14.1 C
London
Saturday, June 13, 2026
Home Blog

D.C. Mayor Candidates Are Fixating on Teen Hangouts — and Turning the Cops on Them

0
dc.-mayor-candidates-are-fixating-on-teen-hangouts-—-and-turning-the-cops-on-them
D.C. Mayor Candidates Are Fixating on Teen Hangouts — and Turning the Cops on Them


Kenyan McDuffie stood in a dark suit and gingham tie in front of an infamous Chipotle in southeast Washington, D.C. The day before, a video of teenagers fighting inside the fast-casual restaurant had gone viral — and presented the former city councilmember a political opportunity in his mayoral campaign.

His opponent, City Council and Democratic Socialists of America member Janeese Lewis George, was “sitting on her hands and playing politics” by opposing a police-enforced curfew for minors, McDuffie said.

So-called “teen takeovers,” or large, coordinated meetups of teenagers in public spaces, have become a key political cause in D.C., where McDuffie argues the city needs to crack down to stave off the worst excesses of the federal government. His critics say he’s falling into a rhetorical trap laid by the Trump administration.

“When teen takeovers threaten the safety of residents and the young people themselves,” McDuffie wrote in a letter to the City Council, “the Council cannot afford to leave law enforcement and communities without every appropriate tool at their disposal.” 

Last summer, before the federal takeover of D.C., McDuffie and Lewis George both voted in favor of broad emergency curfew powers that allowed Mayor Muriel Bowser to create targeted zones that youth could not enter after certain hours, enforced by local police. D.C. has long had limited curfew laws on the books, and an update to the city’s permanent curfew law with new restrictions on enforcement is set to go into effect mid-July.

The candidates, who will face off in a Democratic primary to replace Bowser on Tuesday, have since split. Lewis George voted against both extending the emergency and implementing the new permanent law. McDuffie, though no longer on the council, said he supported both. 

To some, the scene at the Chipotle represented lawlessness and amplified their fears around the city’s youth. To others, the incident, which police told local media caused no injuries or damage, failed to warrant curfew policies which would increase arrests and police harassment of teenagers, primarily Black teens. 

The neighborhood around the Chipotle is beautiful, said Alex Dodds, “designed as a space where people should come and gather.”

“When Black children do that, they are seen as criminals,” said Dodds, campaign director for Free DC, an organization advocating for the city’s sovereignty that has endorsed Lewis George. “I don’t even understand what we want children to do.” 

A few miles away from McDuffie’s Chipotle press conference, Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, struck an eerily similar chord to McDuffie. 

“Teen takeovers … have terrorized our neighborhoods,” said the former Fox News host. “They have shut down businesses, and they have wasted hard-earned tax dollars of law-abiding residents who just want to live and work in peace.” 

Federal law enforcement officials would soon begin a “summer surge” targeting teenagers, Pirro warned. She added that her office would begin “aggressively prosecuting parents” whose children violated curfew laws, threatening them with up to six months in prison.    

McDuffie has weaponized the teen gatherings in campaign advertisements and public comments to argue that strict curfew zones — and the tough-on-crime mayoral candidate pushing them — will help forestall more aggressive actions by the Trump administration.

But advocates for D.C. sovereignty and youth in the criminal justice system warned that his rhetoric would only legitimize the administration’s efforts to incarcerate D.C. youth on a large scale, and that there is no evidence teen curfews reduce violent crime. Instead, they say, such curfews would increase the rates of arrest and harassment, particularly of Black teens, at a time when the city is swarming with federal agents. 

“Kenyan McDuffie is much more buying into the Trump administration’s playbook of lock-them-up and using fear to gain support,” said Dodds. “It’s so frustrating for our elected leaders … to obey in advance and go out of their way to press for a youth curfew.”

Trump personally weighed in on the race on Thursday, threatening to “take back Washington, run it on the federal basis,” if Lewis George were elected.

The theory in favor of juvenile curfews is that if you deter teens from gathering, they’ll have fewer opportunities to commit crime. But that relies on a misconception, said Riya Saha Shah, chief executive officer of the Juvenile Law Center.

“Social science research has shown us that [curfews] are actually not effective at reducing crime or victimization,” said Shah. “It could result in increased crime or displaced crime in different places or at different hours of the day.” 

In 2015, research on juvenile curfews in D.C. found that they actually increased rates of gun violence among youth. Researchers theorized that the emptier streets that resulted from curfew policies could make “remaining offenders more comfortable opening fire.” 

While juvenile curfews do not reduce crime, Shah said, they do increase run-ins with police, particularly for Black and brown children. A 2011 study found that African American youths were 269 percent more likely to be arrested for violating curfew laws than white ones. The laws can also end up criminalizing teenagers for being unhoused, and an estimated 10,000 children in D.C.  experience housing insecurity or homelessness every year. 

“They may be brought into a system by virtue simply that they don’t have the ability to go home,” Shah said.

In D.C., where nearly 20 federal agencies have been deployed, these types of curfews pose immense risks for teens. “There are so many different kinds of law enforcement all over the city now,” said Shah. “It really increases the likelihood that children will be arrested.”   

“There are so many different kinds of law enforcement all over the city now. It really increases the likelihood that children will be arrested.”   

In his letter to the City Council urging extended youth curfews, McDuffie argued the curfews were necessary to protect “Home Rule,” the 1970s law that gave Washington, D.C., relative independence from the federal government. 

“President Donald Trump has deployed the National Guard on D.C. streets and floated proposals to try 14-year-olds as adults. Every week that this Council allows curfew authority to lapse, it hands the White House and its allies fresh evidence for that narrative and justification for federal intervention,” he wrote. 

Lewis George, by contrast, has emphasized that her primary objection to the curfew extension is the intense presence of federal law enforcement in the city.

Despite the lack of evidence to support the idea that teen curfews lower violent crime rates, the policy is overwhelmingly popular with D.C. voters. A Washington Post-Schar School poll found that 71 percent of voters supported imposing curfews in certain parts of the city at night.

