could secure funding and volunteers. But that proved tougher than the party expected.
When he announced the hand count decision three weeks ago, West said the party had raised $400,000 for the count and had 1,000 volunteers at the ready. But on Tuesday, he cited lingering concerns over staffing, funding, and the logistics of finding enough “additional tables and chairs,” to go through with the laborious undertaking.
Under state law, counties are required to report results within 24 hours of the polls closing — an additional hurdle that a hand count would struggle to clear.
West’s new statement says the DCRP will go ahead with “a precinct-based, community, separate Election Day electoral process.”
The DCRP’s decision will still prevent Dallas County voters — including Democrats — from being able to cast their ballots on Election Day at countywide vote centers, a flexibility that typically allows anyone registered in Dallas to vote at any county polling location. Instead, Dallas voters will need to vote at their assigned voting locations, as Texas law requires both parties to use neighborhood precincts if one does.
The DCRP announced it planned to do a hand count shortly after President Donald Trump published a social media post on Dec. 2, in which he mistakenly wrote that “Dallas County, Texas, just went to all PAPER BALLOTS.”
Trump apparently was referring to the DCRP’s vote to authorize a hand count. Like 98% of electoral jurisdictions, Dallas already uses paper ballots.
While election administration experts recommend paper ballots, which allow for count audits and provide an extra layer of protection against tampering, that preference does not extend to hand counts, which are slower, more expensive, and less accurate than machine counts. But hand counts are nonetheless popular among right wing conspiracy theorists who claim, without evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen.
As the DCRP’s decision to stick with a machine count demonstrates, they are difficult to implement.
On X, Stephen Richer, a Republican lawyer who previously served as the top election official in Maricopa County, Arizona, said the DCRP’s failure emphasizes the folly of demanding hand counts in general elections.
“Party can’t even get enough volunteers to hand count it’s [sic] own small, simple ballots. Now imagine trying to hand count more than 50 million ovals, in Dallas County alone, in bipartisan teams,” he wrote. “Sorry guys. It’s not going to happen.”
Right wing provocateur Nick Shirley has published a video claiming he has proof of fraud in Somali daycare centers. I watched the video so you don’t have to. The entire video is, in a word, propaganda. Despite this complete lack of substantiation, Vice President JD Vance praised Shirley and suggested he deserves a Pulitzer Prize. MAGA media has since moved immediately to demonize the Somali community in Minnesota as a whole—facts be damned.
That framing is not just reckless—it is intentionally racist. And it obscures the real issue entirely. Here are the critical facts they leave out, and hope Americans don’t see.Let’s Address This.
Watch my breakdown on YouTube, or read the full article below.
Let’s Address This with Qasim Rashid is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
A Propagandized Claim With Zero Evidence
Shirley begins his interview with a man named “David,” who apparently investigated this alleged fraud for years. Shirley provides no explanation of who David is, what qualifications he has, or what actual evidence of fraud he’s uncovered. Instead, while waving around documents that he never bothers to validate, David makes the following bombastic and factless claims:
“Compared to worldwide, the fraud is worse here in the Twin Cities than anywhere else ever, in history, anywhere.”
“The allegedly stolen funds are being sent to terrorist organizations.”
“We have to be careful because these [Somali] people are very violent, they’re exceptionally violent.”
“Tim Walz is guilty of misconduct with a public employee.”
Note—the above are actual quotes from David. At no point in the video does David or Shirley provide any actual evidence for the above claims. We are simply meant to believe them—even to the absurdity that in the entirety of human history, the alleged fraud in Minnesota outranks all of them. As far as the claim that “Walz committed misconduct with a public employee,” there’s zero evidence of this malicious claim. It’s especially rich coming from two men who are silent on Trump’s dozens of cases of sexual assault of women, and God only knows the full extent of his involvement in Epstein’s child sex trafficking atrocity.
Shirley and David espouse obviously and demonstrably false claims. The majority of Shirley’s video then entails he and David driving from center to center, harassing employees, and attempting to enter childcare centers without permission. The employees are clearly frightened that two angry men with cameras are repeatedly yelling “where are the children!”, while trying to gain unauthorized access to spaces meant to protect children. Unsurprisingly, the employees refuse to answer questions from men they rightly see as strangers. Shirley and David therefore conclude that the employees’ refusal to answer their questions means there must be fraud.
That is the extent of their “evidence” of fraud.
