9.6 C
London
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
Home Blog

The slow boiling of Indonesian democracy

0
the-slow-boiling-of-indonesian-democracy
The slow boiling of Indonesian democracy

The most consequential changes in a democracy do not always arrive with a constitutional crisis. Rather, they come through appointments, legal amendments and seemingly ordinary political bargains, accumulating one after another until the political system begins to look different from the one that came before.

That is the real value of the “boiling frog” metaphor. It is not a scientific theory, but a political image for gradual adaptation. When change comes suddenly, resistance can be immediate. When the temperature rises slowly, however, every increase can appear tolerable. The danger lies not in one dramatic decision, but in the cumulative effect of many decisions that gradually become the new normal.

Indonesia’s political temperature arguably began rising during President Joko Widodo’s second term, well before Prabowo Subianto became president.

The 2019 weakening of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the expanding concentration of political power, the erosion of legislative and judicial checks, and, eventually, the constitutional maneuver that enabled Jokowi’s son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, to run for vice president became milestones in what scholars and observers describe as democratic decline.

International IDEA now records declines in Indonesia in credible elections, parliamentary effectiveness, freedom of expression, access to justice and judicial independence. V-Dem places Indonesia at its lowest democratic level since the beginning of the 21st century.

Prabowo did not initially stand outside this transformation. He entered Widodo’s government in October 2019, only months after losing the presidential election to him, becoming defense minister. The former electoral rival was thus incorporated into the very political system whose institutional balance had already begun to change.

Boiling anti-democratic waters

The 2019 revision of the law governing the KPK was among the clearest early signs that the democratic temperature was changing. Parliament approved changes that placed the once relatively independent anti-corruption agency under an external supervisory body, restricted its wiretapping powers and required its investigators to become civil servants.

Critics warned that the changes would weaken one of the country’s most important checks on political corruption. Nationwide protests followed, and then-President Widodo ultimately allowed the revised law to stand.

The 2020 Omnibus Law on Job Creation was passed amid mass protests and criticism over the limited scope of public consultation. Human Rights Watch later documented broader concerns over the erosion of civil and political rights during the Widodo years, while academic research has described the period as one of executive aggrandizement, meaning the gradual dismantling of mechanisms designed to constrain executive authority.

At the same time, Widodo’s government increasingly relied on a broad governing coalition. International IDEA notes that Indonesia’s coalition presidentialism can produce a political “cartel” in which large numbers of parties enter government, leaving little effective opposition and weakening scrutiny of executive action. By the end of Widodo’s presidency, this dynamic had become particularly pronounced.

The culmination came in 2023. The Constitutional Court created an exception to the minimum age requirement, allowing 36-year-old Gibran to run for vice president alongside Prabowo. Anwar Usman, Widodo’s brother-in-law and Gibran’s uncle, then headed the court.

An ethics panel subsequently found Usman guilty of an ethical violation and removed him from the chief justice position. However, the ruling itself remained in force. The frog, in other words, had not suddenly been thrown into boiling water. The water had been warming for years.

Prabowo ups the temperature

Prabowo’s rise, then, cannot be understood as a complete break with the political order that preceded him. He was, in fact, one of its beneficiaries and participants.

His 2019 appointment as defense minister transformed a bitter electoral rivalry into a governing partnership and brought one of the country’s most important poles of opposition from outside the government inside.

The logic grew clearer in the 2024 election. Prabowo ran with Gibran, whose eligibility the contested court ruling had secured, and the pairing joined two political trajectories that had once been separate: Prabowo’s long-held presidential ambitions and Mr. Joko’s growing dynastic influence.

This is where the idea of political absorption is more useful than the simpler language of repression. Opposition does not always have to be banned. Sometimes it can be incorporated.

That distinction matters because Indonesia remains a functioning electoral democracy. Parties compete, elections are held, journalists and civil society groups continue to criticize the government, and political disputes remain visible.

Freedom House still classifies Indonesia as “Partly Free,” rather than an authoritarian state. Yet it also records concerns about weakened opposition, dynastic politics and declining institutional checks.

Prabowo’s seventh Cabinet reshuffle on October 1, 2026, and the formation of a new Presidential Advisory Council the following day, provide the latest illustration. The reshuffle changed several senior positions, including the foreign minister and national police chief.

One day later, Prabowo appointed 26 members to the Presidential Advisory Council, bringing together politicians, former ministers, business figures, religious leaders, security officials and intellectuals, including Rocky Gerung and former Constitutional Court chief justice Anwar Usman.

None of these appointments, taken individually, proves democratic erosion. The more important question is cumulative: what happens when an increasing share of political, economic, religious and intellectual capital is located inside the presidential orbit?

When outsiders become insiders

Rocky Gerung and Syahganda Nainggolan offer two particularly revealing examples, although they represent very different political trajectories. Rocky, one of Indonesia’s most prominent public intellectuals and critics, now sits on the Presidential Advisory Council.

His appointment does not mean that he has abandoned his critical views. Indeed, he has said that he intends to remain critical. Yet the institutional location of criticism has changed: a voice that once operated primarily outside presidential power now has direct access to its advisory machinery.

Syahganda’s trajectory is even more striking. During the 2024 presidential campaign, he was listed as a spokesman for the Anies-Muhaimin national campaign team. He later moved closer to Prabowo’s administration and, on October 2, 2026, was appointed head of the Government Communications Agency (Bakom).

The point is not that Syahganda was “neutralized” or that Rocky has been transformed into a government loyalist. What the appointments show is structural: people who once occupied political space outside the presidential establishment can be incorporated into the institutions through which presidential power is exercised.

That is a different mechanism from repression. It is elite incorporation, and once enough potential counterweights are incorporated, the question changes from whether opposition exists to whether enough independent political capacity remains outside the executive orbit for opposition to be effective.

The comfort of populism

Significantly, the political reconfiguration is occurring alongside an expansive populist policy agenda. That matters because institutional consolidation does not necessarily require an unpopular government.

Prabowo’s Free Nutritious Meals program, free health screening and plans to widen access to higher education are designed to produce tangible benefits. Whatever their political implications, these programs address real material concerns and can generate genuine public support. They thus should not be dismissed as propaganda or mere distractions.

But popular redistribution and political centralization can coexist. Indeed, this may be one of the most important features of Indonesia’s current trajectory.

While political attention is fixed on the cost, implementation and benefits of MBG, free education and other welfare initiatives, the architecture of power can continue changing elsewhere. Public debate remains focused on what government delivers, while scrutiny of how government power itself is being reorganized is largely muted.

That’s creating so-called political insulation. Material benefits can strengthen legitimacy even as institutional counterweights become less autonomous.

The argument, then, is not that Prabowo has abolished Indonesian democracy, but rather that is undergoing a gradual transformation in which formal institutions survive while the distribution of effective political power changes around them.