Though her current position is unpopular, Lewis George has continued to surge in the polls, leading McDuffie by 11 points in the same poll. Internal numbers shared with The Intercept have her up further. 

But Lewis George has not done as well as her opponent with Black voters, a key constituency in the capital sometimes known as Chocolate City. In the Washington Post-Schar School poll, she trailed McDuffie by 5 points with Black voters. A spokesperson for her campaign said that Lewis George was proud of the multiracial coalition she had built, and argued that she does best in the most racially diverse areas of the city. 

The relationship between race and power is complicated in Washington D.C. Rapid gentrification has pushed out much of the city’s Black population, displacing an estimated 20,000 between 2000 and 2013. Between 2000 and 2020 Black residents went from being 59 percent of the population to 41 percent. And yet, the city’s political leadership has largely remained Black — it’s had a Black mayor since Home Rule was established. 

“There’s an element of disappointment with the Democrats in the city.”

Kurtis Hagans, chair of Metro DC DSA, which endorsed Lewis George, said it is understandable that people with long-standing ties to the city would be skeptical of someone promising change at the scale Lewis George is calling for. She has pledged to build 72,000 new homes in five years to deal with the city’s housing affordability crisis — double the goals set by McDuffie and Bowser; called for stronger labor protections; promised to vigorously enforce wage theft laws; and vowed to establish a Federal Workforce Transition Center to retrain the thousands of federal workers who were laid off by the Trump administration.

Lewis George strongly outperforms with voters 18-39, and she does the worst with voters 65 and older

“There’s an element of disappointment with the Democrats in the city, folks who have before promised big change and transformative change, and then have let them down,” said Hagans, referencing previous mayors Vincent Gray and Adrian Fenty. “I can imagine that’s like, OK, well, at least we know Bowser.” 

Mayor Bowser has not officially endorsed a candidate, but she has clearly made known her preference for McDuffie, who has benefited from her coalition of more centrist Democrats and the city’s business community. 

In Dodds’s view, Bowser has spent much of her final term in office attempting to appease Trump with little to show for it. 

“If appeasement was working,” she said, “we wouldn’t be getting attacked, and they wouldn’t be sending in troops, and they wouldn’t be escalating law enforcement, and they wouldn’t be overturning our laws, and they wouldn’t be attempting to destabilize our budget. But they are still attempting to do all of that, so what good has appeasement gotten us?” 

She noted that crime rates had been declining for two years and that the Trump administration still deployed the National Guard and federalized the police force in August 2025. A month later, Trump pushed a House bill to charge children as young as 14 as adults. 

Alignment between local leaders and the White House on pushing carceral policies predates Home Rule. 

In “Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America,” scholar James Forman explains how many Black leaders in Washington and elsewhere were complicit in pushing the carceral policies of the 1970s, including teen curfews, that eventually led to the mass incarceration of Black Americans. 

As Forman and scholars like Elizabeth Hinton have noted, those leaders were asking for support services alongside these carceral policies, as McDuffie is doing now. But those large-scale investments failed to materialize. Instead, their communities were ravaged by policing and mass incarceration policies that tore families apart

Lewis George, who initially ran for her council seat on a platform of divesting from the police, is no stranger to attacks calling her soft on crime. But for some it’s disappointing to see those same attacks coming from McDuffie, who previously was largely aligned with Lewis George on issues of criminal justice. 

McDuffie had previously expressed skepticism over the emergency teen curfews, though he and Lewis George both voted in favor.

“The research has shown that curfews do not prevent violence,” McDuffie said at a City Council meeting last year

McDuffie has taken progressive actions on policing in the past. In 2020, amid heightened political energy around police brutality and broader calls to defund the police, McDuffie voted to pull $15 million from the Metropolitan Police Department’s budget. And in 2021, he said that “we need to redirect funding away from the police department.”

Dodds said it concerned her that McDuffie’s campaign appeared to be capitalizing on D.C. residents’ fears. She argued that’s what the Trump administration wants.

“They very much want us to feel afraid of young people and of Black children in ways that are inherently racist,” said Dodds, “because when we feel afraid, we fight each other instead of fighting for one another.” 

SpaceX is now a public company valued for its AI potential, so what comes next?

0
spacex-is-now-a-public-company-valued-for-its-ai-potential,-so-what-comes-next?
SpaceX is now a public company valued for its AI potential, so what comes next?

Space Exploration Technologies, better known simply as SpaceX, became a publicly traded company on Friday nearly a quarter of a century after it was founded.

The company began trading on the Nasdaq exchange in New York City at $135 a share, valuing SpaceX at nearly $1.8 trillion. By the end of the trading day the company’s shares were selling at $160.95, a respectable increase of more than 19 percent.

On paper, SpaceX founder Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire, with his personal stake in the company valued at more than $700 billion. Because of the company’s stock options plan, thousands of current and former employees became overnight millionaires. Employees at SpaceX have worked remarkably hard over the last 24 years, and now they will be richly compensated for having done so.

SpaceX now stands as one of a handful of the most valuable companies in the world. Should it be? There is broad disagreement about whether SpaceX is fool’s gold with its sky-high valuation, or represents a valuable opportunity to finally own a piece of a dominant space company that could some day command the business of data centers in orbit.

SpaceX is now largely an AI company

One thing is clear: SpaceX is now subject to significant public disclosures, and it will conduct much more of its business in the public eye. Although Musk retains complete autonomy in terms of ownership and voting rights, he will now be beholden to shareholders in a very important way: the price of his company’s stock.

Most shareholders bought SpaceX stock today not to be part of a the company’s long-term plans to settle Mars, or to help NASA land humans on the Moon. Certainly, some space enthusiasts did. However, most people invest in stocks to make money.

As SpaceX made clear in its S-1 document filed in May, however, the company’s value does not lie in its “space-enabled solutions” or its Starlink internet constellation. As part of its “total addressable market,” the company views these as comprising less than 7 percent of its value.

