Home Blog Page 50

Legal Fund Launched as DOJ Targets Schiff

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) created a new legal defense fund as the Department of Justice has launched a probe into his finances. According to the Internal Revenue Service, Schiff set up the “Senator Schiff Legal Defense Fund.”

“It’s clear that Donald Trump and his MAGA allies will continue weaponizing the justice process to attack Senator Schiff for holding this corrupt administration accountable,” Schiff spokesperson Marisol Samayoa said in a statement. “This fund will ensure he can fight back against these baseless smears while continuing to do his job.”

In May, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte referred Schiff to the DOJ due to allegations of mortgage fraud.

“As regulator of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, we take very seriously allegations of mortgage fraud or other criminal activity,” Pulte wrote in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Such misconduct jeopardizes the safety and soundness of FHFA’s regulated entities and the security and stability of the U.S. mortgage market.”

“Based on media reports, Mr. Adam B. Schiff has, in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property,” Pulte added.

Last month, President Donald Trump drew attention to Schiff’s mortgage documents, demanding that he face jail time.

“Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff is in BIG TROUBLE! He falsified Loan Documents. He once said my son would go to prison on a SCAM that Schiff, along with other Crooked Dems, illegally ‘manufactured’ in order to stage an actual coup,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Now Shifty should pay the price of prison for a real crime, not one made up by the corrupt accusers!”

Tulsi Gabbard Revokes Security Clearances of 37 Intel Officials Over Russiagate Deception

Tulsi Gabbard (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former U.S. intelligence officials, citing abuse of authority and deception tied to the discredited 2016 Russia collusion narrative. Acting under the direction of President Donald Trump, Gabbard stated these individuals betrayed the public trust and manipulated intelligence for political purposes.

This marks one of the most sweeping accountability actions ever taken against members of the intelligence community.

The officials targeted include figures connected to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election was intended to benefit President Trump. Among those named are Stephanie O’Sullivan, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Vinh Nguyen, a CIA analyst involved in drafting the report. The Trump administration has long maintained that the report was politicized and that its conclusions were used to justify years of unfounded investigations.

Gabbard’s office issued a statement asserting that holding a security clearance is a privilege, not a right, and that individuals who use access to sensitive information to promote political agendas have forfeited that privilege. The decision applies to both officials currently serving in government and those in retirement who retain access to classified briefings.

Critics of the intelligence community have pointed to the lack of accountability over the original Russia investigation, the now-debunked Steele dossier, and repeated unauthorized leaks to the media. The revocation of clearances is seen by many as a long-overdue step toward restoring integrity within the national security apparatus.

Opponents, including former intelligence officials and members of the Biden administration, claim the move is politically motivated. However, supporters argue the decision is a necessary corrective to years of weaponized intelligence operations against a sitting president.

This action comes amid a broader reform initiative spearheaded by President Trump to reorient intelligence priorities away from political activism and toward national interest. Gabbard has pledged further reviews of personnel and procedures to ensure adherence to constitutional responsibilities.

Trump Open to U.S. Air Power in Ukraine if Peace Deal Reached with Russia

jet
Fighter jet (Timothy Holmes/Unsplash)

President Donald Trump stated he is willing to support Ukraine with American air power as part of a post-war security agreement—so long as a peace deal is reached with Russia. Trump ruled out the deployment of U.S. ground forces, emphasizing that air-based assistance, such as fighter jets or missile defense systems, may be provided under a conditional framework.

The announcement came following a high-level summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and several European leaders, where discussions focused on future security guarantees for Ukraine.

Senator Marco Rubio is leading a trilateral working group with representatives from the United States, Europe, and Ukraine to draft a long-term security framework. This agreement would not include NATO membership but would potentially authorize U.S. air support to deter further Russian aggression. Trump’s position reflects a clear distinction between direct military involvement and strategic air-based deterrence.

According to administration officials, the White House is exploring operational details but confirmed that air support remains an “option and a possibility.” Trump emphasized the importance of European nations providing ground support while the U.S. contributes from the air, minimizing American troop exposure while strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

This approach aligns with President Trump’s long-standing “America First” philosophy—asserting U.S. strength through strategic leverage without entangling the country in extended foreign wars. Trump previously criticized open-ended military commitments, making his current stance consistent with efforts to avoid another ground war while maintaining global influence.