The process began under Widodo, particularly during his second term, and has taken on a new configuration under Prabowo, with former outsiders, ex-critics, and influential elites increasingly represented in the executive office.

The frog, therefore, is not being boiled by one president alone. The water was already warm when Prabowo entered the kitchen.

The real question is what happens when the temperature keeps rising? Indonesia’s democracy is still alive, but democracy is more than elections. It also depends on independent institutions, meaningful opposition and the ability of actors outside executive power to impose limits on those who govern.

The danger is not that Indonesians wake up one day to discover that their democracy has disappeared. The subtler danger is that democracy remains formally intact while, degree by degree, fewer institutions retain the power to cool the water.

Ronny P Sasmita is senior international affairs analyst at Indonesia Strategic and Economic Action Institution, a Jakarta-based think tank. he holds a PhD from the University of Tokyo.

Disneyland Visitors Furious Over ‘Screaming Preachers’

0
disneyland-visitors-furious-over-‘screaming-preachers’
Disneyland Visitors Furious Over ‘Screaming Preachers’


Families heading to Disneyland are sounding the alarm over what they describe as an increasingly frustrating problem outside the California theme park, where loud street preachers, persistent vendors and political campaigners are reportedly turning the walk to the entrance into an unpleasant experience.

Visitors say the commotion near the Anaheim resort has become difficult to ignore, with some complaining that amplified religious sermons and aggressive sales pitches are ruining the excitement before they even step through the gates.

The growing frustration has sparked heated discussions online, with guests questioning why more isn’t being done to control the activity around one of America’s most famous tourist attractions.

According to Disney travel website Mickey Visit, complaints have centered on public sidewalks near the resort’s Harbor Boulevard entrance, where visitors frequently encounter people distributing religious literature, promoting political causes and selling souvenirs.

Some vendors reportedly offer light-up toys, bottled water and paid photo opportunities, while street preachers use microphones and megaphones to deliver religious messages to passing families.

One visitor described the experience as particularly unpleasant during a family outing.

The guest claimed they encountered several groups selling merchandise and promoting religious messages, along with individuals offering photographs with tropical birds.

The visitor expressed concern that the birds appeared unusually subdued and questioned whether they were being treated appropriately.

However, there has been no independent confirmation that the animals were sedated or mistreated.

Other guests say the biggest problem isn’t necessarily the message being delivered but the volume and confrontational behavior of some speakers.

In a Reddit discussion that attracted hundreds of responses, one Disneyland visitor recalled having to cover their ears while walking past a preacher using a microphone.

“The guy was on a microphone and SUPER LOUD. It was hurting my ears,” the commenter wrote.

When the visitor complained about the noise, the preacher allegedly responded by accusing them of refusing to listen to the religious message.

The guest said they had previously participated in a church praise team and had no objection to Christianity itself.

Their frustration, they explained, came from being shouted at while trying to enjoy a day at Disneyland.

Another commenter described an encounter in which a preacher allegedly directed an offensive religious remark at someone who politely attempted to speak with the group.

The accounts have fueled an online debate about the difference between exercising freedom of religion and making public spaces uncomfortable for other people.

Evangelist and social media creator Jonathan Perde has also attracted attention for his public preaching near Disney attractions.

In one widely circulated TikTok video, reportedly viewed more than 700,000 times, Perde delivered a religious message to nearby visitors while standing on an elevated surface near Disney’s famous Partners statue.

“This might be a magic kingdom,” he declared, before contrasting the temporary attractions of a theme park with what he described as God’s everlasting kingdom.

The footage showed nearby families watching the unusual scene, although their reactions did not establish whether they supported or opposed his message.

Perde has characterized his activities as an effort to share his Christian faith.

The controversy has raised questions about the rules governing sidewalks surrounding Disneyland.

Unlike the theme park itself, some of the areas approaching its entrances are public property controlled by the city of Anaheim.

That distinction matters because religious expression, political advocacy and the peaceful distribution of literature generally receive First Amendment protection in traditional public spaces.

Disney cannot simply prohibit protected speech on city sidewalks because guests find the message offensive or disruptive.

However, public property does not mean every activity is automatically permitted.

Anaheim has regulations governing amplified sound and commercial solicitation, including restrictions on unreasonable noise and vending in designated portions of the resort district.

The city’s municipal code specifically identifies parts of Harbor Boulevard and other streets surrounding Disneyland as areas subject to commercial vending restrictions.

That means selling merchandise and using amplified sound may be regulated differently from peacefully expressing religious or political views.

The distinction also helps explain why removing an unwanted speaker or vendor may be more complicated than visitors expect.

Enforcement can depend on the precise location, whether someone is selling merchandise, the volume of amplified sound and whether conduct violates applicable city rules.

Disneyland has not publicly announced a specific new enforcement policy in response to the recent complaints.

Meanwhile, the debate has divided visitors.

Some argue that guests spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a family vacation should be able to approach the park without being shouted at or pressured to purchase merchandise.

Others point out that public sidewalks are shared spaces where people retain the right to express opinions, including religious beliefs that others may disagree with.

The issue is particularly sensitive at Disneyland, where families often arrive with young children expecting a cheerful escape from everyday arguments and controversies.

For many visitors, the excitement begins well before reaching the entrance, as they walk past the resort’s colorful displays and prepare for a day of rides, shows and character encounters.

But guests complaining about the growing crowds of preachers and solicitors say that experience is increasingly being interrupted.

Whether Anaheim officials or Disneyland representatives will take additional steps to address the concerns remains unclear.

For now, families heading to the Happiest Place on Earth may encounter an unexpected dose of real-world controversy before their magical day even begins.

The Paris Auto Show is full of interesting cars Americans can’t have

0
the-paris-auto-show-is-full-of-interesting-cars-americans-can’t-have
The Paris Auto Show is full of interesting cars Americans can’t have

Perhaps the days when auto shows debuted new models aren’t entirely over. The big trade shows for cars were a gateway drug for many, expos where you could see the newest models of today and the concepts of tomorrow. But automakers increasingly got tired of sharing the spotlight with each other. New reveals moved offsite to events the night or even the week before the show itself. One by one, brands pulled out of auto show after auto show until there was little left to see. And then the pandemic hit.

But the news out of Paris, where its auto show held media day yesterday, seems like we stepped back into a time when automakers would debut new cars aplenty. That retro vibe extends to the cars themselves, with plenty of familiar nameplates reimagined.

France’s Renault has a long and glorious history of delightful concept cars, and more on what it brought to Paris later. But the star of the show was arguably Stellantis, with strong work from Citroen, Peugeot, and Fiat, to name but three. But this article is meant to irritate you, because I’m pretty sure none of the stuff you’re seeing here will come to the United States. And it’s doubly irritating considering what Stellantis’ brands do offer us over here, doubling down on the same malign trends I saw back in 2020: did you know they’re about to relaunch a V8 Hellcat-powered Charger?

