#politics

“To me this isn’t just about a presidential election,” Ocasio-Cortez replied, “personally, I think that the United States has an obligation to uphold its own laws, particularly the Leahy laws.

“I think that, personally, the idea of completely unconditional aid, no matter what one does, does not make sense,” she added. “I think it enabled a genocide in Gaza, and I think that we have thousands of women and children dead … that was completely avoidable.

“So I believe that enforcement of our own laws, through the Leahy laws, which requires conditioning aid in any circumstance when you see gross human rights violations is appropriate,” Ocasio-Cortez concluded.

The Leahy laws are two statutory provisions, named for the former senator Patrick Leahy who introduced them in the 1990s, which prohibit the US defense department and state department from providing funds to “units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights”.

But, according to Charles Blaha, the former director of the state department office that leads Leahy vetting of foreign security units, while state “department officials insist that Israeli units are subject to the same vetting standards as units from any other country. Maybe in theory. But in practice, that’s simply not true.”

Matt Whitaker, the US ambassador to Nato, declined to directly answer the question, saying Israel is “one of our closest allies”.

Shaming the public as rubes for succumbing to conspiracy theories misses what people are trying to tell us: They no longer feel included in the work of choosing their future. On matters small and big, from the price of eggs to whether the sexual abuse of children matters, what they sense is a sneering indifference. And a knack for looking away. Now the people who capitalized on the revolt against an indifferent American elite are in power, and, shock of all shocks, they are even more indifferent than anyone who came before them. The clubby deal-making and moral racketeering of the Epstein class is now the United States’ governing philosophy. In spite of that, the unfathomably brave survivors who have come forward to testify to their abuse have landed the first real punch against Mr. Trump. In their solidarity, their devotion to the truth and their insistence on a country that listens when people on the wrong end of power cry for help, they shame the great indifference from above. They point us to other ways of relating.

Trump has recently said he wants to nationalize federal elections and revived election conspiracies, launching an FBI investigation into the election results in Fulton County, Ga., a state the president has repeatedly and without evidence said he won in 2020.

States are granted control of most aspects of U.S. elections under the Constitution.

In his second post on Friday, Trump cast the midterms in existential terms.

″(T)hese Corrupt and Deranged Democrats, if they ever gain power, will not only be adding two States to our roster of 50, with all of the baggage thereto, but will also PACK THE COURT with a total of 21 Supreme Court Justices, THEIR DREAM, which they will submit easily and rapidly when they immediately move to terminate the Filibuster, probably in their first week, or sooner,” Trump wrote.

“Our Country will never be the same if they allow these demented and evil people to knowingly, and happily, destroy it. Thank you for your attention to this matter — SAVE AMERICA!,” he continued.

Video from bystanders showed that Pretti had not attacked officers, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said immediately after the shooting. Critics raised further complaints after Noem and Homeland Security advisor Stephen Miller both called Pretti a domestic terrorist before an investigation had concluded.

Gallup’s final presidential approval survey was released in December. It put President Donald Trump’s approval rating at 36% — the second consecutive month at that level and the lowest of his second term, according to Gallup. The same survey found just 17% of respondents approved of the job Congress was doing. Approval stood at 24% among Democrats and 29% among Republicans.

Gallup’s exit does not leave a vacuum in presidential polling. Morning Consult, Harvard-Harris, The Wall Street Journal, Economist/YouGov and others continue to track approval and favorability. RealClearPolitics aggregates many of those surveys for comparison.

Although this is just an anecdote, I think it happens very widely. Maybe not always as sinister, but certainly far from innocent. Basically we see that these online companies are now paid by engagements (i.e. views, clicks, comments, shares). So they create algorithms that show content to people who are estimated to have higher engagement with content. Why not? People engage with content they like right? And we didn't tell the algorithm to prioritize anything bad - in fact we may even bias the algorithm away from obviously bad content.

Even simple statistical algorithms are very good at predicting what someone is likely to engage with given a modest set of examples from their past online engagements. The more advanced machine learning and AI-based algorithms we have today are unbelievably good at it. The reality is that us humans cannot actually understand how or why these algorithms are prioritizing content, we just know that it generates more engagement. We also don't know what content it will see and how it will react to new types of content.

The companies also tell "creators" that create posts/videos that generate engagement they can make money. People have realized what types of posts and videos get more engagement and they've found that things that make people angry or envious generates more engagement and more money. They figure, it it was against the rules, content moderation or the algorithm won't show it (exactly what the person in this article said). Yet, none of that happens and hate spreads.