The proposal would mark a shift in U.S. policy by offering conditional security assistance without full NATO involvement. Supporters argue it balances global responsibility with national interest, while critics question whether limited U.S. engagement would deter future aggression effectively.

No formal agreement has been finalized, and further negotiations are expected in the coming weeks.

Majority of Americans Fear AI Will Permanently Destroy Jobs

AI
Image via Canva Pro

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 71% of Americans believe artificial intelligence will permanently eliminate too many jobs, confirming widespread fears that automation poses a long-term threat to the U.S. workforce. The national survey, conducted from August 13 to 18, included responses from 4,446 adults and highlights a deep skepticism toward the future role of AI in society.

The data reveals broad concern across employment, politics, ethics, and environmental impact—issues that are gaining urgency as AI continues expanding into key sectors of the economy.

The strongest concern among respondents centered on job displacement. More than seven in ten said they feared AI would permanently replace human labor across industries. The concern crosses political and demographic lines, with only a small minority expressing confidence that new job categories would offset those losses.

Beyond employment, 77% of those polled expressed fear over AI’s ability to generate politically manipulative deepfake videos and false narratives, posing risks to elections and democratic stability. The study also found that 61% are worried about the energy demands of AI systems, which require massive computing power and contribute to increased electricity consumption and environmental strain.

On military applications, nearly half of respondents—48%—opposed using AI to select strike targets, while only 24% expressed support. The rest remained unsure or neutral. Meanwhile, 66% said they were uncomfortable with the idea of AI companions replacing real human relationships.

The poll also showed division over AI in education. While 40% viewed its use in schools negatively, 36% saw potential benefits. The remaining respondents were undecided, reflecting the uncertainty surrounding AI’s role in classrooms.

The survey’s findings highlight a growing disconnect between AI’s rapid integration into daily life and public trust in the technology. With AI tools already deployed in hiring, content creation, transportation, and military strategy, the public’s hesitancy is likely to influence future regulatory and legislative action.

‘Ketamine Queen’ to Plead Guilty in Matthew Perry Overdose Case

Abortion Pill
Pills (Unsplash)

Jasveen Sangha—known as the “Ketamine Queen”—has agreed to plead guilty on five federal charges for providing the dose of ketamine that caused the death of actor Matthew Perry in October 2023. She is the final defendant in the case to enter a plea agreement.

Her guilty plea will include one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises, three counts of distributing ketamine, and one count of distributing ketamine resulting in death or serious bodily injury. Sangha may face up to 20 years in prison for maintaining a drug den, up to 15 years for the fatal distribution count, and up to 10 years for each of the other distribution counts.

Authorities say Sangha operated an illegal narcotics “stash house” in North Hollywood and supplied actor Matthew Perry with a lethal dose of ketamine, which was administered by his personal assistant, Kenneth Iwamasa—who has also pleaded guilty. This plea concludes a series of guilty pleas from four others in the chain: Dr. Salvador Plasencia, Dr. Mark Chavez, Iwamasa, and distributor Erik Fleming.

Matthew Perry, best known for his role as Chandler Bing on Friends, died at age 54 after suffering from the acute effects of a ketamine overdose, combined with other health factors.

Nobel Laureates Call on President Trump to Secure Release of Remaining Belarusian Political Prisoners

Sakhorn38/Getty via Canva Pro

Nineteen Nobel Prize winners have issued a formal appeal urging President Donald Trump to continue pressing Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko to release more than 1,300 political prisoners. The letter comes after President Trump held a private conversation with Lukashenko and thanked him for the release of 16 detainees, urging further progress.

The Nobel laureates praised Trump’s involvement and called the release of prisoners essential to national reconciliation and human rights.

The letter was signed by a cross-section of Nobel laureates, including former Costa Rican President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias, literature laureates Svetlana Alexievich and Herta Müller, and 16 other laureates in chemistry, physics, medicine, and economics. They urged the United States to take a leading role in holding Lukashenko’s regime accountable for politically motivated arrests stemming from Belarus’s 2020 election crackdown.

The appeal follows an earlier request from Belarusian opposition figure Dmitry Bolkunets, who directly contacted President Trump and proposed nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize if he intervened in the crisis. Shortly after, President Trump reportedly spoke to Lukashenko and acknowledged the release of 16 individuals. According to sources, Trump encouraged the Belarusian leader to continue releasing prisoners and restore political freedoms.