Rather, Musk and SpaceX see the majority of its value in providing AI services, mostly from space, and primarily for enterprise applications. If investors agree that’s where the vast majority of the company’s profit lies, it is where they will want to see SpaceX put its time and resources.

So as of today, SpaceX is owned by investors who largely want to see it make money; to reach its enormous valuation, it must make that money through orbital data centers. This is a sobering thought for NASA, which was the company’s most important backer during its early years when bankruptcy was never too far away.

Even a decade ago, a majority of the value of SpaceX’s contracts were coming from NASA and other US government entities. Since then, however, revenues from Starlink have begun to significantly outstrip NASA’s contracts, and this will likely become even more true in the future.

How much of a priority is Artemis?

NASA relies on SpaceX for so much right now: flying its astronauts and most important science payloads into space, and playing an important part in the Artemis campaign. But the $2.9 billion contract NASA signed with SpaceX in 2021 to build a Human Landing System for the Moon program is now regularly dwarfed by the AI compute contracts SpaceX is signing with companies like Anthropic and Google, which are worth tens of billions of dollars.

For SpaceX, the money (at least in the near term) is in AI—it is not in NASA government contracts. Yet NASA is desperate for SpaceX to begin delivering on critical milestones for the Artemis Program in the coming months and develop the capacity to land humans on the Moon.

Key to all of the work for NASA is the massive Starship rocket, and how SpaceX will prioritize its further development. The large rocket appears to be close to reaching operational status, with the ability to put about 100 metric tons into low-Earth orbit. Assuming that happens in the coming months, how will SpaceX use its Starship launches? Will it spend its energies on preparing and launching a critical refueling demonstration in orbit, which will require back-to-back Starship launches? Will it fill up a lander prototype next year, which will mean a dozen or more tanker flights simply to enable an uncrewed lunar landing test for NASA?

Or will the company focus on putting profit-making Starlink satellites into orbit, followed by critical tests of data center satellites? In short, will it follow the money?

It’s a valid question, because investors will be watching closely.

Trillionaire welfare baby Elon Musk is born

0
trillionaire-welfare-baby-elon-musk-is-born
Trillionaire welfare baby Elon Musk is born

SpaceX goes public Friday (June 12) at around US$1.7 trillion. Elon Musk owns enough SpaceX stock that, on top of everything else he holds, Musk becomes the first person in human history to cross the trillion-dollar line. The coverage will be all hype. Unprecedented. A genius. Where’s he going next? What does the future hold?

It wasn’t like Elon Musk invented some amazing capacity. He didn’t do something transformational for the world. He didn’t harness electricity. He didn’t invent the transistor. He didn’t invent rocket flight. He didn’t invent satellite technology. He didn’t even make them much better.

What he did was learn how to game the system. He took what America built through generations of investment and generations of hard work and turned it into a profit center for himself. He took American loans, American intellectual property, American space, American airwaves, and turned them into a wealth engine for one man.

Tesla exists because of a half-billion-dollar loan from the American government, handed over in 2010 when the banks wouldn’t touch him. The deal gave the government the right to buy three million shares of Tesla stock at a locked-in cheap price. That was our cut if the company took off.

The company took off, and Musk rushed to pay the loan back nine years early, because under the deal, early repayment canceled the government’s shares. They were worth about $270 million the week he wired the money, and Tesla’s stock has multiplied many times over since. The press called the repayment a triumph. We got our money back with a little interest, and he kept the stock the American people were due.

SpaceX is the same story just bigger. In a purely capitalist system, SpaceX wouldn’t exist. It would’ve died in 2008. The company was broke, three rockets had failed, and Musk was burning the last of his money.

Then NASA wrote a $1.6 billion contract for cargo runs to the space station, and that money built the Falcon 9. The people who study this industry say it plainly. NASA is what saved the company when it was on the brink of bankruptcy.

And NASA by then was an agency we’d been squeezing since the 1980s. We decided, instead of doing things ourselves as a nation, instead of demanding the lion’s share of what we’d developed over sixty years of rocketry and satellites and spaceflight, that we’d hand it off to billionaires and let them compete for the contracts.

SpaceX now holds around $22 billion in federal contracts. Across the whole Musk empire the public money runs closer to $38 billion. The launch pads, the airwaves, the satellites overhead, the early customers, the technology our space program spent two generations developing. He built on all of it, and we kept no share of it.

I’m not saying SpaceX is bad at rockets. The rockets work. But outbidding Boeing and Lockheed, the most bloated contractors in America, is a low bar, and he cleared it with technology our space program developed, on contracts we paid for. And China is proving right now that none of it was one man’s miracle.

They’re behind on reusable rockets and behind on launch rates, sure. They’re also closing fast, as a national project, with state companies and state-backed startups and satellite constellations in the tens of thousands. Getting to space is something a country can decide to build and own. We decided to hand it to one man instead.

The rest of his fortune sits in Tesla, and that deal is even worse. Tesla is worth more than every other major carmaker on the planet combined. Toyota, BYD, GM, Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, all of them together, still short of Tesla. Plenty of those companies earn more actual profit than Tesla does.

Toyota alone makes several times Tesla’s money. The valuation isn’t a measure of the business. It’s an obvious bubble, one of those bubbles people will look back on like the tulip bubble and ask how anybody ever believed it.

Meanwhile the tariffs are the only reason Chinese carmakers aren’t whipping us in our own market. BYD passed Tesla as the biggest seller of electric cars in the world, and it makes a good one for around ten thousand dollars. Musk has admitted himself that without trade barriers, Chinese automakers would demolish most of their rivals.

The tariff wall protects the whole American industry, and Tesla is its single biggest beneficiary. We’re babying these companies instead of pushing them to get better, and we’re not taking a dime of ownership while we do it.

They’ll tell you the wall is national security. It isn’t. We haven’t kept our means of production. We don’t make enough steel even for ourselves, and that’s while we’re barely building anything.

