OnlyFans is looking to cash out once again, but this time in a deal that would value it at several billion dollars less than a potential sale that previously fell through. As reported by TechCrunch, the online platform known for subscription-based pornographic content is in talks to sell a majority stake to Architect Capital, an investment firm based in San Francisco.

According to the report, the proposed deal includes $3.5 billion in equity and $2 billion in debt, which values OnlyFans at $5.5 billion. TechCrunch also reported that Architect Capital and OnlyFans are currently in exclusive talks, where the website's owner can't negotiate with other potential buyers for a certain amount of time.

With no set timeline yet for the deal, the deal is far from an official closing. Last year, OnlyFans' owner Leonid Radvinsky was also negotiating with another investment firm, Forest Road Company, to sell the platform. Although that deal never went through, the talks leading up to the sale valued OnlyFans at a much higher $8 billion. The London-based website, which still doesn't want to be known as just a porn site, is still growing and reported a nine percent increase in gross revenue for its 2024 fiscal year, earning more than $7.2 billion.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/onlyfans-is-reportedly-in-talks-to-sell-a-60-percent-stake-to-a-san-francisco-investment-firm-191842666.html?src=rss

Elon Musk and his aerospace company have requested to build a network that's 100 times the number of satellites that are currently in orbit. On Friday, SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch a million satellites meant to create an "orbital data center." This isn't the first time we're hearing of Musk's plans to build an orbital data center, as it was mentioned by company insiders following the news that the CEO was reportedly preparing to take SpaceX public.

According to the filing spotted by PCMag, this data center would run off solar power and deliver computing capacity for artificial intelligence needs. SpaceX is requesting to "deploy a system of up to one million satellites to operate within narrow orbital shells spanning up to 50 km each," as detailed in the filing. According to SpaceX's filing, "orbital data centers are the most efficient way to meet the accelerating demand for AI computing power" since they use "solar power with little operating and maintenance costs."

To give some scale of the astronomical number of satellites SpaceX is asking for, the company recently hit a milestone of the 11,000th Starlink satellite launched. There aren't as many in orbit since the satellites can run into issues, but an unofficial website that tracks Starlink stats claims there are more than 9,600 satellites in orbit as of January 30, 2026. The FCC is likely to whittle down the amount that SpaceX is asking for in its filing, as the federal agency has done in the past. Earlier this month, the FCC approved SpaceX's request to deploy 7,500 more Starlink satellites, following another 7,500 launched in 2022. However, it's much less than the nearly 30,000 amount that SpaceX first asked for in 2020.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/science/space/spacex-wants-to-launch-a-constellation-of-a-million-satellites-to-power-ai-needs-175607771.html?src=rss

We are all familiar with the subscription economy, and it certainly works as a reminder of the COVID-19 pandemic, when we were all hooked on our TVs watching Netflix or listening to our favorite music artist on Spotify. Despite how modern it seems to be, the truth is that the subscription economy has been around for some time, surprisingly dating back to around 1800, with the first magazine subscriptions, or the subscriptions for fresh British milk, around 1860. Over the years, the of subscription-based companies has turned the subscription model into an ideal business strategy since it provides unique benefits.…

This story continues at The Next Web

Blue Origin plans to put a focus on the development of its human lunar capabilities, so it won't be sending tourists to space for at least the next two years. That means we won't be seeing any New Shepard launches for quite some time. Blue Origin is one of the companies NASA chose to develop human landing systems for its Artemis program, along with SpaceX. Specifically, it will work on landers for the Artemis III and Artemis V missions.

The company was originally contracted to build the human landing system that would transfer astronauts from NASA's Gateway station to the moon's South Pole region for the Artemis V mission. But last year, NASA asked Blue Origin to design an alternative lander for Artemis III after SpaceX experienced delays due to Starship's failed tests. Artemis III is expected to be the first crewed moon landing mission of the program, and the Trump administration wants it to happen before the end of the president's term.