The Belarusian government has rejected the claim that it holds political prisoners, despite human rights groups documenting over 1,300 individuals jailed under “extremism” charges. Many of the arrests followed widespread protests in 2020 after Lukashenko claimed victory in a disputed presidential election. Western governments and international observers have widely condemned the election as fraudulent.

While Belarus has released hundreds of prisoners since mid-2024, the remaining detainees include journalists, opposition leaders, clergy, and pro-democracy activists. The Nobel laureates emphasized that their appeal was not only for individual release but also for broader reform and an end to repression.

The letter stands as a high-profile endorsement of President Trump’s diplomatic engagement on the issue, highlighting his capacity to leverage global influence in advancing human rights abroad. The laureates’ support adds further international legitimacy to ongoing pressure for accountability in Belarus.

Judge Greenlights Class Action Against Tesla Over Self-Driving Hype

Tesla
Photo by Bram Van Oost, Unsplash

A federal judge has certified a class-action lawsuit against Tesla, allowing California drivers to proceed with claims that the automaker misled consumers about its so-called Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology. Plaintiffs allege that Tesla falsely promoted the vehicles as capable of autonomous driving despite lacking the hardware and functionality to fulfill those promises. The lawsuit targets marketing statements dating back to 2016.

The ruling marks a significant legal challenge to Tesla’s long-standing claims about its driver-assistance systems and could impact the company’s future promotional practices.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin ruled that two distinct groups of Tesla owners may pursue the lawsuit. The first includes those who purchased the FSD package between May 19, 2017, and July 31, 2024. The second covers earlier buyers from October 20, 2016, to May 19, 2017, provided they opted out of Tesla’s arbitration agreement. The court determined that these groups share a common legal question: whether Tesla made misleading claims about the capabilities of its vehicles.

Judge Lin found Tesla’s marketing—including blog posts, website claims, newsletters, and public statements—contained language that could reasonably lead consumers to believe the vehicles had or soon would have full self-driving capabilities. Tesla argued that not all consumers were exposed to the same promotional materials, but the court rejected that defense. The judge stated it is reasonable to infer that buyers saw the company’s widely distributed content.

The court declined to certify a separate class for purchasers of Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot package. Lin ruled that autonomy-related claims were not a material factor in those buyers’ decisions. The certified class action now focuses exclusively on Tesla’s premium FSD package, which has been the subject of regulatory and consumer scrutiny for years.

Tesla has previously come under fire from federal regulators and consumer safety advocates for overstating the abilities of its driver-assist systems. The company continues to use the term “Full Self-Driving” for a software package that still requires driver supervision. CEO Elon Musk has repeatedly promised that full autonomy is on the horizon, but a fully autonomous, cross-country drive has yet to be demonstrated.

The lawsuit proceeds as Tesla faces increasing pressure from lawmakers and transportation authorities to clarify the limitations of its FSD system. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for how tech-driven automakers market experimental features to the public.

Taxpayer-Funded Universities Funnel Millions to Anti-Trump News Outlet

U.S. Money (Giorgio Trovato/Unsplash)

Public universities across the United States are funneling over $2 million annually into The Conversation, a nonprofit news site publishing overwhelmingly negative content about President Donald Trump. Despite branding itself as a neutral, fact-based platform, the outlet has produced dozens of articles critical of Trump while omitting any favorable coverage, raising serious concerns about ideological bias funded by taxpayer dollars.

An investigation by The College Fix found that taxpayer-supported universities contribute roughly 25 percent of The Conversation’s annual revenue. These public funds support content marketed as educational journalism but frequently used by mainstream media outlets to push politically charged narratives.

Between January 9 and February 14, 2025, The Conversation published 53 articles related to President Trump. Of these, 60 percent were openly negative, while not a single article offered a positive or even neutral portrayal. The topics included attacks on Trump’s 2024 campaign, criticism of his judicial appointments, and skepticism of his economic policies. The investigation found that many of these articles were authored by professors at publicly funded institutions—effectively subsidized by the same universities that fund the platform.

The Conversation claims to operate without political bias and to provide expert analysis from credentialed academics. However, the publication’s editorial record calls that claim into question. Many of the most prominently featured articles appear to reflect left-leaning perspectives, particularly on topics such as climate policy, gender ideology, and political history.