Start building at scale again and we’d be importing even more of it. We can’t build transmission lines or move energy around this country. We’ve lost the machine tools. We shipped the means of production to China and other countries, and now we’re handing what’s left to a handful of billionaires.

National security would be making these companies better. It would be forcing them to share the patents we paid to develop. It would be forcing a universal charger. It would be making them earn their money through quality production that competes on the open market, not through bubble valuations.

Then they handed him our retirement accounts. When a company joins a major stock index, every fund tracking that index has to buy it. Nobody decides the company is worth the money. The rule says buy. So every two weeks tens of millions in paychecks pour in on autopilot. SpaceX wanted that money sooner than the rules allow, because Elon Musk is special, apparently.

His advisers pushed the index providers to change the rules, and two of the three folded. Nasdaq rewrote its policy so a company like SpaceX can join in 15 trading days instead of three months. Russell cut its wait to five. Somewhere around $22 to $27 billion in automatic buying will hit a stock with almost no shares actually trading. The S&P 500, the biggest index of them all, refused.

It said earn your way in, a company that loses money doesn’t qualify. One gatekeeper said no. Two said yes. The rules got bent for him, and that’s not speculation. It happened. One more handout, except this time the money is yours, pulled out of your paycheck and pointed at his stock whether the price makes sense or not.

We’ve watched this movie before. Amazon went a decade without real profits and the market funded it anyway, because everyone could see the government handing it advantage after advantage.

Bezos planted the company in Washington State to dodge sales tax, and for 20 years Amazon skirted sales taxes across most of the country, a built-in discount on every order that local stores couldn’t match, because they had to charge the tax. It crushed them. Then cities lined up to hand the richest man alive billions more in breaks for a headquarters. We supported these guys, who then took everything and ran.

Now we’ve created a class of men who hold more wealth than many states. Musk holds more than many countries. That concentration gives one human incomprehensible power, and we will hand him more of it every year. We outsourced our production to China. Now we’re outsourcing our state itself to a few men, who just sub it back out to us.

The answer is not a wealth tax. Tax Musk and Bezos and Zuckerberg, pull the money into the government, push it back into broken systems, and you haven’t restructured a thing. Pull wealth from Musk and pour it into a healthcare system that already swallows a huge percentage of dollars before they reach a patient, and you don’t get better health or longer lives. You get more valuable healthcare companies.

Pull it into housing allowances and down payment assistance, and you don’t get cheaper homes. You push the prices up, hand the gain to private equity firms that already own the housing, and make it harder for the next family that wants to own a home. A wealth tax spreads a little money around the top and leaves the same people owning the same things.

It doesn’t move power. Tax the oligarchy and the money flows back as rent to the same oligarchs, the medical ones, the housing ones, the tech ones, and we get nothing for it. No power, no stability, no better income. We get a company town as a national economy.

The answer is ownership. Take back a stake in what was built with our money, our research, our protection. And before anyone says it can’t be done, Donald Trump has shown us it’s possible. His administration has taken a 10% stake in Intel, stakes in lithium and rare earth companies, and a golden share in US Steel. The taboo is broken. The government demanding equity for its support is now just a thing that happens.

But the golden share in US Steel is veto power with no money in it, a say with no stake. The Intel shares are also money with no say. None of it comes with the part that matters, which is input on where these companies go and what they do with the resources we let them use.

We protect their intellectual property, most of which we developed. We protect their markets. We give them our military, our courts, our FBI, a stable country to get rich in. And what we’re getting back is poorer and sicker, with a shrinking share of the things that are ours.

Real public ownership means both. The profits and the say-so, together, the demands any investor would make. When the public builds the thing, the public owns a piece of the thing. Call it American Equity. We knew how to do this. The New Deal did it. The Arsenal of Democracy did it.

The country that built the Transcontinental Railroad and the New York City subway did it. That system, the one Hamilton started with public credit behind American manufacturing, is the system China runs today. They took our playbook. We traded it for stock market rackets.

We can raise hospitals. We can send rockets into space. We can launch satellites, and we can do it for ourselves. There’s nothing particularly amazing about Elon Musk except his willingness to fleece the American people out of what’s theirs. So stop. Stop handing him the contracts. Strip the special treatment. Claw back the intellectual property and the advantages we built for him, and go to the moon ourselves again.

There’s a cycle to this. Countries in the spot we’re in generally stop existing. Not because they lack potential. Not because they have nothing worth producing. They stop existing because they fail to come together and remove the rot, the corruption, the inequality and demand accountability from the people who’ve dodged it the longest. We’re at the part of the cycle where we take our stuff back, or we fail.

Today they crown the first trillionaire. They’ll say he earned it. The truth is simpler and uglier. He’s a welfare trillionaire. Half a billion in government loans, tens of billions in government contracts, sixty years of our research. We made him.

And a wealth tax won’t unmake him, because taxing the mega oligarch just funds the baby oligarchs. The only way to reclaim the power they’ve taken from us is to take back some of what’s ours, some of our capacity, some of our infrastructure, our share of the things we paid to build. 

Bernie Sanders said it this week, the public should own half of the big AI companies. We need to be thinking a lot more along those lines. If we want homes people can afford, healthcare that doesn’t bankrupt us, and work that pays, it starts with owning things again.

Corbin Trent is an Appalachian-born general contractor and political organizer. He co-founded Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, helped recruit AOC, and served as her first communications director. He publishes AmericasUndoing.com, a project exposing America’s economic decline and calling for bold, public-led rebuilding. Find morework on his TikTokYouTube and Facebook channels.

Controversial FISA spying law expires tonight. The spying will continue.

0
controversial-fisa-spying-law-expires-tonight-the-spying-will-continue.
Controversial FISA spying law expires tonight. The spying will continue.

Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is set to expire at midnight tonight after Congress failed to pass an extension of the controversial spying law. But that doesn’t mean the government’s spying powers will disappear.