New Shepard takes tourists to suborbital space, where they experience a few minutes of weightlessness before the spacecraft makes its way back to Earth. Jeff Bezos was one of the passengers on New Shepard's first tourist flight back in 2021. Since then, it has flown and landed 37 more times and carried 98 passengers to the Karman line, including Katy Perry and William Shatner.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/science/space/blue-origin-is-pausing-its-space-tourist-flights-to-work-on-lunar-landers-for-nasa-143000058.html?src=rss

Is there life on Mars? Well, there's Claude in the machine

Anthropic's Claude machine learning model has boldly planned what no Claude has planned before - a path across Mars for NASA's Perseverance rover.…

Apple has steadily expanded the Apple Watch's health monitoring features over the years, moving beyond fitness tracking into areas that can offer early insight into potential medical concerns. One of the most recent additions is hypertension alerts, which are designed to notify users when their blood pressure trends are elevated over time. While Apple Watches cannot directly measure blood pressure, this feature can still play a useful role in highlighting patterns that may be worth discussing with your doctor. Here, we'll explain what hypertension alerts do, how they work and how to enable and manage them on the Apple Watch.

What hypertension alerts do

Hypertension alerts are designed to identify long-term trends that may indicate elevated blood pressure. Instead of relying on a traditional cuff measurement, the Apple Watch analyzes a combination of health data collected over a 30-day period, including heart rate, movement patterns and other contextual information stored in the Health app. Using this data, the system looks for sustained changes that align with patterns commonly associated with hypertension.

If your Apple Watch detects a trend suggesting elevated blood pressure over an extended period, it'll send you a notification. These alerts are not intended to diagnose hypertension or replace medical testing. Instead, they serve as an early signal that something may have changed and that you may want to seek further monitoring or professional advice.

Apple emphasizes that hypertension alerts are designed for users who have not already been diagnosed with high blood pressure. Instead, they are meant to raise awareness rather than confirm a condition.

Who can use hypertension alerts

Hypertension alerts require a compatible Apple Watch model (Apple Watch Series 9 or later, or Apple Watch Ultra 2 or later) paired with a supported iPhone (iPhone 11 or later). The feature also depends on recent versions of watchOS and iOS, as it relies on updated health algorithms and background data analysis. To use hypertension alerts you must be 22 years of age or older, not be pregnant and not have been diagnosed with hypertension. You also need to ensure that your Apple Watch's Wrist Detection feature is turned on.  

To receive meaningful alerts, your Apple Watch needs sufficient data. This means wearing the watch regularly, including during sleep if sleep tracking is enabled, and keeping health details such as age, sex, height and weight up-to-date in the Health app. The system uses long-term trends, so alerts will not appear immediately after enabling the feature.

How to turn on hypertension alerts

Hypertension alerts are managed through the Health app on the paired iPhone. The feature cannot be enabled directly from the watch itself. During setup, the Health app will ask for confirmation that the user has not been diagnosed with hypertension. It may also prompt a review of health details such as date of birth and biological sex, as this information helps improve the accuracy of trend analysis.

To get started, open the Health app on the iPhone paired with the Apple Watch. From the main Health screen, tap your profile in the top corner. Select Health Checklist from the available Features. Next, you'll need to tap Hypertension Notifications, confirm your age and whether or not you've ever been diagnosed with hypertension. Tap Continue and follow the on-screen prompts for information on how the notifications work. Once you have done this, tap Done and you'll be all set. 

Once enabled, the feature runs automatically in the background. There is no need to manually start monitoring or interact with the feature daily.

The new apple watch series 11 can help identify hypertensionAppleManaging notifications and alerts

When hypertension alerts are turned on, notifications appear on both the Apple Watch and the paired iPhone. These alerts typically explain that a long-term trend suggesting elevated blood pressure has been detected, along with guidance on next steps.

Users can manage how and when these notifications appear by adjusting notification settings for the Health app. This includes choosing whether alerts appear on the lock screen, in Notification Center or as time-sensitive notifications on Apple Watch.

Health data related to hypertension alerts can be reviewed at any time in the Health app. While Apple Watch does not display a specific blood pressure number, users can view contextual information and educational material explaining what the alert means and what actions may be appropriate.