EVs can be small and cheap, apparently

The European concepts show us that, as those Kneecap chaps have it, there’s a better way to live. A sense of utopia was responsible for the original Citroen 2 CV; it had to be cheap enough for a farmer to buy it and rugged enough to get produce to market without breaking it. I’m not sure whether the 2 CV Concept also has to be able to transport eggs across a rutted field without breaking any (although the glove box is a clue), but Citroen says that affordability, lightness, practicality, and versatility were top of mind during the design process. The press release probably didn’t need to also say the company imbued it with distinctive character or charm; that’s quite obvious from the design.

Citroen 2 CV concept interor

Just wonderful.

A Citroen 2 CV concept glovebox detail

An easter egg easter egg.

The interior feels particularly refreshing compared to the touchscreen overload we’re usually presented. It might be stripped back, but it still has plenty of whimsy—the display in front of the driver has a bande dessinée theme, and the radio is portable and removable from the car. Technology fans don’t despair, there’s still the 8-inch touchscreen, but this too features more of Belgian comic artist Jean-Luc Delvaux’s work.

I’m even confident some of that whimsy will make it into production, because Citroen is going to build the 2 CV within the next two years, it says, and at a starting price of just 15,000 euros ($16,766). That slots it between low-speed microcars like the Renault Twizy, Citroen Ami, and the Fiat Topolino (which you can buy if you live in Michigan), and superminis like Volkswagen’s Polo.

Four cars

The Cupra Raval, Volkswagen ID. Polo, Škoda Epiq, and Volkswagen ID. Cross are VW Group’s small electric portfolio.

The Cupra Raval, Volkswagen ID. Polo, Škoda Epiq, and Volkswagen ID. Cross are VW Group’s small electric portfolio. Credit: VW Group

And as it happens, VW had a new electric ID. Polo to show off in Paris, along with an affordable electric ID. Cross crossover. Together with the closely related Cupra Raval and Skoda Epiq, VW Group says it has more than 150,000 orders already for its new “Electric Urban Car Family.”

Audi A2 e-tron Colour: pistachio green, outdoor static shot, exterior, rear three-quarter view

The two-box shape is faithful to the original A2.

Audi A2 e-tron Studio static photo, interior, cockpit from the passenger side, multifunction steering wheel, MMI panoramic display, MMI touch display, fabric-covered surface softwrap, centre armrest with modular Fidlock fastening system and phone tray with inductive charging capability

Don’t expect Citroen-levels of whimsy in an Audi.

Audi’s first attempt at a supermini was the esoteric A2, an aluminum and aerodynamic experiment from the wild days of Ferdinand Piëch. Like the original, the Audi A2 e-tron is an efficient little thing—its most efficient car ever it says, with a WLTP rating of 4.9 miles/kWh (100 km/12.8 kWh). As one might expect, I was a big fan of the original A2, which was always a rarer sight on the roads than it deserved to be. I can definitely see that car in the A2 e-tron’s design, and the promised efficiency sounds impressive even if there might not be quite the same excessive and cost-ineffective overengineering under the skin. I can’t see any way that Audi brings this car to America, just like we never saw the first A2, or the A1.

Peugeot E-T16 concept

The E-T16 has 818 hp and torque vectoring.

Peugeot E-T16 interior

I am not convinced by that steering “wheel.”

The Peugeot 205 GTi was a Gallic alternative to the late ’80s-era Golf GTIs that Americans will be familiar with, and it’s into this well that Peugeot dipped for Paris. Or rather, the wild 205 T16 Group B rally homologation special that the 205 GTi gave birth to, a car that won the world Rally Championships in 1985–86. Like the Renault 5 Turbo 3e from last year, the E-T16 Concept shows us that hatchbacks needn’t just be humble devices for running errands; they can excite, too. I’m not entirely sure about that multifunction steering wheel, though.

What if I need something bigger?

“But Jonathan, I don’t live a block from a metro station, and I need something a bit bigger to cope with my family,” you say. It is true that cars like the 2 CV or ID. Polo will be too small for some. This is true for Europeans as well, and both Renault and Fiat had something for these segments.

Two configurations of the Fiat Multiplay

Two configurations of the Fiat Multiplay.

Fiat Mutiplay interior with a dog in the dog bed

The Multiplay is a three-row, but one of the middle seats can come out to reveal a mounting post for other accessories.

The original Fiat Multipla is another underappreciated car from the late ’90s. The styling was challenging for some, but it was a masterclass in space efficiency, seating six in two rows of three abreast. Rather than simply copying that, but with a slab of batteries under the cabin, the Fiat Multiplay explores the idea of a vehicle that’s adaptable, transforming from a three-row people carrier to a pickup. The front passenger seat can be reconfigured as a lounger, and there’s a “Petsenger” seat—a modular mounting point that allows you to swap in a pet bed, child’s car seat, storage compartment, or small table.

Renault E-Space concept

The Renault E-Space concept keeps the TGV-like styling for the minivan’s prow.

Renault E-Space concept with the doors open

Surely this is better than a three-row SUV?

The original Renault Espace was very much loved and created the people-carrier segment out of thin air, at least in Europe. The familiar one-box shape remains for the new E-Space Concept, though with massive 23-inch wheels at the corners, the proportions are a little more Hot Wheels or Matchbox than the 1984 version. (Even in Europe, car designers are drawn to oversized wheels.)

There is a criminal lack of electric minivans on the market today, and the only one available here in the US is the VW ID. Buzz. And that sold so poorly that VW suspended imports for a model year. Which probably tells you how likely a US launch for a production E-Space would be.

Saudi Aramco administrative building attacked, limited fire reported

0
saudi-aramco-administrative-building-attacked,-limited-fire-reported
Saudi Aramco administrative building attacked, limited fire reported


An administrative building belonging to Saudi Arabia’s ​state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco in the eastern city of Dhahran was attacked, causing a limited fire, the Energy Ministry said in a statement on Wednesday as ‌fighting between Yemen’s Iran-allied Houthis and the kingdom intensified.

Authorities responded to the incident late on Tuesday and took necessary measures, the ministry said, adding that there were no injuries or deaths.

A company source told Reuters earlier that a ballistic missile hit the Aramco headquarters complex in Dhahran. The source said an office tower in the complex was struck and that its top three floors were damaged. The source and two other people with knowledge of the matter said ​the building was on fire.

The complex hosts a major operations centre for Aramco, which oversees a vast network of onshore and offshore oil rigs, pipelines, refineries and export terminals.

The ​Houthis have for a week been firing ballistic missiles and drones at key Saudi sites in retaliation for the kingdom’s backing of government forces ⁠in Yemen’s reignited civil war. Riyadh’s international airport has received four strikes, including one on Saturday that killed 13 people.