Surveillance under Section 702 of FISA “operates under yearlong certifications approved by the FISA Court,” the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law explained this week. The current certification will remain in place until March 2027 under the yearlong certification issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on March 17, 2026.

“In order to pressure members to accept a bill without meaningful reforms, surveillance hawks are claiming that Section 702 surveillance will ‘go dark’ on June 12 if Congress hasn’t renewed the law,” the Brennan Center said. “Contrary to that claim, Congress planned for potential lapses and made very clear that Section 702 surveillance may continue under existing certifications even if the statute sunsets. Members must not be fearmongered into passing a reauthorization without protecting Americans from warrantless government access to their private communications.”

The Cato Institute concurs, with senior fellow Patrick Eddington writing that “Section 702 operates under annual programmatic certifications approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), together with the directives served on providers under them. Under the FISA Amendments Act’s transition provision, acquisitions authorized by certifications and directives in effect at the moment of sunset may continue until those certifications expire.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said that “government surveillance activities will continue unchanged” after Friday, according to CBS News. “Everything that’s already been authorized and certified is already in motion, and current FISA authorizations will continue unaffected, at least through March 17, 2027,” he said.

Americans’ messages swept up in FISA surveillance

Title VII, including Section 702, was added to the FISA law in 2008. It was last reauthorized in 2024 when President Biden signed a bill to continue and expand warrantless surveillance under Section 702.

“FISA Section 702 allows US intelligence agencies to spy on foreign targets without a warrant, but the practice constantly sweeps up the communications of Americans who are in contact with people outside of the country,” the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said yesterday. “It’s a loophole that government agencies have increasingly exploited to surveil Americans without having to obtain permission from the court.”

In March, two Democrats and two Republicans opposed to the law’s broad spying authority introduced a bill to limit the government’s ability to obtain Americans’ private communications without a warrant. This week, lawmakers failed to pass even a short-term extension of FISA amid disputes over proposed surveillance reforms and President Trump choosing Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence. Pulte has no experience in national security; he previously led the Federal Housing Finance Agency and used the post to accuse Trump critics of mortgage fraud.

While some Republicans have sought reforms of FISA, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told Politico that “anybody who votes ‘no’ is casting a dangerous vote to put American lives at risk.”

Arguments that surveillance efforts could suffer from the law’s expiration even before March 2027 require some speculation. As NPR writes, electronic communications service providers “will still be legally required to turn over material to intelligence agencies. Still, some lawmakers worry that the companies compelled to turn over communications may attempt to challenge the law in court, possibly leading to an indeterminately long window during which they stop providing intel.”

FISA not the only US spying authority

House members left for a recess after yesterday’s attempts to extend the law. No further House votes are expected until June 23. While there’s plenty of time between now and March 2027 to finalize a FISA extension, the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that the government has other spying authority it can use even if no deal is struck.

“If Section 702 does stay expired past March 2027, the United States government will likely revert to using other programs and authorities to justify the surveillance of overseas national security targets, namely 12333, a shadowy executive order from the 1980s that gives the US government nearly unlimited power to spy on people overseas,” the EFF said.

Executive Order 12333 isn’t merely an alternative spying power, wrote Eddington, who focuses on homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute. The order accounts for more intelligence than Section 702, he wrote.

“The overwhelming bulk of overseas signals intelligence never depended on Section 702 in the first place,” Eddington wrote. “It runs under Executive Order 12333, the daily operating charter for the executive branch’s intelligence components, which requires no statute and no FISC order. A Title VII lapse removes not one 12333 collection platform.”

European allies push Moscow for talks as Crimea fuel crisis deepens

0
european-allies-push-moscow-for-talks-as-crimea-fuel-crisis-deepens
European allies push Moscow for talks as Crimea fuel crisis deepens


Ambassadors from the UK, France and Germany – the so-called E3 group – have urged Russia to enter direct negotiations with Kyiv during a rare meeting at the Russian foreign ministry in Moscow. The talks follow a London summit between the three European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, where renewed diplomatic efforts were discussed.

In a joint statement, the E3 said they conveyed support for Zelenskyy’s call for direct Russia–Ukraine talks. Moscow, however, accused the ambassadors of pursuing a “destructive” policy and insisted Western states were prolonging the war.

Diplomatic contacts between European capitals and Moscow have remained limited since the invasion, with Russia often preferring direct engagement with the United States rather than European intermediaries.

Meanwhile, the conflict on the ground continues to escalate. Ukrainian forces have intensified strikes on Russian supply routes leading into occupied Crimea, severely disrupting logistics and fuel deliveries. Ukrainian drone attacks have damaged key bridges and transport corridors, with officials reporting a significant drop in military traffic along major routes.

Fuel shortages have now emerged across Crimea, with stations running dry and long queues reported in several cities after repeated strikes on supply lines. Russian-installed authorities have acknowledged disruptions to deliveries.

Elsewhere, both sides reported casualties in cross-border strikes, while Ukraine says it has increased grain exports despite continued attacks on its rail infrastructure.

via The Guardian

Reading Marjane Satrapi’s comic book Persepolis during Iran war

0
reading-marjane-satrapi’s-comic-book-persepolis-during-iran war
Reading Marjane Satrapi’s comic book Persepolis during Iran war

Comic book author Marjane Satrapi passed away last week in Paris at age 56, just before conflict between Israel and her native Iran re-erupted. While her work has enjoyed enduring fame, the present conflict has made it more relevant than ever before.

Satrapi’s work is unique for how it weaves her own personal story with Iran’s history and politics. In her comics and film Persepolis, for instance, there is a scene where the Iranian officer Reza Khan overthrows the Qajar Shah after World War I, seeking to establish a secular republic. The British, who had installed monarchies in Iraq and Jordan, encouraged him instead to declare himself Shah in 1925. This gave rise to the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran, which would in turn be overthrown during the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Satrapi’s characters inhabit these historical moments. They are influenced by them, and their lives are determined by their outcomes. Her stories are built on a deep understanding of Iranian resentment of foreign interference, told through a bold, monochrome comic format. But they haven’t always been to everyone’s liking.