How hypertension alerts can help

Hypertension often develops gradually and may not cause noticeable symptoms in its early stages. Because of this, many people are unaware of elevated blood pressure until it is identified during a routine medical check.

Hypertension alerts can let you know of subtle changes that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. For some users, an alert may prompt earlier conversations with a doctor, additional blood pressure monitoring at home or lifestyle changes such as adjustments to diet, activity or sleep habits.

It is important to treat these notifications as informational rather than diagnostic. Apple Watch does not provide specific blood pressure readings and cannot confirm hypertension on its own.

What to do if you receive an alert

Receiving a hypertension alert does not mean that there is an immediate medical emergency. Apple recommends using the alert as a prompt to pay closer attention to your cardiovascular health.

Many users choose to follow up by measuring blood pressure using a traditional cuff at home or by scheduling a check with a healthcare professional. A doctor can provide proper testing, diagnosis and guidance based on clinical measurements and individual risk factors.

It is also worth reviewing lifestyle factors that can influence blood pressure, such as physical activity levels, sleep quality, stress and diet. Apple Watch can already help track many of these areas, which may provide useful context when discussing health concerns with a professional.

Limitations to keep in mind

Hypertension alerts are not available in all regions and may be subject to regulatory approval. The feature also requires consistent Apple Watch use over time to generate reliable trend data.

Most importantly, the Apple Watch does not measure blood pressure directly. The alerts are based on correlations and trends rather than direct readings, which means they should not be used as a substitute for medical equipment or professional care.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/wearables/how-to-turn-on-hypertension-alerts-on-apple-watch-130000090.html?src=rss

Welcome to our latest roundup of what's going on in the indie game space. There are tons of interesting games out this week. But first, there's been some discourse around the Nintendo Switch version of Dispatch, which arrived this week as well.

On other platforms, there's an option to censor genitalia and other explicit content, but that's not present in the Switch version. Instead, such content is censored by default, with black rectangles covering up characters' bits and someone flipping the bird. Noises that suggest sexual pleasure are said to be toned down too.

"We worked with Nintendo to ensure the content within the title met the criteria to release on their platforms, but the core narrative and gameplay experience remains identical to the original release," developer AdHoc told EuroGamer. Nintendo later said in a statement to GoNintendo that it "requires all games on its platforms to receive ratings from independent organizations and to meet our established content and platform guidelines. While we inform partners when their titles don't meet our guidelines, Nintendo does not make changes to partner content. We also do not discuss specific content or the criteria used in making these determinations." 

There are other games available for the Switch and Switch 2 that feature nudity and explicit content. There have long been hentai games on the eShop, while mainstream games like The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 (we know all about the dongs in that one) still include explicit content on Nintendo platforms. So it's a bit of a strange one, and AdHoc and Nintendo didn't exactly clear things up with their statements.

There's been speculation that AdHoc censored the game to comply with rules in Japan (Cyberpunk 2077 is censored there too) and that it opted to have just one version of the game available globally on Nintendo platforms. All the same, it's a curious situation that's resulted in a lot of discourse. But there's been another indie game that's been a source of even more chatter this week...

New releases

Highguard is a 3v3 raid shooter from Wildlight Entertainment, a team that includes a bunch of former Apex Legends and Titanfall developers. It broke cover at The Game Awards in December when it was the final reveal of the night but that first trailer wasn't great.

As it turned out, TGA creator and host Geoff Keighley was a friend of the devs and after trying Highguard, he wanted to include it in the show. Wildlight cobbled together a trailer, but that disrupted the studio's long-standing plans to reveal and release the game simultaneously — a strategy that worked wonders for Apex Legends (though that game had the might of EA behind it).

After revealing Highguard, Wildlight effectively went radio silent until a release day showcase on Monday to detail just what the game is and how it works. That seems to have been a mistake given the review bombing and strange vendetta some developed against it. Highguard went live on Monday and Wildlight published a whole bunch of YouTube videos revealing the game's features. Spreading those out between TGA and this week could have tempered expectations.

