Republican in Congress will introduce a bill later this week to fulfill president's wishes
An individual allegedly involved in a thwarted terrorist attack aimed at Sunday’s UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House parroted Democrat conspiracy theories about President Trump protecting child predators connected to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to federal court documents. The revelation came on Tuesday, when Fox News reported on how the FBI and […]
Federal prosecutors revealed details Tuesday of a 94-page indictment against 15 individuals they alleged to be affiliated with Antifa – the loosely organized anti-fascist movement that the Trump administration has designated as a terrorist organization – though mockery soon ensued after prosecutors shared a particularly “embarrassing” piece of evidence.Speaking at a press conference in Minnesota, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen announced that a federal indictment had been unsealed charging 15 defendants with “conspiracy to injure federal officers,” among other charges. He went on to share with reporters evidence supporting the indictment, with one example sparking widespread mockery among critics.“You see here a Facebook post from one of the defendants writing, quote: ‘We need to become ungovernable,’” Rosen said, pointing to a monitor with a screengrab of the social media post in question displayed.“Embarrassing,” noted the progressive media outlet The Tennessee Holler in a social media post on X.“Oh, so they have NOTHING nothing,” quipped independent journalist Aaron Rupar.And Jim Stewartson, an entertainment producer and political commentator, argued the press conference made a “mockery” of the American justice system.“Wait. That’s evidence of something?” Stewartson asked in a social media post on X to his nearly 150,000 followers. “Justice Department, if you keep making a mockery of the American justice system and acting as a personal defense firm for the demented pedophile running the country, you are god------ right we will become ‘ungovernable.’ Welcome to America.”Rosen not only received scrutiny from critics online, but from a journalist attending the press conference in person, Minnesota Reformer’s Madison McVan, who noted that more than a third of the individuals named in the indictment had already had their charges dismissed.“I don't think any cases have failed in any way," Rosen pushed back."It's actually half now," another reporter could be heard interjecting.Embarrassing https://t.co/nY10ZsKE7t— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) June 16, 2026
In Trump v. Slaughter — a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — President Donald Trump is defending his right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a former commissioner for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The case is pending, and according to Reason's Damon Root, he may have the late Justice Antonin Scalia to thank if Trump v. Slaughter goes his way."Sometime in the next two or three weeks," Root explains in the libertarian Reason, "the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case about the president's authority to fire independent federal agency heads 'at will,' rather than 'for cause,' as federal law currently requires. If President Donald Trump wins the case, as many legal observers think he probably will, a 1988 dissenting opinion by a famous conservative justice is likely to play a key supporting role."The 1988 dissent by Scalia was in the case Morrison v. Olson.In that ruling 38 years ago, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and eight other justices examined a president's ability to remove officers of the U.S. from office. Scalia was the lone dissenter, disagreeing with two fellow Ronald Reagan appointees — Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor — as well as Rehnquist and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and William Brennan Jr."According to the Federal Trade Commission Act," Root notes, "FTC commissioners may only 'be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Trump, however, purported to fire Slaughter for purely political reasons, which the statute, as written, does not allow. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether that statutory requirement amounts to an unlawful restriction on executive power. A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to view the law in that unforgiving light and rule in Trump's favor."Root continues, "If the Court does so, among the legal authorities it is likely to cite is a solo dissent written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called Morrison v. Olson (1988)…. At issue in Morrison v. Olson was whether the existence of the independent counsel violated the constitutional separation of powers because it placed certain executive authorities beyond the immediate reach of the chief executive."Morrison v. Olson, like Trump v. Slaughter 38 years later, is grappling with how much executive power a president enjoys under the Constitution. "Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a judicial conservative who was first appointed to SCOTUS by none other than (President Richard) Nixon, readily affirmed the independent counsel law…. Writing alone in dissent, Scalia offered a very different view of the matter," according to Root. "The Constitution placed the executive power in the hands of the president alone, Scalia argued, and 'this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power'…. If Trump does prevail in his efforts to fire Slaughter from the FTC, don't be surprised when the long shadow cast by Scalia's nearly 40-year-old dissent is visible in the Court's decision."