Polarised opinions

Her comic Persepolis in particular is not without controversy. Critics claim it contains historical inaccuracies, but this expectation of total accuracy is a common misunderstanding of Satrapi. She was not a historian. She was an author who drew on her own experiences of life both within Iran and outside it.

Cover of the book Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi. Photo: BalkansCat

I have first-hand experience of the controversy her work can cause. When I was teaching a history of Iran class at Bogazici University in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2007, I assigned Persepolis. Students affiliated with the campus Communist party objected to my having assigned the comic. They argued that, because much of Persepolis highlights religious oppression under the Islamic Republic, I had included it to argue surreptitiously for regime change.

This was not the case. I assigned it for the reasons a teacher assigns any text: because it was relevant to the subject, it was artistically worthwhile and I knew it inside out.

But it didn’t matter. Protests outside my classroom endured to the point where I was eventually forced to resign, and left the country.

Personal, political, historical

Persepolis begins with the revolution, when Marjane’s father, Ebi, tells his daughter why they took to the streets to fight: “2,500 years of tyranny and submission. First our own emperors. Then the Arab invasion from the west. Followed by the Mongolian invasion from the East. And finally modern imperialism.”

By “modern imperialism,” he is referring not just to British support for Reza Shah Pahlavi’s ascension in 1925 but to a litany of foreign meddling in Iran of which that was the start. After bringing the Shah to power, the British overthrew him during World War II due to his pro-German leanings, replacing him with his pliant younger son, Mohammad Reza. After an internal coup led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, MI6 and the CIA reinstalled Mohammad Reza.

A black and white comic strip.
Satrapi’s comics tell the story of foreign influence throughout Iran’s history. Marjane Satrapi/Penguin Random House

From then on, the US provided the newly reinstated shah with all manner of weapons to counter the neighboring Soviets during the Cold War. Those included F-14s, the most advanced American fighter jets at the time. US military advisors and soldiers were present on Iranian soil, contributing further to the nationalist sentiment that led to the 1979 revolution and the overthrow of the monarchy.

Like the Russian Revolution, the Iranian Revolution led to an overthrow of a monarch. But just as it took time, effort and violence for the Bolsheviks to seize and retain power, the path to power for Khomeini’s Islamic Republicans – and for the Iranian people – was not smooth.

Persepolis shows us what it was like to come of age during this period, when Khomeini’s faction consolidated power as a result of the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September 1980. The resulting war led to a resurgence of Iranian nationalism and support for the republic.

‘Ey Iran’

During the early years of the Iran-Iraq War, Marjane remembers hearing the song “Ey Iran” on Iranian state radio, to accompany the news that Iran’s F-14 fleet had raided Iraq in retaliation for bombing Tehran and other locations.

But the song was the anthem neither of the monarchy nor of the Islamic Republic of 1979. Its origins date back to the second world war, when American troops entered Iran, joining British and Soviet forces who had invaded the country to prevent it from falling into German hands.

The presence of so many foreign troops on Iranian soil led to a nationalist backlash among the Iranians. “Ey Iran” was written by poet Hossein Gol-e-Golab after he witnessed an American soldier beating an Iranian greengrocer. Its opening lines are:

Oh Iran, oh bejewelled land

Oh, your soil is the wellspring of the arts

Far from you may the thoughts of evil be

May you remain lasting and eternal

Oh enemy, if you are of stone, I’m of iron

May my life be sacrificed for my pure motherland

Out of Iran’s fleet of 79 F-14s, one was flown by the father of Marjane’s school friend, who died in the attack, fulfilling the last line of the song playing on the radio to celebrate the raid.

She does not shy away from the complex, awkward mark the twentieth century left on the Iranian people. She describes how her own father – a leftist who initially sought the overthrow of the shah only to end up resenting the formation of the Islamic Republic – would shed tears upon hearing the song.

To this very day, any Iranian student of mine who hears the song becomes tearful. If one encounter with an American soldier during the Second World War created such an enduring artistic legacy, we can only wonder what the outcome will be of the latest American war with Iran.

While the ubiquitous words and melody of “Ey Iran” emerged from the tumult of the 1940s, Perspolis was the product of the 1980 invasion and the early days of the Islamic Republic. Satrapi’s unique and irreplaceable talent lay in synthesising so many pieces of her own lived experience – the invasion, multiple regime changes, songs, stories, wars – and capturing them in striking black and white.

Ibrahim Al-Marashi is an adjunct professor, IE School of Humanities, IE University; California State University San Marcos.

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

Ben Stiller Slammed for Walking Past ‘Overdosing’ Homeless Man (Video)

0
ben-stiller-slammed-for-walking-past-‘overdosing’-homeless-man-(video)
Ben Stiller Slammed for Walking Past ‘Overdosing’ Homeless Man (Video)


Ben Stiller is catching heat after a video showed the Hollywood star strolling past a shirtless homeless man slumped on a New York City sidewalk as he headed into Madison Square Garden for a prime seat at the Knicks game.

The Meet the Parents actor, 60, was filmed arriving more than four hours before tipoff Wednesday night for Game 4 of the NBA Finals between the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs.

In the clip posted by WABC sports anchor Ryan Field, Stiller is seen smiling, waving and shaking hands with a fan while walking right by the man on the ground. The footage quickly lit up social media, with critics accusing the outspoken liberal actor of ignoring the very kind of crisis he has publicly urged others to care about.

“Ben Stiller arrived more than 4 hours before tipoff once again,” Field wrote alongside the video.

The backlash was swift.

“This is America. Rich celebrity just walks past a guy overdosing on fentanyl,” one X user wrote.

Another blasted the scene as a perfect snapshot of modern celebrity privilege, writing: “A celeb casually walking by a fentanyl addict on his way to a $100,000 courtside ticket is SO 2026.”