Participating universities include prominent public institutions from nearly every region of the country. While the site discloses university partnerships, it does not make clear how these relationships influence editorial direction. The lack of transparency has prompted scrutiny from conservative watchdog groups and lawmakers concerned about ideological indoctrination in higher education.

Critics argue this funding arrangement violates the public trust by diverting educational resources toward politically motivated content. They also raise questions about whether universities should be sponsoring journalism at all—particularly journalism that appears to serve as a vehicle for partisan messaging.

The report underscores broader concerns about political uniformity in higher education, where conservative viewpoints are often excluded from faculty and media circles. With federal and state budgets under increasing strain, the continued use of public funds to underwrite ideologically driven journalism may face increased legislative opposition.

African Union Demands End to ‘Colonial’ Map That Shrinks Africa

The African Union has officially called for the end of the Mercator projection map in schools, international institutions, and media due to what it describes as geographic disinformation that minimizes Africa’s true size. The 55-member body is backing the “Correct the Map” campaign and promoting the Equal Earth projection, a newer mapping standard that more accurately reflects landmass proportions across continents.

The initiative is aimed at reversing centuries of visual distortions that have contributed to cultural and political misconceptions about Africa’s global significance.

The Mercator projection, created in 1569 by Gerardus Mercator for nautical navigation, greatly enlarges land masses closer to the poles while shrinking equatorial regions like Africa. As a result, countries like Greenland appear nearly the size of Africa, despite being over 14 times smaller. The African Union argues that this distortion perpetuates colonial-era perceptions that downplay Africa’s size, importance, and influence.

AU Deputy Chair Selma Malika Haddadi stated that the Mercator map has played a role in fostering a sense of marginalization and invisibility. The Equal Earth projection, introduced in 2018, offers a more proportional view of the world’s continents and has already begun to gain traction in educational and institutional settings.

In addition to African schools, the African Union wants the United Nations and World Bank to adopt the Equal Earth projection for official maps. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has also endorsed the change, describing Mercator as a visual tool of dominance and inequality. Global organizations like the World Bank have already started transitioning away from Mercator for some uses, and Google Maps has integrated a globe view, although the Mercator format remains standard in many applications.

Moky Makura, executive director of the Africa No Filter campaign, referred to the Mercator projection as “the world’s longest-running disinformation campaign.” She argued that revising map standards is not cosmetic, but essential to restoring an accurate image of Africa for future generations.

Supporters of the shift point to the educational impact of maps and the power of visual representation in shaping national identity and geopolitical awareness. Critics of the Mercator system say it promotes a Eurocentric worldview that continues to influence international policy and development priorities.

Federal Court Blocks West Texas A&M Drag Ban in Free Speech Showdown

Image via Unsplash

A federal appeals court has halted West Texas A&M University’s ban on student-led drag shows, ruling that the prohibition likely violated the First Amendment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction allowing a student group to proceed with a previously canceled event, signaling a major legal setback for the university.

The court’s decision emphasized that drag shows, even if controversial, are protected expressive conduct when held in public university spaces designated for student events.

In March 2023, West Texas A&M President Walter Wendler canceled a drag show organized by the LGBTQ student group Spectrum WT. Wendler stated in an open letter that he found drag performances “derisive, divisive, and demoralizing misogyny” and compared them to blackface. The event was planned as a fundraiser for suicide prevention.

The student group filed suit with the backing of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), arguing that the cancellation constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of their constitutional rights. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, initially sided with the university in a 2023 ruling. The lower court accepted the administration’s justification that the event was potentially lewd and inappropriate for minors.

In a 2–1 decision on appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed that outcome. Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie Southwick concluded that the university likely violated the students’ rights by banning the event solely because of its content. The court noted that Legacy Hall, the planned location, is a designated public forum, and the administration could not impose content-based restrictions without a compelling justification.

Judge James Ho dissented, defending the university’s discretion to regulate conduct it deems inappropriate or offensive. Ho argued that institutions should be able to draw lines on content similar to the way schools have authority to prohibit certain speech that disrupts educational functions.

While the ruling only grants a temporary injunction, it strongly signals the court’s view that the administration acted unlawfully in canceling the student event. The case will now proceed as a full lawsuit, with a final ruling expected later.

The decision underscores the ongoing clash between public university speech rights and traditional moral standards. Legal precedent remains heavily in favor of broad First Amendment protections for student expression, regardless of content.

1...495051...3,596Page 50 of 3,596
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2023 American Faith News Media. All rights reserved.