Politicians are using the same tactics. They've realized that content that makes people angry or envious will generate engagement with them - and that leads to them being "popular" and ultimately winning elections.

So what can we do? Most of all we should make sure that we're aware that the content online and spoken by politicians is at least in part if not mostly to "engage" us. Remember that what we read and what they say is often meant to provoke us into some response. The wise old saying from my grandmother of Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see, seems more appropriate than ever.

Why not boycott social media? I think it's harder than it seems. Public companies that we are all invested in share key information on twitter. News sites that are the foundation of an "informed electorate", link to twitter in most articles. Governmental leaders around the world share policy updates on twitter - and twitter requires you to sign-in and share information about yourself in order to see it - so even remaining anonymous isn't an option. Are you going to stop going to YouTube - is there any other video site left? What about Linkedin - who also has a content algorithm that the most popular people work hard to understand and get noticed. So while it sounds nice to just obstain, I think it's less realistic than it seems.

Last summer, the man says, he found himself sitting in his car, analysing trends on TikTok. His day job was conducting viewings for an estate agency but he was trying to come up with an idea for a viral video account that could be run as a money-making side-hustle.

“I was thinking of unique videos I can do for people,” he says on the tape.

That’s when he had a brainwave: “Hate brings views.”

At that time protests outside asylum hotels were spreading across the country. The man says he noticed “far-right people” were among the most engaged on TikTok. They were easy to rile up: “They hate such videos of illegal migrants. I was like, why not?”

He added an AI-generated voiceover about asylum seekers, rapists, and illegal immigrants then pressed upload. The audience response was instant and enormous, and TikTok’s algorithm responded by pushing it into the feeds of hundreds of thousands of people. Irate Londoners drove up engagement by complaining they couldn’t afford such properties while illegal immigrants were supposedly getting them for free.

“It wasn’t racist,” the man says of his account. He argues that if the videos had really been racist, TikTok’s algorithm would have downgraded the content. Instead, he was rewarded with millions of views. He was just an entrepreneur following a simple content strategy: “Every single video I would basically copy paste the same thing. I wrote down ‘illegal migrants’.”

Despite fostering online hatred, the man recorded by Wasserstrum insists he doesn’t personally share the views expressed on his TikTok account. Instead, he suggests his fake anti-migrant house tour videos were just a way to game the algorithm, build an audience, and hopefully make money.

”I didn’t do anything because of hate,” he says on the tape. “I didn’t care. It’s just I wanted the clicks.”

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., declined a request by prosecutors to indict two Democratic U.S. senators, Mark Kelly of Arizona and Michigan’s Elissa Slotkin, on charges of seditious conspiracy

The attempted indictment of Kelly, a former U.S. Navy captain and the former CIA analyst Slotkin related to a video in November that they made with four other Democrats in Congress, on which they reminded members of the U.S. military that they have the right to refuse to follow illegal orders by superiors.

It is extremely unusual for a grand jury to refuse to issue an indictment when a prosecutor seeks one. An indictment is a charging document that a grand jury will issue if jurors agree there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed.

Trump at the time accused them of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

“Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social then.

The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

When it proposed to repeal the finding last year, the EPA also proposed to repeal all climate regulations for cars and trucks along with it. The final repeal is expected to do the same — a massive regulatory rollback in and of itself, as transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions. Reached for comment, an EPA spokesperson noted that without the endangerment finding, the “EPA would lack statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prescribe standards for certain motor vehicle emissions.”

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA administrator to regulate emissions from vehicles of any pollutant that “in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that planet-warming emissions fall under the law’s definition of air pollutants and should be regulated if they’re found to be a threat to public health.

U.S. vaccination rates have dropped and the share of children with exemptions has reached an all-time high, according to federal data. At the same time, rates of diseases that can be protected against with vaccines, such as measles and whooping cough, are rising across the country.

During his Senate confirmation testimony last year, Kennedy told lawmakers that a closely scrutinized 2019 trip he took to Samoa, which came before a devastating measles outbreak, had “nothing to do with vaccines.”

But documents obtained by The Guardian and The Associated Press undermine that testimony.

Public health experts also criticized the president for making unfounded claims about highly politicized health issues. During a September Oval Office event, Trump asserted without evidence that Tylenol and vaccines are linked to a rise in the incidence of autism in the United States.

Most of the deals, however, don’t affect what people with private insurance or Medicare pay for the drugs. People with Medicaid — who typically have minimal or no copays for prescriptions — already pay very little.

“Generally speaking, most people with insurance coverage will continue to be better off using their insurance to obtain medications rather than purchasing through the TrumpRx direct-to-consumer portal,” said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group.