It is not clear from the video what condition the man was in, or whether Stiller noticed the severity of the situation as he walked by.

Still, the clip struck a nerve because Stiller has previously spoken out about homelessness. In 2016, he supported New York City’s Homeless Outreach Population Estimate campaign and even urged New Yorkers to volunteer.

“Are you enjoying home right now? Thousands of others can’t,” Stiller said in a 2016 video, according to the Daily News.

The Zoolander star has also been involved with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as a goodwill ambassador, advocating for people displaced from their homes around the world.

In 2022, Stiller traveled to Ukraine and met with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, telling the wartime leader, “You’re my hero.”

But critics say the Madison Square Garden clip showed a very different kind of reality — one where a suffering man on the street was passed by as celebrities made their way to luxury seats.

Stiller has become a familiar face at Knicks games, often shown cheering from high-profile seats near the court. In a pre-game interview with ESPN, he pushed back on the idea that he holds a season ticket.

“I don’t have a season ticket. I just get the tickets,” Stiller said. “The celebrities… the Knicks give us tickets.”

That comment only added more fuel online, where detractors slammed the image of a wealthy star heading to VIP seats while a man lay on the sidewalk just steps away.

Stiller has not publicly addressed the backlash.

Iran’s 14-Point Proposal Demands $300 Billion ‘Recovery Plan,’ Complete Troop Withdrawal, Leaves Missile Program Off the Table

0
iran’s-14-point-proposal-demands-$300-billion-‘recovery-plan,’-complete-troop-withdrawal,-leaves-missile-program-off-the-table
Iran’s 14-Point Proposal Demands $300 Billion ‘Recovery Plan,’ Complete Troop Withdrawal, Leaves Missile Program Off the Table


Iranian media outlets close to Tehran’s negotiating team have published details of a reported 14-point draft framework that would govern a potential agreement between the United States and Iran on sanctions, regional security and nuclear issues. 

A notable feature of the reported proposal is the absence of any provisions addressing Iran’s ballistic missile program. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly told its ally, the United States, that any acceptable agreement must address both Iran’s nuclear activities and its missile capabilities. 

The framework also reportedly calls for a $300 billion economic recovery and reconstruction package for Iran, despite repeated US statements rejecting the idea of paying reparations to Tehran. 

Separately, a pro-Hezbollah media outlet reported that the provision concerning the withdrawal of foreign forces from areas surrounding Iran could be interpreted to include demands that Israel abandon its remaining strategic positions in Lebanon. 

According to Mehr, the proposal is still being reviewed by Iranian authorities and has not yet received final approval. The framework reportedly combines immediate confidence-building measures with a longer-term negotiating process aimed at reaching a final nuclear agreement. 

The reported provisions are: 

1. Ceasefire across regional fronts

An immediate and permanent ceasefire would take effect on multiple fronts, including Lebanon.

2. US commitment to respect Iranian sovereignty

Washington would pledge not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

3. Removal of naval restrictions

Naval measures imposed on Iran would be lifted within 30 days

4. Reduction of US military presence near Iran

American forces would be withdrawn or reduced in areas Tehran considers strategically sensitive.

5. Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz

The waterway would resume normal operations within 30 days under arrangements agreed with Iran.

6. Suspension of energy sanctions

Restrictions on Iranian oil, petrochemical and related exports would be removed.

7. Economic recovery package

The United States and allied countries would provide at least $300 billion in reconstruction and development assistance.

8. Sixty days of nuclear negotiations

A two-month negotiating period would be established to reach a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and the removal of sanctions imposed by the United States, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

9. Reaffirmation of non-proliferation commitments

Iran would formally reaffirm its adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and restate that it does not seek nuclear weapons.

10. No additional pressure during talks 

The United States would refrain from increasing troop deployments in the region or imposing new sanctions while negotiations continue.

11. Release of frozen Iranian funds

A total of $24 billion in Iranian assets frozen abroad would be released, with half made available before final negotiations begin.

12. Monitoring and verification mechanism

A system would be established to oversee compliance with commitments undertaken by both parties.

13. United Nations ratification

Any final agreement would require approval through a United Nations Security Council resolution.

14. Conditions and scope of final negotiations

Final negotiations would not begin until half of Iran’s frozen funds had been released, energy sanctions had been suspended and naval restrictions had been lifted. The talks would focus on nuclear issues, sanctions and economic recovery, while Iran’s ballistic missile program and support for regional proxy groups would remain outside the scope of the negotiations. 

 

 

PeopleSoft 0-day affecting hundreds of organizations steals gigabytes of data

0
peoplesoft-0-day-affecting-hundreds-of-organizations-steals-gigabytes-of-data
PeopleSoft 0-day affecting hundreds of organizations steals gigabytes of data

One of the world’s most active ransomware groups exploited a critical vulnerability in Oracle’s PeopleSoft software suite and used it to target about 100 customers and extort at least one of them to pay up in exchange for not leaking stolen data, researchers said.

The group, tracked as ShinyHunters, had been exploiting the PeopleSoft vulnerability for more than two weeks before Oracle flagged it. CVE-2026-35273, as the vulnerability is tracked, carries a severity rating of 9.8 out of 10, making the former zero-day one of the year’s most critical vulnerabilities to be exploited.

Google’s Mandiant security team said it’s an SSRF (server-side request forgery), a vulnerability that allows attackers to send requests from a susceptible server to systems used by the targeted organization. Oracle said the SSRF is remotely exploitable, and the company has issued a stopgap mitigation but has yet to fully patch the flaw. Google has confirmed that victims are receiving extortion demands.

9.8 0-day exploited for 2 weeks

The University of Nottingham confirmed on Wednesday that it was the victim of a hack that put a “significant” amount of student data in the hands of a threat actor. The confirmation came after ShinyHunters claimed the university was one of its recent victims and published gigabytes of data it claimed to have stolen in the hack.