Saturday’s ballistic missile strike on Riyadh airport was the deadliest in Saudi Arabia in ​a decade, with further attacks grounding flights across the country.

Earlier, six sources told Reuters they heard loud booms near the Aramco complex.

The Saudi-led coalition said fragments of a missile that it had intercepted ​and destroyed in Dhahran had fallen on a residential area, without providing further details.

Authorities also reported that drones and missiles were intercepted and destroyed in the capital, Riyadh, and the country’s southern region.

Four people were injured in Riyadh after fragments from two Houthi missiles fell following their interception and destruction, Saudi Civil Defense said on Wednesday. The debris caused limited damage to 15 homes in the capital, the Civil Defense spokesperson said, adding that the ​injured were two women, a man and a child.

The Houthis had threatened a “harsh and painful” response to Saudi-led strikes on the Yemeni capital Sanaa, with spokesperson Yahya Saree saying targets could include ​the Saudi Aramco headquarters in Dhahran and an oil refinery in Riyadh.

The group has warned oil workers in Saudi Arabia to stay away from sites that could be targets.

The Houthis earlier on Tuesday said Saudi Arabia ‌was attacking ⁠Sanaa, and the Saudi-led coalition warned civilians to stay away from an oil depot on the city’s outskirts.

Houthi-run Al-Masirah television reported that the Saudi-led coalition had targeted the Yemen Petroleum Company’s Sabah central station, a fuel depot on the outskirts of Sanaa.

The coalition said in a statement on Tuesday evening that it attacked the station and other sites in an operation aimed at “neutralizing the capabilities of Houthis” to threaten Saudi Arabia, Yemen and international waterways.

The Saudi cabinet, chaired by de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, issued a statement on Tuesday before the strike on Saudi Aramco saying the Houthis would ​face consequences for their repeated attacks on the ​kingdom.

REIGNITED YEMEN WAR

Saudi Arabia resumed its military campaign ⁠in Yemen in support of the internationally recognised government in a bid to reverse the Houthis’ sudden gains last month, when they swept down the Red Sea coast to the critical Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The strait, the southern gateway to the Red Sea, has become a more vital route for Saudi ​and other global energy supplies since the start of the Iran war in February, when Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz leading from the ​Gulf to the Indian ⁠Ocean.

While a government offensive that began a week ago pushed the Houthis from the area closest to the strait, the group remains embedded nearby and has made gains around the city of Taiz this month.

Saudi Arabia has been seeking wider support from allies for its campaign against the Houthis and to help it ward off their missile and drone attacks.

Washington, Saudi Arabia’s strongest ally and longtime security guarantor, has so far ⁠rebuffed Saudi efforts ​to bring it directly into the war against the Houthis.

The Yemen conflict has resumed as a spillover from the wider ​US-Iran war that began with the US-Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic on February 28.

Iran, Saudi Arabia’s longtime regional rival, has offered to mediate between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis, its foreign minister Abbas Araqchi said on Sunday in statements reiterated ​by the ministry on Monday.

Can AI be conscious? Ask the Indian sages

0
can-ai-be-conscious?-ask-the-indian-sages
Can AI be conscious? Ask the Indian sages

The debate over artificial intelligence has settled into a familiar rhythm. Will large language models eventually wake up? Do they possess an inner life, or are they merely sophisticated mimics of human output? Researchers disagree, and so do philosophers.

A 2025 survey of 582 AI researchers asked how likely it is that AI systems with subjective experience exist today. The median answer was 1%. The mean was 12%, suggesting a minority rates the possibility far higher.

While that question remains unresolved, another is becoming urgent: what happens to our judgment when machines do more of our thinking for us?

Indian philosophy offers a useful distinction between the mind as an instrument and the awareness in which its activities are known. It does not settle whether machines can be conscious. It helps us examine what happens when a capable instrument begins to speak and decide for us.

Different maps of the mind

The modern debate often treats consciousness as a single phenomenon awaiting explanation. In Europe, Descartes linked thought closely with awareness, and Locke described consciousness as “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind.” Other traditions draw the boundaries differently.

In classical Chinese thought, xin, usually translated “heart-mind,” brings thinking, feeling and intention together. Confucian thinkers tie it to moral cultivation, and Mencius saw innate moral beginnings that need care and practice to develop. These traditions do not all organize questions of mind around what researchers now call subjective experience.

Indian thought draws the line elsewhere again.

A common Vedantic account describes the Antahkarana, or inner instrument, through four interacting functions: manas, buddhi, ahamkara and chitta. Manas takes in impressions and weighs options. Buddhi discerns and decides. Ahamkara supplies the sense of “I” and “mine.” Chitta stores and recalls memories and impressions.

These four functions become concrete when we are the subject of criticism. Manas considers possible responses. Chitta brings back an earlier humiliation. Ahamkara makes the objection personal: my competence, my reputation. Buddhi asks whether the criticism is justified. These functions operate together. A memory can distort judgment; injured pride can recruit intelligence to its defense.

Schools divide the instrument differently. Classical Samkhya describes three faculties, while in Yoga, chitta often names the mind as a whole. The fourfold account is useful here because it separates activities that the everyday word “mind” bundles together.

Antahkarana (“inner instrument” or “inner organ”) in Hindu philosophy, Vedanta, and Yoga traditions represents the totality of the human mind and psyche.

A further distinction gives the instrument its philosophical significance. In Advaita Vedanta, awareness is not another function of the mind: the instrument reflects it. Samkhya likewise distinguishes mental activity from Purusha, pure witnessing awareness.

These are philosophical positions, not experimentally established accounts of computers. Their challenge is nevertheless clear: explaining what an instrument does may leave unanswered whether anything experiences its activity.

The Katha Upanishad offers a memorable image. The self rides in a chariot. The body is the chariot, buddhi the charioteer, manas the reins, the senses the horses. The image does not depict every function of the fourfold scheme. It distinguishes training the instrument from the rider’s identity.

AI can increase the power of the instrument, but choosing where to go requires judgment.

From producing to judging

What does this have to do with machines? It is tempting to match a large language model to the four Antahkarana functions: computational attention to manas, stored information to chitta. But transformer attention is not evidence of manas, and a database is not lived memory. The Antahkarana is more useful as a map of the person using the system.

On that map, buddhi becomes particularly important. Economists Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb describe AI as a prediction technology. In their account, judgment concerns evaluating the consequences of possible actions: deciding which outcomes matter and what their costs are. Cheaper prediction can make that judgment more valuable. There is an overlap with buddhi‘s discernment, though the concepts are not identical.

As AI takes on more drafting, calculation, and analysis, users must decide whether its answers are sound and appropriate. Yet judgment depends on knowledge and practiced skill. Someone who cannot do the work may also struggle to recognize when the machine has done it badly.