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has joined the advisory board of Canadian mineral exploration firm NovaRed Mining, the company announced Tuesday. Noem, who now serves as Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas, will work in a strategic advisory role as the company seeks to acquire and advance critical mineral exploration projects using…
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is once again placing himself at the center of the national political conversation, using claims that the Department of Justice is investigating him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, to argue that President Donald Trump sees him as a political threat. After announcing Monday that federal authorities were scrutinizing both […]
Plus: How the UFC and MMA went from outsiders to the sporting and political establishment—to the point where they’re being used for “diplomacy.”
Senate Republicans said they’re pressing the Trump administration for details on the US-Iran interim peace deal and signaled Congress will ultimately vote on the final agreement.
AI researchers and cybersecurity leaders fear the U.S. government is setting a precedent that may discourage American AI companies from building tools that help defenders identify and fix vulnerabilities.Why it matters: In trying to avert an AI hacking crisis, the Trump administration may end up making U.S. cyber defenses weaker, dozens of prominent security leaders warned.Cybersecurity experts are worried about the long tail this ongoing feud will have on American cyber defenses."They've set a precedent that American models can't do defensive security research," former Facebook security chief Alex Stamos tells Axios.Driving the news: Stamos organized an open letter, signed by nearly 150 security leaders, calling on the Trump administration to reverse its move to restrict access to Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos 5.Concerns about Chinese access to Mythos and a call from Amazon CEO Andy Jassy reportedly sent the administration into a panic last week after Anthropic publicly released its first Mythos-class model.During the spat, Anthropic brought in a leading zero-day bug hunter — who helped the Defense Department create its bug bounty program and sat on multiple government-led advisory boards — to help assess Amazon's concerns about the security of Fable and Mythos.Now, the administration is casting the security researcher as a "radical Democrat," as my colleagues reported yesterday.Between the lines: The dispute has quickly shifted from a fight over one model to a broader question of whether the government is creating unwritten rules for AI security research.Stamos, who has spoken with the technical staffs involved in the fallout, said the findings Amazon flagged do not appear unique to Anthropic's models.Multiple people familiar with Amazon's concerns said they centered on a jailbreak the company found that allows Fable to write "proofs of concept" — a capability security teams often use to understand and fix vulnerabilities.Katie Moussouris, CEO of Luta Security, said in a detailed blog post yesterday that she saw a copy of Amazon's findings and the issue didn't involve mass exploitation of the model, but rather prompts designed to support defensive security work.Flashback: Before releasing Fable 5, Anthropic said, it worked with both internal teams and outside security researchers to test the model for jailbreaks and other flaws.The company has also argued that "perfect jailbreak resistance is not currently possible for any model provider," so it has focused on making "jailbreaks either narrow ... or very expensive to produce." Threat level: Cyber experts warn that if frontier AI companies fear punishment for models that can identify vulnerabilities, they may now be tempted to strip out capabilities on which defenders already rely.Moussouris noted in an X post that there is no fix that wouldn't render the model less useful for cyber defenders. "No new frontier models can be developed or released if this is the administration's best take," she added. The big picture: Researchers argue the administration's response risks giving adversaries an advantage.Researchers note that Chinese AI developers and government-backed hacking groups are unlikely to abandon similar tools, raising concerns that U.S. defenders could lose access to abilities their adversaries are using."This is closer to China than what I recognize as the United States, and personally I see this as a huge threat to American dynamism," Stamos said.What to watch: The U.S. government is in the process of standing up a vulnerability clearinghouse via the recent AI security executive order that would likely triage reports about jailbreaks, prompt injections and other threats to AI models.But questions linger about how much cybersecurity talent remains in the Trump administration after several White House departures in recent weeks and the sidelining of the nation's top cyber agency.Go deeper: The hidden risk of Trump's Anthropic crackdown