Shirley Ignores What Actual Journalists Have Already Reported
Now, let’s make four points absolutely clear—points Shirley deliberately ignores, and hopes his viewers don’t realize.
First, what Shirley allegedly “uncovered” is not some new scandal. Since 2022 several of these same day care centers have been fined and shutdown for violating the law. Local media in Minnesota has already reported on that alleged fraud and reported on the subsequent FBI investigations. Even in his video, Shirley admits that the FBI is already investigating these facilities and is already aware that there may be potential fraud. You can literally see him at the exact same locations that have already been investigated and reported upon.
Top Screen grab: News report from local Minnesota reporters 1 year ago. Bottom screen grab: Shirley pretending he’s breaking new news right now.
Top Screen grab: News report from local Minnesota reporters 1 year ago. Bottom Screen grab: Shirley pretending he’s breaking new news right now.
Fourth and finally, for as much as Shirley insists fraud problems in Minnesota begin and end with Somalis, nowhere in his 42 minute propaganda piece does he admit, let alone acknowledge, that the accused ring leader who was convicted of leading the largest prosecuted fraud in Minnesota is a white woman named Aimee Bock.
Aimee Bock was found guilty in a jury trial of defrauding Minnesota $250M in an overlapping “Feeding Our Future” fraud case.
In short, Shirley hasn’t broken any new news, this alleged scheme has nothing to do with terrorism, the day care center employees themselves sounded the alarm, and Shirley ignores Aimee Bock altogether. What exactly is Shirley exposing? Will his next story reveal Watergate? It seems quite clear that Shirley saw news reports from years ago, saw Donald Trump demonize Somalis, and attempted to recreate work done by actual journalists while trying to pass it off as his own to gain clout, clicks, and views.
Here Are The Facts
Now, let’s discuss what is true.
Shirley alleges that Somalis have somehow “taken over” Minnesota. This is fear-mongering and racist propaganda. Minnesota is home to approximately 60,000 Somalis, representing a whopping 1% of Minnesota’s population of 6 million people.
Moreover, it is absolutely not the case that Somalis somehow uniquely committed fraud. It is the case that, among the people accused of fraud in Minnesota, some happen to be Somali. That is a critical distinction. Fraud, where it occurs, should be investigated and prosecuted fully and fairly—for everyone involved, regardless of race, religion, or immigration status. No person gets a pass, and no group deserves collective blame. But Shirley or MAGA figures are not interested in accountability. They are interested in scapegoating.
Shirley’s video ends with him demanding answers from a Democratic member of the Minnesota legislature—who correctly reminds him that such fraud is in all 50 states, under Democrats and Republicans, and that this is not a partisan or racial issue. Shirley never actually rebukes her. He cannot, for the very simple reason that she is absolutely correct. On June 30, 2025, The Department of Justice reported:
The Justice Department today announced the results of its 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which resulted in criminal charges against 324 defendants, including 96 doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other licensed medical professionals, in 50 federal districts and 12 State Attorneys General’s Offices across the United States, for their alleged participation in various health care fraud schemes involving over $14.6 billion in intended loss. The Takedown involved federal and state law enforcement agencies across the country and represents an unprecedented effort to combat health care fraud schemes that exploit patients and taxpayers. (emphasis added)
If fraud were actually the MAGA concern, their outrage would not be selectively triggered only when the accused are Black, brown, Muslim, or immigrant. Yet we have overwhelming evidence that the same political movement now pretending to care about alleged fraud in Minnesota, instead openly celebrate and reward white fraudsters—at vastly larger scales—nationwide.
When MAGA Approves Fraud
And yet here’s another critical and substantive point that Shirley entirely ignores. Donald Trump has personally granted clemency or pardons to at least two dozen individuals convicted of fraud totaling well over one billion dollars. None of them are Somali. Nearly all of them are white. And this fraud has also been well reported, meaning Shirley and his supporters are either willfully ignorant, or deceptively censoring it. Among them include:
Trevor Milton, founder of an electric truck company, was convicted of securities fraud and wire fraud and ordered to pay $676 million in restitution.
Ross William Ulbricht, founder of Silk Road, was convicted of running a massive criminal enterprise facilitating drug trafficking and money laundering and ordered to pay nearly $184 million.
HDR Global Trading Limited, operator of a cryptocurrency exchange, was fined $100 million for violating anti-money laundering laws.
Lawrence Duran, owner of a Miami-area mental health company, was convicted of healthcare fraud and sentenced to 50 years in prison with $87.5 million in restitution.