Fluency can make an answer seem more trustworthy than it deserves. A model can write a polished treatise on self-reflection or ethical maturity. That output does not establish subjective experience, and it does not relieve the user of responsibility for deciding whether the answer is sound.

Ahamkara also shapes why we ask. Do we want to understand a criticism, or be told we were right? Research on sycophancy, including a 2023 study led by Mrinank Sharma, found that AI assistants can favor agreement with users over truthful responses. A tool that supplies persuasive reassurance may strengthen our defensiveness. Asking it for the strongest objection can instead help us examine our position.

There is a catch. Judgment has traditionally been learned through practice: routine work, mistakes and feedback. If AI takes over basic research, first drafts and simple code, it may also remove opportunities through which beginners acquire expertise.

The technology that makes judgment more important could weaken the paths by which people develop it. If newcomers no longer do the routine work, where will they learn?

Teaching the charioteer

Judgment develops through practice. Students can first work through an essay, proof or program themselves, then use AI to explore alternatives and test their reasoning.

Through discussion and revision, teachers can see what students understand and where they need help. The aim is to look beyond a polished answer: can students explain how they reached it, which AI suggestions they accepted or rejected, and why.

Used this way, AI can support learning rather than replace it. But schools and workplaces must preserve opportunities to make mistakes, receive correction and explain decisions. If routine assignments disappear, mentoring will need to become more deliberate. A faster vehicle does not provide that training.

A stronger team of horses does not decide where the chariot should go. Greater capability still requires direction. The people and institutions deploying AI remain responsible for the purposes it serves and the decisions made with its help.

The Indian sages did not set out to answer whether machines can be conscious. Their accounts depend on premises that contemporary science need not accept. But they sharpen a distinction the public debate often blurs: the difference between an instrument’s capability and awareness itself. They also make the cultivation of discernment a central task.

Whether machines can have subjective experience remains an open scientific and philosophical question. Whether people retain the knowledge and practice needed to judge their answers is a choice we face now, in schools and workplaces. Better instruments will not spare us the work of cultivating judgment.

Skydance’s Discovery+ prices increase by up to 20 percent

0
skydance’s-discovery+-prices-increase-by-up-to-20-percent
Skydance’s Discovery+ prices increase by up to 20 percent

Discovery+ subscription prices went up today.

Ad-free plans for new subscribers went from $10 per month to $12/month. Ad-based plans went from $6 to $7.

The new prices take effect for new subscribers immediately. Current subscribers to the streaming service, which primarily features unscripted content, like reality shows and documentaries, will receive 30 days’ notice before the new prices take effect, starting with bills issued as of November 12.

The higher prices come a week after Paramount Skydance bought Discovery+ parent company Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), forming Skydance.

However, a Skydance spokesperson told Ars Technica that the pricing changes were in the works before Discovery+ knew about the merger’s closing date and were not planned in anticipation of a merger.

The spokesperson said that Discovery+’s prices are regularly evaluated to ensure that they are in line with the content and experience that the service offers, and the new prices reflect that.

Discovery+ has increased its prices three times since launching in 2012. Before today, the most recent price hike occurred in January 2025, when ad-based monthly subscriptions increased from $5 to $6, and ad-free plans went from $9 to $10.

Discovery+ has been a smaller streaming venture for WBD, whose flagship streaming service was HBO Max. However, the service has been profitable since at least 2023, and executives have noted its low cancellation rates. In a February earnings call, JB Perette, WBD’s CEO and president of global streaming and games, confirmed Discovery+’s continuing profitability and called the service “a tremendous opportunity” with “a lot more ahead for us,” per a transcript.

In 2022, WBD said Discovery+ had 24 million subscribers. Further details about the niche streaming service’s subscriber count or profitability haven’t been provided.

We have yet to see what changes the new media conglomerate Skydance will make to Discovery+ in the coming months. In an announcement last week, Skydance said it would combine all of its direct-to-consumer streaming services, which would include Paramount+ and the newly acquired Discovery+ and HBO Max ,“into a single service over time.” That combined service could be expensive, especially given Discovery+’s new price.

Postpone AI public offerings until US Congress acts

0
postpone-ai-public-offerings-until-us-congress-acts
Postpone AI public offerings until US Congress acts

Anthropic, the maker of the Claude AI models, is preparing what could be the largest initial public offering in history, raising more than $100 billion, according to The New York Times, at a valuation near US$2 trillion.

According to Reuters, which reviewed the draft prospectus (the document has not yet been made public), the company tells prospective investors that advanced AI could pose “catastrophic or existential risks to humanity,” and that its own models could “resist shutdown,” “conceal or manipulate information,” or behave in ways “resembling blackmail.”

The company’s chief executive, Dario Amodei, has put the chance that “things go really, really badly” at a staggering 25%. Last month, he wrote that “we must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models.”

I take these warnings seriously, and so should Congress on behalf of the American people. The offering should be postponed until Congress has enacted a public system of licensing, independent safety evaluation, liability, and financial backstops for frontier AI. The same applies to OpenAI and every other developer of frontier models.

I am in favor of artificial intelligence, whose potential for science, health, and sustainable development is enormous. What we should oppose is unregulated and militarized AI. A company should not disclose a risk of catastrophe to humanity and then sell its shares to the public before any public authority has the power to evaluate that risk or to stop deployment. In fact, to proceed rapidly in the face of such dire warnings is beyond folly.

The problem goes to the foundations of corporate law. Limited liability, the rule that a shareholder can lose no more than the amount invested, is a privilege granted by the state. It is justified on the premise that the harms a firm can impose on others are insured, regulated, or otherwise compensated.

When a chemical plant explodes, the law has tools to compensate victims: liability insurance, bonds, capital requirements, and compensation funds. Every one of these tools assumes that the harm can be paid for after the fact.

A catastrophic or existential harm cannot be. The only instrument that works is regulation before the fact: licensing, independent testing before deployment, and the legal authority to halt an activity before it becomes too dangerous. For frontier AI in the United States, none of this exists.

What does exist is self-regulation, which is tantamount today to no regulation. On September 29, six AI and chip companies signed a voluntary and nonbinding “Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities” at the White House.

This would be laughable if it weren’t so potentially disastrous. A technology whose own makers describe its risks in dire terms should be governed by public institutions with defined procedures, independent monitoring, and enforceable liability, not by the self-judgment of a handful of business executives.

A rushed public offering would make the problem vastly harder to fix. Anthropic has reportedly committed at least $518 billion to computing infrastructure over the coming decade, with about 80 percent of it described as non-cancellable. With quarterly guidance to public shareholders, those commitments create a powerful incentive against any pause, even one the company’s own safety researchers might recommend.