In any case, I've played a few rounds of Highguard and mostly enjoyed my time with it so far. It's a blend of hero shooter and MOBA. As you might expect for a game from Apex and Titanfall veterans, the weapons feel well-tuned and the gunplay is snappy. There's a lot going on and the maps are far too big for just six players. It's fun enough, but I don't think it's a game that's going to break my Overwatch obsession. Riding into battle on the back of a bear feels pretty great, though. You can play Highguard for free on Steam, PS5 and Xbox Series X/S.

I really wanted to like Don't Stop, Girlypop! more than I did. I'd been looking forward to it for a while, as the promise of a Doom Eternal-style arena shooter with chaotic hyperpop-inspired visuals seemed like a great blend. Don't get me wrong, I adore the aesthetic and the soundtrack is spot on thanks to some cracking songs from Sarah Wolfe, Xavier Dunn and Candice Susnjar. I just wish it was as fun to play as it is to look at and listen to.

The visual clutter and fast pace sometimes makes it hard to spot enemies and the narrative doesn't really hang together, as much as the developers have salient points to make about the exploitation of finite resources. The core gameplay idea here is that the faster you move, the more damage you deal and more you heal. The game has its own take on a bunny hop called a wave hop that boosts your speed, but felt like it slowed me down because of the complex combination of inputs (jump, ground pound, jump, dash). That also caused my hand to cramp up very quickly. 

I do love the customization here. Slapping rhinestones and baby sharks onto my weapons was delightful. The game's take on a gravity gun is fun too. So while Don't Stop, Girlypop! — from Funny Fintan Softworks and publisher Kwalee — didn't fully land for me, there are some aspects I like a whole lot. It's out now on Steam for $20 (there's a 10 percent launch discount until February 5).

We're been looking forward to Cairn for a while around these parts, so it's heartening to see that it debuted to broadly positive reviews. This one from The Game Bakers is the latest in a string of climbing adventures, such as the lovely Jusant. So if Alex Honnold's recent free solo climb up a skyscraper has inspired you to ascend something very large without really posing a risk to your wellbeing, Cairn might be what you're looking for. 

Cairn is out now on PS5 and Steam for $30. There's a 10 percent launch discount on Steam until February 12, and until February 13 on PS5 if you're a PS Plus member.

Every trailer I've seen for Steel Century Groove has made me smile, so you can bet I'll be jumping into this when I have a chance. It's a rhythm game with Pokémon-style RPG elements in which you take control of a robot in dance battles. There's some original and licensed music to boogie along to and you can load in your own MP3s (you can bank on me loading some Electric Callboy tracks into this game). Steel Century Groove will create procedurally-generated choreography and charts for your custom songs. You can manually adjust the BPM too.

This debut title from solo developer Sloth Gloss Games is out now on Steam for $20. There's a 10 percent launch discount until February 11. There's a demo available, and progress from there carries over into the full game.

Rosday's Wanderling is a roguelike platformer with no combat. You have eight attempts to acquire the gear and learn the knowledge you need to pass each dungeon. Scour for loot and buy upgrades from the shop before night falls to help you on your way. You can place markers to help you remember where you've been. 

Runs are said to be short at between 20 and 30 minutes. The visuals remind me a bit of Celeste too. You can check out Wanderling on Steam now for $8 (a 10 percent discount brings the price down to $7.20 until February 2).

I can't help but admire Strange Scaffold (Clickolding, I Am Your Beast, Co-op Kaiju Horror Cooking) and the rate at which it releases games. The latest one is Space Warlord Baby Trading Simulator. 

It's a stock market sim in which you speculate on the future success or failures of the "simulated lives of babies." You can "short that baby" if you choose as you try to make gains. In a timeline where prediction markets allow you to speculate on just about anything (listen to this week's episode of the Engadget Podcast to learn more about that), gambling on the future of babies doesn't seem that farfetched.

Space Warlord Baby Trading Simulator — which is set in the same world as Space Warlord Organ Trading Simulator — is out now on Steam. It'll normally cost $20, but there's a 15 percent discount until February 12. Strange Scaffold is also bringing the game to Xbox Series X/S in the near future.