Mandiant said ShinyHunters has been exploiting the vulnerability since May 27. As of Wednesday, the group had targeted roughly 300 endpoints belonging to 100 user organizations. About 68 percent of the organizations operated within the higher education sector. A researcher said on Tuesday that the group responsible had “exposed several directories revealing ongoing targeting of PeopleSoft.” The attackers also left available a staging server containing tools used in the attack.

“While several organizations successfully blocked the activity or remediated the vulnerabilities, others experienced compromise, resulting in stolen data being published on the ShinyHunters DLS,” Mandiant said. (DLS is short for data leak site.)

An analysis of a bash script left in the staging environment shows the attackers performed reconnaissance on compromised organizations, including mapping the PeopleSoft configurations, viewing process scheduler, and WebLogic server XML configurations. Eventually, the threat actors established an outbound SSH connection to 176.120.22.24, the IP address hosting ShinyHunters’ DLS. The stolen data was first compressed using the zstd tool. The DLS claimed to have recovered 48GB of data from a single victim.

A partially redacted section of the ShinyHunters’ DLS.

A partially redacted section of the ShinyHunters’ DLS. Credit: Mandiant

ShinyHunters has been active since at least 2019. Over the past several years, it has executed scores of hacks against some of the world’s largest companies, affecting millions of people downstream. A small sample of victims includes Ticketmaster (through the breach of Snowflake, which hosted the data), Spain’s biggest bank, Santander, and Salesforce (and, through it, Google and, reportedly, many other companies). ShinyHunters uses various techniques to gain initial access, including exploiting cloud misconfigurations and software vulnerabilities, stealing OAuth tokens, supply chain attacks, voice phishing, and other forms of social engineering.

Mandiant and Rapid7 are providing detailed indicators of compromise. They are also advising PeopleSoft customers on the steps they should take immediately. Given ShinyHunters’ success rate, all PeopleSoft users would do well to heed the calls.

What’s driving up your expenses? Many Americans say climate change.

0
what’s-driving-up-your-expenses?-many-americans-say-climate-change.
What’s driving up your expenses? Many Americans say climate change.

For decades, American politicians have been slow to take on climate change and curb carbon dioxide emissions, under the assumption that doing so might pass along costs to their voters. Ironically, their failure to rein in fossil fuel emissions has yielded the same result: Expenses for everyday Americans have soared as a result of more extreme flooding, fires, and heat.

“What’s striking is that already, households are bearing serious costs,” said Kimberly Clausing, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She co-authored a paper from earlier this year finding that families were paying between $400 and $900 more each year because of the effects of climate change, with the costs above $1,300 in the 10 percent hardest-hit counties, many of them found in Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, Colorado, and California. 

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that the annual inflation rate reached 4.2 percent in May, the highest rate in three years. Though the war in Iran is mostly responsible for this recent increase, a surprising number of Americans are attributing the general economic pinch they’re feeling to the changing climate. Two-thirds of U.S. voters agree that global warming is affecting the cost of living to some degree, according to new survey data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, including most Democrats and moderate Republicans. Of those two-thirds, a majority of them said that climate change was driving up what they pay for groceries, utility bills, and home insurance.

Rising energy prices were at the top of people’s lists, a concern that some climate advocates are tapping into ahead of the midterm elections this November. On Monday, the LCV Victory Fund, a political action committee, announced that it will target “energy bill voters” with messages about how clean, affordable energy can trim their monthly expenses, and how Republicans have held back renewable power. That follows successes for Democrats in the off-year elections in 2025, where energy prices played a role in state races in Georgia, New Jersey, and Virginia.

There are many factors pushing up electricity prices, but in some parts of the country, efforts to revamp the electric grid to handle more extreme weather is the primary reason. In California, utilities are upgrading their infrastructure to reduce wildfire risk; in the Southeast, they are rebuilding after hurricanes and flooding and billing their customers for it. In Arizona, residents are cranking up the air conditioning during scorching heat and paying more for power simply because they’re using more AC.

Photo of utility workers in a lift over a background of burned homes and palm trees by the beachaverage of about $35 more on electricity per year, compared with an extra $356 on homeowners’ insurance premiums, the biggest cost. Clausing, who owns a house in Portland, Oregon, said the insurance premium on her home skyrocketed from around $1,000 five years ago to about $2,200 today — an increase that her insurance company said was to help recoup the costs of wildfire damage in Oregon.

Another major category of costs in Clausing’s study was the health effects of climate change. As wildfire smoke grows more common, exposing people to harmful particulate matter, it’s leading to early deaths. The estimated economic damage of these premature deaths works out to $103 for every household in the United States each year. That’s not to mention the other ways climate change damages the public’s health, from lengthening allergy seasons to expanding the geographic spread of infectious diseases as temperatures warm, allowing ticks and mosquitoes to explore new territories. 

But it seems like many Americans haven’t made the connection: Only 35 percent of those in the Yale survey who agreed that climate change was driving up prices saw a link to higher health care costs. That’s because these health risks haven’t been adequately communicated to the public, said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. “Health is one of the most powerful ways we have of saying, ‘Actually, this affects our lives right here, right now. It’s already affecting the people and places and things that we love,’” he said.

Read Next

Though most of the respondents thought climate change made groceries more expensive, it’s hard to measure the effect of extreme weather on food costs, according to Catherine Wolfram, a co-author of the study and a professor of applied economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management. That’s mainly because the United States’ food supply comes from all over the world, mitigating the impact of, say, a drought in Brazil or a heat wave in the Great Plains. Still, other research has found that hot summers can lead to higher food prices, with more increases projected as the world warms. 

As the effects of global warming grow more extreme, it’s becoming clear that they’re posing a problem for the budgets of lower-income Americans. Clausing is studying ways to design policies that tackle climate change without burdening poor families, through rebates or other mechanisms that can offset costs. 

“I’m glad people are connecting the dots,” Clausing said. “I think, at the moment, if you pursue better climate policy, the benefits to households, for the country as a whole, would exceed the costs.”


0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -
Google search engine

Recent Posts