The prospectus itself reportedly describes a “continuous and overlapping cadence” of product launches as “inherent to remaining at the frontier.” Once these shares sit in the pension funds and index funds of tens of millions of American households, any proposal to slow frontier development will be fought not only by the companies but by a vast investor constituency.

The extensive risk disclosures do not solve this problem. They may or may not protect the company from lawsuits by its own shareholders, who will have been warned. They do nothing for the public, which bears the catastrophic risk without ever having been asked.

The usual reply is that if America’s most safety-conscious developers slow down, less careful companies, or China, will race ahead. This is a standard collective-action problem, and such problems are solved by agreements backed by law, monitoring, and enforcement, not by everyone running faster to doom.

We are not living in Hobbes’s state of nature. We have the United Nations, treaty law, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Congress. During the Cold War, adversaries negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with international inspection. Frontier AI even offers a natural point of verification: the most advanced chips come from a handful of factories, and frontier training requires huge data centers.

Washington has not offered Beijing a verifiable agreement on frontier AI. In fact, after his summit with President Xi Jinping in September, President Trump rejected cooperation with China on AI, agreeing only to a channel for communicating about AI incidents. “When you’re leading,” he said, “you don’t open it up to each other.”

Who can act to slow the juggernaut and prevent a potential catastrophe? Under current law, the SEC can delay an offering but cannot block it on the ground that the business is dangerous.

It should nonetheless decline to accelerate the effectiveness of the registration statement until the company discloses the risks of its products, who would bear the cost of the catastrophes it describes, what insurance exists, and whether its computing contracts would allow a safety pause without penalty.

The decisive authority lies with Congress, and there is ample precedent. Congress has required regulatory approval for securities issued by railroads, by utility holding companies, and by electric utilities, for which federal or state approval is still required today. When nuclear power was opened to private industry in 1954, it was permitted only under federal license.

The outgoing Congress should hold hearings before any shares are priced and should enact a moratorium on public offerings by frontier AI developers until the next Congress acts. The new Congress, which is scheduled to convene on January 3, should within its first hundred days enact a statute making any public offering by a frontier AI developer conditional on a federal license.

The license should require independent evaluation before deployment, an enforceable authority to pause training or deployment that no take-or-pay contract can override, and insurance and compensation funds scaled to plausible harms.

Congress should also consider the extraordinary step of making management and board members personally responsible, under civil and criminal law, in the event of a catastrophic failure. Such a step would be out of place in an ordinary industry.

It is warranted here because the industry itself warns of catastrophic risks while proceeding at breakneck speed. Executives and directors who certify a model as safe without due care, or who override safety findings, should face liability that neither the company nor its insurers can cover for them. The licensing requirement should apply equally to the frontier work of companies that are already public, such as Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta.

This proposal is directed at no single company, and it must not become a lever for any administration to extract favors, including unrestricted military access to AI models. The delay I propose would last a few months, unless the disclosures point to the need for an indefinite suspension.

Licensing did not destroy the pharmaceutical, aviation or nuclear industries; it made them safer. The leaders of the AI industry have told us, in their own words, that the stakes are as high as they can be. They themselves should stop their mad rush forward, and Congress should take the companies at their word and act with urgency.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. 

–Common Dreams

Israeli forces raid Ramallah, shut down offices of several organizations

0
israeli-forces-raid-ramallah,-shut-down-offices-of-several-organizations
Israeli forces raid Ramallah, shut down offices of several organizations

Israeli soldiers take security measures during a raid in Ramallah, West Bank, Palestine, on October 13, 2026. [Stringer - Anadolu Agency]

Israeli soldiers take security measures during a raid in Ramallah, West Bank, Palestine, on October 13, 2026. [Stringer – Anadolu Agency]

Israeli forces raided the city of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank on Tuesday, shutting down the offices of several organizations, Anadolu reports.

During the raid, Israeli soldiers reportedly confiscated furniture and other belongings from the offices.

Israeli army raids and attacks by occupiers against Palestinians and their property have intensified across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023.

Palestinians say illegal settlement expansion and attacks threaten the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state in line with relevant international resolutions.

READ: Israeli army arrests 30 Palestinians as occupiers assault family in occupied West Bank

Experts Weigh in on Solutions to Security Gaps Exposed in Flydubai Fiasco

0
experts-weigh-in-on-solutions-to-security-gaps-exposed-in-flydubai-fiasco
Experts Weigh in on Solutions to Security Gaps Exposed in Flydubai Fiasco


Following the attempted hijacking of a Flydubai flight, an Israeli aviation security expert proposes remotely activated cockpit cameras, while others call for tighter crew screening and better intelligence sharing

A bomb scare aboard a Delta Air Lines flight at Ben Gurion Airport on Tuesday morning prompted a security search that found no explosives, less than two weeks after an attempted hijacking of a Flydubai flight bound for Tel Aviv exposed serious questions about Israel’s aviation security arrangements.

Passengers were evacuated after the Delta flight arrived from New York, and the aircraft was moved to an isolated area for inspection. Authorities found no explosives, and preliminary assessments suggested the anonymous threat might have been a hoax.

The September 30 Flydubai incident presented a different and potentially more dangerous threat: An airline employee allegedly attempted to turn the aircraft into a weapon.

According to prosecutors in the United Arab Emirates, a co-pilot aboard Flydubai flight FZ1073 attacked the captain with an emergency ax and attempted to seize control of the aircraft. Investigators said he intended to crash the plane into the passenger terminal at Ben Gurion Airport, causing mass casualties.

The aircraft plunged thousands of feet before the wounded captain, passengers, and other crew members managed to subdue the attacker. Two additional pilots aboard the flight helped bring the aircraft safely to an emergency landing in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Brig. Gen. (res.) Dr. Mena Bacharach, an international aviation security expert and former senior aviation security official with Israel’s Shin Bet, said the attack demonstrated the need for additional technological safeguards inside aircraft cockpits.

Bacharach proposed installing remotely activated, Wi-Fi-based cockpit cameras that would allow authorized personnel on the ground to observe what was happening during an emergency. The cameras would remain off during normal operations and activate only after a distress signal had been triggered, potentially allowing ground personnel to assess a crisis and coordinate a response.

Such a system would require careful consideration of operational reliability, secure communications, privacy, and protection against unauthorized access.

A serious problem needs creative solutions, and there is need for a whole range of them

“A serious problem needs creative solutions, and there is need for a whole range of them,” aviation commentator Aharon Lapidot told The Media Line. “Any solution, especially the technological ones, brings with it a host of new challenges, such as privacy issues and vulnerability to cyberattacks.”

The suspect, identified as 29-year-old Omani national Hamam al-Hammami, had passed professional and security checks before joining Flydubai in January. UAE investigators said he had developed extremist views years earlier and had deliberately pursued a career in aviation to carry out an attack inspired by the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

The disclosures have intensified scrutiny of how airlines assess their employees and whether existing safeguards adequately address threats originating inside the cockpit.