I Hate This Place is an isometric survival game based on the eponymous comic book series by Kyle Starks and Artyom Topilin. The game retains a comic book aesthetic and it has '80s horror movie-style inflections.

The way that noise is visualized is pretty interesting here. Onomatopoeic words will pop up and you'll see color-coded footsteps — useful when you're trying to be stealthy. Crafting is a key aspect of the game as well.

I Hate This Place — from Rock Square Thunder, Broken Mirror Games and Skybound Entertainment — is out now on Steam, PS5, Nintendo Switch and Xbox Series X/S. The regular price is $30 and there's a 20 percent launch discount on some platforms. 

I can't find a trailer for this on YouTube, unfortunately, but Rebadge caught my eye this week as well. It's a puzzle platformer from Yuumayay, who appears to be a 17-year-old solo developer. Your character carries badges that allow them to carry out actions like moving and jumping. Other badges include "affected by gravity" and "destroys on contact." Here's the trick: you can throw a badge and lose the associated ability, but then you can apply the trait to something else in the world.

It's a neat idea that draws from the playbooks of games like Baba Is You. Rebadge typically costs $8, but there's a 15 percent launch discount.

Upcoming 

Moon Beast Productions is a studio formed by several of the creators of Diablo and Diablo II. This week, it revealed gameplay for its first title, Darkhaven, which is a fantasy isometric action RPG in the vein of (you guessed it) Diablo. You'll be able to play this one solo or with friends, and there are PvP elements. Darkhaven has procedurally generated, destructible worlds along with "massive events that threaten your entire world."

The gameplay shown in the trailer looks a bit rough, but it's still early days. In fact, Moon Beast is planning a Kickstarter campaign for Darkhaven. There's no release window as yet, but you can wishlist it on Steam.

Box or Void is a puzzle game that clearly takes some inspiration from Sokuban and Snake. Here, though, gameplay takes place across two planes. You'll switch between positive and negative space — obstacles on one side turn into pathways on the other. You'll alter the level layouts by pushing boxes. 

This one from Dumen Games has an intriguing premise. There's no release date as yet for Box or Void, but a demo with 32 levels (about a fifth of what will be in the full game) dropped this week on Steam.

If there's a game that's billed as Dredge meets Wall-E, that's going to be enough to sell me. Describe it as a "petroidvania" and call it Good Boy, and I'm definitely in.

This is a creature-collecting Metroidvania from Observer Interactive and publisher Team17 in which pups are reincarnated as space rovers. I could not dig that premise more. Good Boy is expected to hit Steam later this year.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/highguard-a-hyperpop-arena-shooter-and-other-new-indie-games-worth-checking-out-120000874.html?src=rss

It's not just ICE thugs who show contempt for the lives and limbs of those who dare protest against their racist war on peaceful people. It's the whole of MAGA.

Video footage from Nebraska shows a red SUV flying a Trump flag drives at and hits a young high-school girl. The victim is flung aside then the coward behind the wheel speeds off. The children were protesting against the ICE gestapo trying to terrorise minority communities around the US:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Fight For A Future (@fight_for_a_future)

Nebraska is a red  state — i.e. Republican. Its governor Jim Pillen issued an appalling statement implying that by protesting, the students had provoked the violence — though he added that it was "never okay":

Here's a fundamental truth we should all agree upon: Political violence — no matter what — is never okay.

Police say they know the identity of the attacker, also a juvenile, and are 'investigating'.

Fremont Public Schools said school administrators had been supervising the protest at the time of the attack, then:

At one point, a few students entered the street. One student was hit by a car that stopped in front of the crowd and then began moving. We value our relationship with our first responders and their help today. We will continue to work together to keep our students and community safe.

The victim is now reportedly "recovering at home with bumps and bruises".