Trump pardoned them anyway. In total, Trump has pardoned at least 24 mostly white Americans (so far) for committing Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, and/or securities fraud. And not in his first term either—this is right now as we speak while the alleged fraud in Minnesota is taking place. And I say “so far” because Trump’s pay to pardon bribery scheme has become so open and brazen, that the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s handlers are now reportedly charging convicted fraudsters upwards of $1M to lobby their pardon before Trump.
Somalis face demonization on the mere accusation of a crime—yet we hear complete silence from Shirley and MAGA pundits on Trump’s open bribery to pardon convicted felons who are white. Thus the open hypocrisy—when white Americans commit fraud, they are treated as individuals. When Black, brown, Muslim, or immigrant communities are accused—even speculatively—the entire community is put on trial. One person becomes “proof” that everyone is guilty. That is de facto racism.
So let’s be explicitly clear: if you are outraged at alleged fraud involving Somali daycare operators, but celebrate Trump for pardoning white men convicted of fraud at ten or twenty times the scale, then fraud is not what you care about. What you care about is protecting white supremacy.
The Core Issue Remains Ignored
Just as importantly, we cannot forget this critical point: Racializing fraud allegations to demonize all Somali Americans of Minnesota, while ignoring the much greater fraud nationwide by predominantly white Americans, is another culture war waged by the MAGA right. And they’re waging it right now for two reasons.
One, to distract Americans that MAGA Republicans have failed to extend ACA subsidies, which means come New Year’s Day your ACA premiums will skyrocket. MAGAs will point to Minnesota to convince Americans that the “real” reason premiums are spiking is not the exploitative for profit healthcare system or the deliberate failure of MAGA Republicans to extend ACA subsidies—but the lie that it is due to Somali Americans. MAGAs will try to convince Americans nationwide that this is a “Somali problem.” Do not let them.
Two, to prevent Americans from realizing these devastating facts—that 16 years after the ACA was passed, Republicans still don’t have a healthcare plan. That Trump has pardoned far more fraud than is alleged to have happened in Minnesota. That Medicare and Medicaid fraud is a nationwide cancer caused by our exploitative for profit healthcare system, that could be addressed with a universal healthcare model, but that would cost politicians immense financial loss in campaign donations and in their stock portfolios, so they will not let it happen.
In short, MAGAs are demonizing Somali people to ensure healthcare remains a for profit exploitation scheme.
The truth is this: fraud in healthcare is not an aberration. It is a feature of a system designed to extract wealth rather than deliver care.
I have already written at length about America’s HELL Corporations, and the fraud ridden for profit exploitation business model that causes at least 68,000 preventable deaths annually. For example, UnitedHealth is being sued for denying 90% of valid Medicaid claims to senior citizens—undoubtedly enabling preventable death. Yet, we don’t see MAGA Republicans or their pseudo-journalists like Shirley accosting them to explain their billions in fraud.
Closing Points
The difference between MAGAs outraged over alleged fraud in Minnesota by some Somali Americans, and the rest of us, is this. We loudly condemn that fraud whether its committed by a Somali American, European American, Latino American, or Asian American. MAGAs only care if the alleged fraud is committed by non-white people, and celebrate the pardoning of convicted fraudsters who are white. This is not my opinion, as the above receipts show this to be true.
But we have a solution to this fraud enabled by an exploitative, for-profit insurance system. If we joined every other developed nation and guaranteed healthcare, politicians could no longer use our lives as bargaining chips. And fraud—real fraud—would be far harder to commit in a system built around care rather than profit extraction.
So when MAGA figures obsessively target Somalis in Minnesota, understand what is really happening. They are not exposing corruption. They are deflecting from it. They are protecting an exploitative system by redirecting rage toward a vulnerable community. Because two things can be and are true at once: individuals who committed fraud should be held accountable regardless of their racial background, and the overwhelming majority of fraud—and harm—comes from a corporate healthcare system that thrives on exploitation, protected by politicians who pardon billion-dollar criminals while demonizing immigrants.
Until we confront that reality honestly, we will keep repeating the same cycle: scapegoats on the margins, impunity at the top, and a system that continues to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year—quietly, profitably, and with corporate media silence.
Let’s Address This with Qasim Rashid is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Thursday, January 01, 2026 at 12:36:07p EST
(Kenneth Fowler/CNN)
This article is going to explain what we’re actually facing, lay out its four preconditions, and show you that America meets every single one. It will then explain why knowing this is important, and what we can do once equipped with that knowledge.