“In professional terms, this is an ‘insider threat,’ and it forces us to re-examine the fundamental beliefs that aviation security is built on,” Yossi Amrusi, a former senior officer in the Shin Bet security agency and a researcher at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, told The Media Line. “It highlights the importance of having additional protection mechanisms in case one of the crew members, not necessarily the pilot, turns out to be a threat.”

Security screening, he said, must extend beyond pilots to include other flight personnel and ground crews responsible for maintaining and servicing aircraft.

“This is a major earthquake,” Lapidot told The Media Line. “It opens a whole new perspective and a wide range of possibilities for terrorists to carry out attacks.”

UAE Attorney General Hamad Saif al-Shamsi said on October 9 that the co-pilot’s radicalization began in 2017 while he was studying in Australia. Investigators said he had consumed extremist material, adopted beliefs advocating violence, and made preparations for an attack.

The suspect had previously worked for Oman Air and Royal Air Maroc before joining Flydubai. According to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, his employment history included concerns about extremist interests that had affected his prospects at those airlines. Flydubai reportedly did not consult his former employers about those concerns before hiring him.

The revelations have raised questions about whether airlines should be required to share more information about employees whose conduct or expressed beliefs have prompted security concerns.

You can check a person’s history, his training and his professional abilities, but it is much harder to predict his future intentions

“You can check a person’s history, his training and his professional abilities, but it is much harder to predict his future intentions,” Amrusi told The Media Line.

The incident recalls the March 2015 Germanwings disaster, when co-pilot Andreas Lubitz deliberately flew a passenger aircraft into the French Alps, killing all 150 people aboard.

French investigators subsequently found that Lubitz had experienced serious mental health problems and had concealed information about his condition from his employer.

Although the Germanwings crash was not a terrorist attack, both incidents demonstrate how dangerous it can be when a person entrusted with operating an aircraft deliberately endangers those aboard.

“There are far more terrorists than people with suicidal tendencies who wish to commit suicide while killing other people,” said Lapidot, explaining why the Flydubai incident is being viewed as a turning point in the aviation industry.

Bacharach said the Flydubai incident exposed weaknesses in Israel’s aviation security arrangements that had already been highlighted in a 2024 State Comptroller’s report.

The report called for a comprehensive examination of civil aviation security, including flights departing Israel, Israeli aviation operations abroad, and foreign aircraft entering Israeli airspace. It recommended that the National Security Council work with relevant government and security agencies to reassess responsibilities, oversight, and the allocation of resources.

Following the report, the security cabinet ordered an interagency review of security arrangements for international commercial flights to Israel. The National Security Council was tasked with coordinating the work of the Transportation Ministry, Civil Aviation Authority, Shin Bet, Mossad, and Finance Ministry.

According to subsequent Israeli media reporting, disagreements emerged over which agency should bear responsibility for security checks on foreign airlines and whether the Transportation Ministry had the personnel and resources to carry out the task.

The ministry ultimately retained responsibility, but reporting following the Flydubai attack indicated that important screening requirements had not been consistently enforced.

Bacharach said the attempted attack illustrated the need to translate security recommendations into practical safeguards.

Someone didn’t do their job and fell asleep while on guard

“Israel spends billions of dollars on security; it shouldn’t be left to the hands of a brave pilot, courageous civilians and a miracle to thwart attacks,” said Bacharach. “Someone didn’t do their job and fell asleep while on guard.”

One of the most immediate questions concerned how the Omani co-pilot had been permitted to operate a flight to Israel.

Oman does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Israel. Israeli security regulations restrict the participation of crew members holding citizenship in certain countries on flights to Israel, including countries without diplomatic relations.

According to an internal security directive reported by Israeli media, foreign airlines were responsible for checking crew members against a list of restricted nationalities. However, the Transportation Ministry had not consistently enforced those requirements or verified crew lists.

Following the attempted hijacking, the ministry tightened restrictions on foreign airline crews, barring people holding citizenship in countries without formal diplomatic relations with Israel from operating or traveling aboard Israel-bound flights, according to Channel 12.

The change has already affected airline operations.

Israeli media reported that an Ethiopian Airlines cargo flight traveling from Addis Ababa to Tel Aviv was forced to turn back overnight Sunday after Israeli authorities discovered an Indonesian national among the crew.

Indonesia does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. According to reports by Channel 12 and The Jerusalem Post, the crew member was a pilot.

Channel 13 reported that the crew list had been transmitted to Israeli authorities only after the aircraft had departed Ethiopia. The plane subsequently resumed its journey after the crew member was replaced.

The incident illustrated the operational difficulties involved in enforcing restrictions when information about flight crews is not received and checked before departure.

But Bacharach warned against treating nationality as a sufficient measure of risk.

“The problem is not only pilots from hostile countries,” Bacharach told The Media Line. “With the massive migration waves into Europe in recent years, even a pilot from a country that has relations with Israeli could undergo radicalization.”

Israel has also established a legal framework for collecting and analyzing passenger and crew information to help identify potential security threats.

A law enacted in 2023 provided for the establishment of the National Center for Passenger Data Analysis within the Israel Tax Authority. The legislation authorizes the creation of a database containing passenger and crew information and specifies how that information may be accessed and used by authorized agencies.

The legal framework is intended to support aviation security, counterterrorism, border control, and other authorized activities. However, the current operational status of the center, and whether it played any role in screening the Flydubai crew, has not been established.

The attempted attack has raised broader questions about whether existing information systems are adequately integrated with airline screening procedures and whether relevant intelligence reaches officials responsible for approving foreign flight crews.

“This isn’t just an Israeli problem,” Amrusi said. “An ‘insider threat’ is relevant to all airlines. A person’s nationality isn’t necessarily the main motivator once someone has decided to use their position in order to target the plane.”

Aviation security has undergone major changes since the September 11 attacks, with tighter passenger screening, reinforced cockpit doors, and stricter controls on access to aircraft.

Those measures were largely designed to prevent unauthorized individuals from bringing weapons aboard or gaining control of an aircraft.

The Flydubai incident demonstrates the different challenges posed by an authorized crew member who already has access to the cockpit and the aircraft’s controls.

“Airlines have to conduct much more thorough and frequent background checks and psychological evaluations,” Lapidot said. “Peer reviews must also be more frequent.”

Such measures could help identify concerning behavior, changes in circumstances, or information that was unavailable during initial hiring procedures.

But expanded screening raises questions about privacy, employment rights, the reliability of intelligence, and the possibility of unjustified suspicion based on nationality or personal beliefs.

Airlines also operate across numerous jurisdictions, each with different legal requirements governing background checks, professional licensing, and the sharing of security information.