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

On 30 January, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) released the latest tranche of Epstein Files. As we reported, the release contained allegations Trump is 'compromised' by Israel, and that he raped and beat a child. The disgraced former prince Andrew Windsor also appears in the latest release, and the new allegations are the most extreme accusations attached to him so far:

Prince Andrew tortured a girl before instructing her murder. pic.twitter.com/rSkT2TW4w5

— Fowly (@fowlytweets) January 30, 2026

Redacted

One thing to be aware of with the Epstein Files emails is that usually you're supposed to read them from bottom to top. Most of the names are redacted in the above emails, but the people making the redactions have not applied them consistently. For instance, the name of the middle email sender is redacted, but the email above it retains "Wendy" in the response. As we've reported, many of the redactions are likely in violation of the law.

Commentators online have suggested 'USANYS' is a designation used by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, suggesting that the original email is a tip off. The higher responses seem to confirm the individuals discussing the original email are overseeing investigations into Epstein in some fashion.

In the initial email, one 'Brian Miller' writes:

Back in the 90s Ghislaine Maxwell recruited a girl from a modeling career . Instead of modeling she was sold as a slave for sex and torture . Prince Andrew was an accessory to her death as he tortured her and me to force her murder

Journalist Adam Cochran drew attention to the release:

An internal email in 2020, related to the Maxwell case, looking into claims that:

* Maxwell recruited a girl in the 90s for "modeling"

* Sold her as a sex and torture slave.

* Prince Andrew was an accessary to her death.

The DoJ was looking into this credibly as of 2020.… pic.twitter.com/nZdEeAwluG

— Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth) (@adamscochran) January 30, 2026

His tweet ends:

[Todd Blanche - deputy attorney general] has said there is video/images containing "depictions of death" associated with the unreleased files…

The latest release also contains emails between Windsor and Epstein:

Last week, a federal magistrate judge told the DOJ it could not arrest journalist Don Lemon. The DOJ appealed and lost that appeal too. The legal system said no.

So the DOJ arrested him anyway.

On January 18th, protesters interrupted services at a Minnesota church after discovering its pastor leads a nearby ICE field office. Journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort followed the protesters through the church's publicly accessible doors to cover the story. They streamed the protest. They asked questions. They committed acts of journalism.

And by this morning they were both in federal custody (though since released).

Organizers of the protest, to the extent they had any real organizational control, were arrested. Pictures of at least one of those arrests were run through one AI platform or another to make those arrested appear to be in more distress than they actually had been.

When that didn't quench the thirst for cruelty and fascism of this particular regime, Pam Bondi's DOJ then attempted to go after the journalists themselves. For what crime? Anyone's guess, honestly. The DOJ attempted to get arrest warrants for Fort and Lemon from the courts, which told them to fuck all the way off. The DOJ then attempted to appeal the rejection without informing the lower court, and attempted to get the Appeals Court to hide the request under seal. That wasn't successful either.

But rather than admitting that violating the First Amendment rights of journalists was a total stinker of an endeavor, the DOJ convened a grand jury, apparently got an indictment, and then both Lemon and Fort were arrested at Bondi's direction.

Local Minnesota reporter Georgia Fort, along with former CNN journalist Don Lemon, were arrested by federal agents following their coverage of a protest at a church in St. Paul. Don Lemon's attorney said he was "taken by federal agents" on the evening of Thursday, Jan. 29, while he was in Los Angeles covering the Grammy Awards. Local independent journalist Georgia Fort was also arrested at her home by federal agents.

A statement from the Center of Broadcast Journalism called the arrest "An assault on press and on the 1st Amendment."

"Georgia Fort, a trusted and cherished journalist in Minnesota, was arrested in the early morning hours for doing her job by covering a pop-up protest at Cities Church in St. Paul," the statement read. "It is an outrage that a vetted and credentialed member of the media would be in any way prosecuted for doing her appointed duty in covering news. If the federal government can come for Georgia no member of the supposed 'free' press is safe." 

This is incredibly dumb for a variety of reasons. For starters, the Minnesota courts, where any trial will take place, are not going to take kindly to the idea that it told the DOJ its requests for arrest warrants were hot garbage only to have that same DOJ end run around the courts to make those same arrests via a grand jury. It's a slap in the face to the very court system within which the DOJ will have to operate. Elie Mystal is spot on about this at The Nation.