There’s a name for what’s happening: electoral autocracy. Elections happen. Multiple parties compete. But the system is rigged to favor one faction through gerrymandered maps, voter suppression, captured courts, and media control. When the wrong side wins anyway, those captured courts block them from governing. Hungary operates this way. So do we.
Start with gerrymandered maps. The Brennan Center’s September 2024 analysis found Republicans hold approximately 16 extra House seats due to favorable district lines.¹ Republicans drew 191 congressional districts while Democrats drew 75.¹ Only 69 of 435 House seats are rated competitive.² The Senate is worse. California’s 39 million residents have the same representation as Wyoming’s 579,000, a ratio of 68 to 1.³ The 50 Republican senators who confirmed Trump’s Supreme Court justices represented 43.5 percent of the American population. Their 50 Democratic colleagues represented 56.5 percent.⁴ The last time Republican senators represented a majority of voters was 1996.⁵
Rigged maps only work if the right people show up to vote. That’s where voter suppression comes in. The evidence includes confessions. During floor debate on Montana’s HB 176 in 2021, a Republican state representative explained he wanted to end Election Day registration because young voters are “not on our side of the aisle.”⁶ The bill passed. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court that same year, Arizona Republican Party attorney Michael Carvin was asked what interest his party had in maintaining voting restrictions. His answer: eliminating them “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.”⁷ When the Fourth Circuit struck down North Carolina’s HB 589, the court found the legislature had requested data on voting practices broken down by race, then restricted exactly those practices disproportionately used by Black voters. The law, the court wrote, “targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.”⁸ North Carolina enacted that law less than two months after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Between 2021 and 2024, states passed 79 restrictive voting laws, nearly three times the number passed between 2017 and 2020.⁹
Gerrymandering and voter suppression tilt the playing field. Media control ensures tens of millions of Americans never realize the game is rigged. Sinclair Broadcast Group owns or operates 178 television stations reaching approximately 40 percent of American households.¹⁰ The company requires stations to air “must run” segments including commentary from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump White House official, nine times per week.¹⁰ In March 2018, Deadspin compiled footage of nearly 200 Sinclair anchors reading identical scripts warning about “fake news” at other outlets.¹¹ You can watch the video. Sinclair executive chairman David Smith reportedly told Trump in 2016: “We are here to deliver your message.”¹² When your local news is owned by a conservative media conglomerate pushing partisan content through trusted local faces, voters cannot punish leaders for policy failures they never learn about.
None of this would hold without the final piece: captured courts that enforce the rigged system and block any attempt to change it.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to decide whether federal district judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies. The Court declined to hear the case.¹³ The Trump administration asked the same question. The Court took it, ruled in Trump’s favor, 6-3.¹⁴
Same legal question. Same Court. Different answer depending on who asked.
The judiciary abandoned neutrality decades ago. Bush v. Gore stopped votes from being counted. Shelby County gutted voting rights. Citizens United flooded elections with dark money. What we’re watching now is the endgame.
The Niskanen Center analyzed the Court’s treatment of lower court injunctions and found that within the first six months of Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court lifted approximately 77 percent of injunctions blocking administration actions. For the Biden administration over four years, the Court lifted 10 percent.¹⁵ Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck documented that in the first 20 weeks of Trump’s second term, the administration sought emergency action from the Supreme Court 19 times. That equals the total number of requests the Biden administration made over four years.¹⁶ The Court sided with Trump nearly every time.
In July 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their core constitutional authority, and presumptive immunity for all other official acts.¹⁷ The Court held that Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General about overturning the 2020 election fell within his exclusive constitutional authority and were therefore absolutely immune.¹⁷ Courts cannot inquire into a president’s motives. An action does not become unofficial merely because it violates the law.¹⁷ Justice Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision makes the president “a king above the law.”¹⁷
A president can now direct the Justice Department to prosecute political enemies. He can order federal law enforcement to investigate, harass, and charge anyone he designates as a threat. He can pardon co-conspirators before, during, or after any scheme. He can fire any official who refuses to comply. If these actions fall within his official duties, he faces no criminal liability. The Court manufactured this immunity from whole cloth. No statute authorized it. No constitutional text required it. No precedent compelled it. Six justices simply declared that presidents need this protection to act “boldly.”