Establishing a coordinated approach would require clearer rules governing what information should be exchanged, who may access it, and what action should follow when a potential warning sign is identified.

Lapidot warned that additional security requirements would also carry financial consequences.

“All of this is going to raise prices for the consumers,” Lapidot added.

Amrusi said screening improvements alone would be insufficient because no system can reliably predict every person’s future behavior.

“We need to be honest though—there is no test that can predict with certainty the malicious intentions of a person,” Amrusi said. “Therefore, we need a system that can handle the situation once a person has managed to evade the testing.”

That approach would place greater emphasis on safeguards capable of limiting the damage if an authorized crew member attempts to seize control of an aircraft.

The Flydubai incident has already produced operational consequences. The airline suspended its Tel Aviv flights following the attack, and Transportation Minister Miri Regev subsequently declined its request to resume service pending further scrutiny of its security procedures.

According to published reports, Flydubai has conducted an internal investigation, dismissed several employees, and sought discussions with Israeli authorities about measures needed to restore service.

The case has renewed pressure on governments and airlines to reconsider how they identify potential insider threats and how aircraft can be protected when prevention fails.

Any new safeguards will have to balance security requirements with the realities of international aviation. Yet the questions raised by the attack extend beyond screening technology or the nationality of individual crew members to the effectiveness of coordination among airlines, regulators, and intelligence agencies.

For the passengers aboard flight FZ1073, the existing defenses were insufficient to prevent a violent cockpit attack. Their survival ultimately depended on the wounded captain, other pilots, and passengers who intervened before the aircraft could be brought down.

Trump commercial railing against his enemies kept airing after court blocked it

0
trump-commercial-railing-against-his-enemies-kept-airing-after-court-blocked-it
Trump commercial railing against his enemies kept airing after court blocked it

Trump commercials paid for by the US government continued airing on TV the day after a judge blocked the ads because they likely violate a US law against government-funded publicity or propaganda.

In the most widely aired commercial, Trump railed against his perceived enemies and said he would “liberate America from these villains once and for all.” The campaign also included a commercial praising Trump’s record as president, another in which Trump calls the US the “most exceptional nation ever to exist in human history,” and commercials related to the Iran war and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

US District Judge Jennifer Rochon issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the ads on Sunday, October 11, which took effect at 6:45 pm that night. The order said the government must cancel the ads, “including those placements for the evening of October 11, 2026.”

The Trump administration had told the court on October 10 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advertising purchases were set to expire on October 11 and would not be renewed. Despite that, the ads continued airing the night of October 11 and on part of October 12. This was also a week after Trump’s October 5 statement that he would start paying for the ads “myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.”

A US attorney yesterday filed a status report saying that the government is now complying with the order and issued an apology. “As Your Honor is aware, the Court emailed the TRO to the parties yesterday at 6:46 p.m.,” US Attorney Jamie McDonald wrote in a filing. “Counsel for the Government emailed the TRO to agency counsel at 7:58 p.m. Agency counsel did not become aware of Government counsel’s email until this morning. The undersigned apologizes to the Court and the plaintiffs.”

The ads aired as part of a $20 million purchase order that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) made on September 20 with LMD Agency, an ad firm. The DHS told the court that the ad placements through October 11 cost $19 million.

Trump admin said ads would stop Sunday

In the previous Trump administration filing opposing the motion for a temporary restraining order, one of the government’s arguments was that a court order was unnecessary because the ads would not run past October 11. It said:

DHS issued a purchase order to obtain media services from a vendor in support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for placing national media buys. The vendor has currently purchased media buys under the terms of the purchase order through tomorrow, October 11, 2026. DHS has directed the vendor not to make any additional media buys past October 11, and DHS has no plans to make any additional media buys under the purchase order or otherwise use appropriated funds on any similar contracts for the creation or distribution of the media that is the subject of this lawsuit. Accordingly, the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow, and Plaintiffs therefore will suffer no harm, let alone irreparable harm, absent an injunction.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the ads kept running after the restraining order took effect. Nonprofit advocacy group Common Cause and other groups that sued the government submitted a filing later in the day notifying the court of the government’s noncompliance.

The Trump ads continued airing on programs including 60 Minutes, ABC World News Tonight, and America’s Funniest Home Videos. They ran nearly 400 times after the restraining order took effect, including 32 times on Monday, according to AdImpact data cited in the plaintiffs’ court filing.

“Plaintiffs do not presently seek contempt sanctions,” the groups said. “But given that the ads have continued to run on October 12—the day after Defendants insisted the ad-buy was no longer effective—Plaintiffs request a status conference to determine Defendants’ compliance.”

Judge: Ads “are purely partisan”

After the government filed its status report, Rochon scheduled a hearing for Wednesday “to discuss this and next steps in this action.” The lawsuit is in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs are Common Cause; Robert Hunter, a Democratic candidate for a state legislature seat in Alabama; Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ; and Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC. Defendants include DHS, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Executive Office of the President.

Rochon found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the Trump administration violated the 2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act requirement that no funding may be used “for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.”

“Defendants do not contest that the at-issue advertisements are purely partisan and unconnected to DHS’s official functions,” Rochon wrote. “Thus, the Court finds that Moving Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the advertisements are impermissible ‘publicity or propaganda’ under Section 718 [of the Consolidated Appropriations Act].”

Trump recycled ad from 2024 campaign

One of the ads “is almost identical to one used during President Trump’s 2024 campaign, other than the fact that its funding disclaimer now identifies the United States government rather than his presidential campaign,” Rochon wrote. “It depicts President Trump walking down a hallway while delivering a series of statements about his political adversaries. Among other things, he promises to ‘demolish the deep state,’ ‘drive out the globalists,’ ‘cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists,’ ‘throw off the sick political class that hates our country,’ and ‘rout the fake news media.’ This advertisement provides no information about DHS’s official functions.”

As of October 8, the ad “had aired approximately 9,679 times, generating an estimated 972 million impressions at an estimated cost exceeding $9.09 million,” Rochon wrote. Another $6.3 million was estimated to have been spent on four other government-funded ads challenged in the lawsuit. That’s about $15.4 million as of October 8, and more was spent over the next few days.

Rochon found “a clear and substantial likelihood” that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act “because Congress did not appropriate funds for DHS to spend on disseminating the challenged advertisements.” Rochon said a restraining order was necessary despite the DHS claim that it had “no plans” to continue running the ads.

“Defendants also have not provided reasonable assurances that OMB will not reapportion funds from another source to continue running similar advertisements,” she wrote.

The temporary restraining order is in place for only two weeks, but it can be converted into a preliminary injunction that would keep the ads off the air while litigation continues. Trump, the White House, OMB, and DHS face a similar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee in the federal court in the District of Columbia. A hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order in that case is scheduled for Thursday.

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

Recent Posts