The arrests of the two journalists are clearly unconstitutional. You don't need to be a legal scholar to know that arresting journalists for covering the news is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Lemon's arrest is also flatly illegal. Last week, the Trump administration went to a federal magistrate judge, Douglas L. Micko, to ask for an arrest warrant for Lemon. The judge refused. The Trump administration then appealed and lost that appeal. The legal system literally said the government couldn't arrest Lemon, but the government arrested him anyway, and they went all the way to Los Angeles (far from Minnesota) to get him.

Georgia Fort is a prominent Black journalist based in Minnesota. She was out front in covering the George Floyd protests, and expertly covered the trial of his killer, Derek Chauvin. I have little doubt that this prior reporting is among the reasons she was targeted by the Trump administration.

Add to that the very open question, based on the law that the DOJ is citing here, whether any of this actually violates a statute, by anyone involved in this at all. I would very much argue that it does not, by plain reading of the law. As Quinta Jurecic at the Atlantic notes, the legal argument is garbage.

The indictment itself makes for a strange read. No attorneys other than political appointees appear on the filing—a hint that career Justice Department employees might not have wanted to be involved. The government treats Lemon and Fort as co-conspirators of the protesters without acknowledging any protections afforded by their role as journalists. Both charges derive from the FACE Act, a 1994 law meant to prevent anti-abortion protestors from restricting access to reproductive-health clinics. Here, though, the Justice Department is leveraging a lesser-known portion of the statute that provides similar protections for freedom of religion in places of worship. Kyle Boynton, who recently departed from his position as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division, told me that this provision of the FACE Act has never been used—probably because "it's plainly unconstitutional" as an overreach of Congress's authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Boynton, who prosecuted FACE Act cases and crimes committed against houses of worship while at the Justice Department, was unimpressed with the legal reasoning in the indictment. "I think it's very likely to face dismissal," he said. Not only might courts find the statute unconstitutional, but Lemon and Fort could also contest the charges on First Amendment grounds, and the indictment doesn't clearly show a FACE violation to begin with.

But it's even dumber than that. As Dan Froomkin points out, part of the indictment tries to argue that the "overt acts" needed to prove a "conspiracy" is… that these journalists… interviewed the pastor. Or, as the DOJ says, "peppered him with questions."

My goodness. How dare he commit acts of journalism?

Separately, you can watch the Don Lemon stream footage. He makes it very clear that he is there in his capacity as a journalist. He is not actually interrupting services. He is there covering the story. The same is true of Fort.

Both arrested journalists are Black. The head of the DOJ's "civil rights division," Harmeet Dhillon, celebrated by retweeting Republican operative Mike Davis calling Lemon "a klansman."

Davis, for those unfamiliar, went on a right-wing fabulist's podcast before the 2024 election and promised that if Trump won, opponents would be "hunted." He promised "retribution." He said: "We're gonna put kids in cages. It's gonna be glorious…. We're gonna detain a lot of people in the D.C. gulag and Gitmo."

That guy is now calling a Black journalist a "klansman" for doing journalism, while the head of Civil Rights retweets it approvingly.

It's not just Davis and Dhillon joyfully cheering on this blatant attack on the First Amendment. The White House itself posted a black and white photo of Don Lemon cheering on his arrest, calling it (ridiculously) the "St. Paul Church Riots" (there were no riots) and tweeting "When life gives you lemons…" along with chain emojis.

That will likely go right into Lemon's filing for vindictive prosecution.

Courts have already ordered both Lemon and Fort released, though they'll be back in court. In Lemon's case, the judge refused to issue the requested $100k bond the government asked for. The court also will allow him to travel internationally on a pre-planned trip, even though the government demanded he hand over his passport. All of this seems clearly designed for blatant intimidation over media coverage.

The DOJ is now treating journalism as conspiracy, questions as overt acts, and coverage as crime. Courts told them no and they did it anyway—gleefully celebrating the end of the rule of law, openly gloating about punishing the President's critics for their speech.