The Court is simultaneously dismantling the independence of federal agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, currently before the Court, the administration argues that the president can fire Federal Trade Commission commissioners at will, eliminating the for-cause removal protections that have governed independent agencies since 1935.¹⁸ The D.C. Circuit has already ruled that Trump’s firings of Merit Systems Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board members were lawful.¹⁸ If Humphrey’s Executor falls, the Federal Reserve, the FTC, the SEC, the NLRB, and every other independent agency comes under direct presidential control. A president could fire the Fed chair for refusing to cut interest rates before an election. He could purge every agency of anyone who might resist.
Criminal immunity for official acts. Direct control of every federal agency. And now, with the nationwide injunction ruling, illegal orders take effect everywhere except in the specific jurisdictions where individual plaintiffs have standing to sue. The Court has built a legal architecture in which a Republican president operates with essentially no constraint.
Now consider what the same Court does when a Democrat holds office. In June 2023, the Court struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, a $430 billion initiative affecting over 40 million borrowers.¹⁹ Chief Justice Roberts invoked the “major questions doctrine,” holding that agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic significance without explicit congressional authorization.¹⁹ The previous year, the Court used the same doctrine to strike down the Clean Power Plan.²⁰ In June 2024, the Court overturned Chevron deference entirely, eliminating the 40-year principle that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.²¹ The six-justice majority handed every conservative federal judge in the country a veto over Democratic governance.
The student loan program and the Clean Power Plan were not radical initiatives. They were exercises of delegated authority that prior courts would have upheld without controversy. This Court invented new doctrines to stop them. As Justice Kagan wrote in dissent, the Court’s approach “overrules Congress’s decisions about when and how to delegate” and makes the Supreme Court itself “the arbiter, indeed, the maker, of national policy.”²²
SCOTUSblog’s analysis calls this the “who-what duality” of the Roberts Court: expanding presidential power over personnel while restricting presidential power over policy.²³ But that framing is too neutral. The personnel expansions let a Republican president fire anyone who might resist. The policy restrictions prevent a Democratic president from using the administrative state to do anything at all. One president gets to destroy. The other gets blocked from building. This is not judicial philosophy. It is collaboration.
None of these tools will transfer. A Democratic president attempting to invoke the immunity ruling, the removal power, or the elimination of nationwide injunctions would discover new limits, new doctrines, new procedural barriers. We know this because we already have the data. Seventy-seven percent versus ten percent. Nineteen emergency requests in twenty weeks versus nineteen in four years. Same questions, different answers, depending entirely on who is asking.
Here is what all of this means in plain terms. One faction wins elections while losing the popular vote, governs without constraint, and installs lifetime judges who validate the structures that enabled minority rule. The other faction needs supermajorities to win, cannot govern when it does, and watches every policy achievement get struck down by courts it cannot reform. The gears turn freely toward authoritarian consolidation. Try to turn them back and the teeth catch.
This is why nothing ever gets better. Two-thirds of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.²⁴ Seventy-three percent believe the healthcare system needs major change or a complete rebuild, including 67 percent of Republicans.²⁵ Exposed to policies without party labels, supermajorities support them. Yet the federal minimum wage has not moved since 2009. Healthcare remains broken. Housing stays unaffordable. Climate action stalls. Not because these policies are unpopular. Because the system is designed to prevent the popular will from becoming law. Gerrymandered legislatures will not pass them. If they pass, captured courts strike them down. If courts uphold them, the next minority-elected president dismantles them.
Every precondition is met. This is not a warning about where we are headed. We are already here.
The federal government will not save us. It has been captured. Any strategy for preserving democratic governance must begin by acknowledging what we are actually facing. What remains is the ground we still hold at the city and state level, and the willingness to use it.
The Introduction to Soft Secession booklet explains exactly what that looks like: public banking, interstate compacts, criminal prosecutions of federal officials under state law, and revenue strategies that reduce dependency on a captured federal government. It’s free at BuyMeACoffee.com/TheER, along with the Educate Activate Recruit Repeat Method for actually getting these policies passed, Being Dangerous: How to Go from Activist to Operative, a printable trifold you can hand out, and Conservatism: America’s Personality Disorder, the full book explaining how we got here. Physical copies and merch at TheExistentialistRepublic.com.
Adam Raine’s parents are suing Open AI after he discussed a method of suicide with ChatGPT on several occasions, including shortly before taking his own life. Photograph: the Raine Family
(Kenneth Fowler/CNN)
Scottie's Playtime 