The website asks customers to confirm that they are not enrolled in “any government, state, or federally funded medical or prescription benefit programs.” Those with both commercial and government-funded plans are considered to be on government insurance and are not permitted to participate in TrumpRx.

The US has one of the most expensive health systems in the world, with spending on health care estimated to reach $5.9tn (£4.3tn) in 2026, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. But despite spending twice as much per capita on healthcare compared with wealthy nations of a similar size, the US has a lower life expectancy than those other nations, according to health research nonprofit KFF.

Large publicly-traded health companies have tripled their profits over the last two decades, paying out shareholders over $2.6tn from 2001 to 2022, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "We are the only major [health] system in the world that allows the free market to run loose," said John McDonough, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health professor.

Roughly one in five Americans covered by private health insurance reported their provider refused to pay for care recommended by a doctor in 2023, according to a survey by KFF.

The number of overlapping health care systems in the US - Medicare, Medicaid, the marketplace, employer-sponsored insurance and veteran's health, among others - creates a confusing and sometimes wasteful system, said McDonough. "We have so many, each of them with their own set of rules, their own system, their own bureaucracy," he said. "We really do need some system consolidation."

I love these guys:

The Pentagon is at odds with artificial-intelligence developer Anthropic over safeguards that would prevent the government from deploying its technology to target weapons autonomously and conduct U.S. domestic surveillance, three people familiar with the matter told Reuters. ...In its discussions with government officials, Anthropic representatives raised concerns that its tools could be used to spy on Americans or assist weapons targeting without sufficient human oversight, some of the sources told Reuters.

The big picture shows that spending has remained at similar levels. According to USASpending.gov, average monthly federal spending in the year leading up to January 2025 was $443.1 billion. In October 2025, it was $442.9 billion, down .05%.

Day one actions of his presidency included restoring U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and halting funding for the Mexico–United States border wall.[3] On his second day, he issued a series of executive orders to reduce the impact of COVID-19, including invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950, and set an early goal of achieving one hundred million COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States in his first 100 days.[4] The first major legislation signed into law by Biden was the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill that temporarily established expanded unemployment insurance and sent $1,400 stimulus checks to most Americans in response to continued economic pressure from COVID-19.[5] He signed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a ten-year plan brokered by Biden alongside Democrats and Republicans in Congress to invest in American roads, bridges, public transit, ports and broadband access.[6]

Biden appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court—the first Black woman to serve on the court. In response to the debt-ceiling crisis of 2023, he negotiated and signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which restrains federal spending for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, implements minor changes to SNAP and TANF, includes energy permitting reform, claws back some IRS funding and unspent money for COVID-19, and suspended the debt ceiling to January 1, 2025.

The foreign policy goal of the Biden administration was to restore the U.S. to a "position of trusted leadership" among global democracies in order to address the challenges posed by Russia and China. Biden signed AUKUS, an international security alliance together with Australia and the United Kingdom. He supported the expansion of NATO with the additions of Finland and Sweden. Biden approved a raid which led to the death of Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, the leader of the Islamic State, and approved a drone strike which killed Ayman Al Zawahiri, leader of Al-Qaeda. He completed the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan, declaring an end to nation-building efforts and shifting U.S. foreign policy toward strategic competition with China and, to a lesser extent, Russia.

He responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by imposing sanctions on Russia and providing Ukraine with over $100 billion in combined military, economic, and humanitarian aid.[19][20] During the Gaza war, Biden condemned the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian militants as terrorism, and announced American military support for Israel; he also sent humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and brokered a four-day temporary pause and hostage exchange in 2023 followed by a three-phase ceasefire in January 2025.

About 55% less fentanyl was seized by September 2025 than by September 2024.

Even without adding in Trump’s own $5.5 billion net worth, Forbes estimates that his top advisors are worth $7.5 billion, more than doubling the $3.2 billion combined worth of Trump’s 2019 Cabinet. (By contrast, Biden’s Cabinet of regular Joes was barely worth $110 million combined in 2021.)

Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires from 24 countries are calling on global leaders to increase taxes on the super-rich, amid growing concern that the wealthiest in society are buying political influence.

“A handful of global oligarchs with extreme wealth have bought up our democracies; taken over our governments; gagged the freedom of our media; placed a stranglehold on technology and innovation; deepened poverty and social exclusion; and accelerated the breakdown of our planet,” it reads. “What we treasure, rich and poor alike, is being eaten away by those intent on growing the gulf between their vast power and everyone else.

“The super-rich are being given complete free rein. It is beyond comprehension that the richest 1% now own three times more than the world’s total public wealth combined.