Long before generative AI, copyright holders warned that new technologies for reading and analyzing information would destroy creativity. Internet search engines, they argued, were infringement machines—tools that copied copyrighted works at scale without permission. As they had with earlier information technologies like the photocopier and the VCR, copyright owners sued.

Courts disagreed. They recognized that copying works in order to understand, index, and locate information is a classic fair use—and a necessary condition for a free and open internet.

Today, the same argument is being recycled against AI. It's whether copyright owners should be allowed to control how others analyze, reuse, and build on existing works.

Fair Use Protects Analysis—Even When It's Automated

U.S. courts have long recognized that copying for purposes of analysis, indexing, and learning is a classic fair use. That principle didn't originate with artificial intelligence. It doesn't disappear just because the processes are performed by a machine.

Copying that works in order to understand them, extract information from them, or make them searchable is transformative and lawful. That's why search engines can index the web, libraries can make digital indexes, and researchers can analyze large collections of text and data without negotiating licenses from millions of rightsholders. These uses don't substitute for the original works; they enable new forms of knowledge and expression.

Training AI models fits squarely within that tradition. An AI system learns by analyzing patterns across many works. The purpose of that copying is not to reproduce or replace the original texts, but to extract statistical relationships that allow the AI system to generate new outputs. That is the hallmark of a transformative use. 

Attacking AI training on copyright grounds misunderstands what's at stake. If copyright law is expanded to require permission for analyzing or learning from existing works, the damage won't be limited to generative AI tools. It could threaten long-standing practices in machine learning and text-and-data mining that underpin research in science, medicine, and technology. 

Researchers already rely on fair use to analyze massive datasets such as scientific literature. Requiring licenses for these uses would often be impractical or impossible, and it would advantage only the largest companies with the money to negotiate blanket deals. Fair use exists to prevent copyright from becoming a barrier to understanding the world. The law has protected learning before. It should continue to do so now, even when that learning is automated. 

A Road Forward For AI Training And Fair Use 

One court has already shown how these cases should be analyzed. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court found that using copyrighted works to train an AI model is a highly transformative use. Training is a kind of studying how language works—not about reproducing or supplanting the original books. Any harm to the market for the original works was speculative. 

The court in Bartz rejected the idea that an AI model might infringe because, in some abstract sense, its output competes with existing works. While EFF disagrees with other parts of the decision, the court's ruling on AI training and fair use offers a good approach. Courts should focus on whether training is transformative and non-substitutive, not on fear-based speculation about how a new tool could affect someone's market share. 

AI Can Create Problems, But Expanding Copyright Is the Wrong Fix 

Workers' concerns about automation and displacement are real and should not be ignored. But copyright is the wrong tool to address them. Managing economic transitions and protecting workers during turbulent times may be core functions of government, but copyright law doesn't help with that task in the slightest. Expanding copyright control over learning and analysis won't stop new forms of worker automation—it never has. But it will distort copyright law and undermine free expression. 

Broad licensing mandates may also do harm by entrenching the current biggest incumbent companies. Only the largest tech firms can afford to negotiate massive licensing deals covering millions of works. Smaller developers, research teams, nonprofits, and open-source projects will all get locked out. Copyright expansion won't restrain Big Tech—it will give it a new advantage.  

Fair Use Still Matters

Learning from prior work is foundational to free expression. Rightsholders cannot be allowed to control it. Courts have rejected that move before, and they should do so again.

Search, indexing, and analysis didn't destroy creativity. Nor did the photocopier, nor the VCR. They expanded speech, access to knowledge, and participation in culture. Artificial intelligence raises hard new questions, but fair use remains the right starting point for thinking about training.

Republished from the EFF's Deeplinks blog.

If you've been napping, Trump-allied billionaire Larry Ellison and his nepobaby son David hired an unqualified troll named Bari Weiss to "run" CBS News. And by "run" CBS news, I mean destroy what little journalism was left at the media giant and create an alternate-reality safe space for radical right wing billionaire extremists. While pretending to be "restoring trust in journalism."

It's… not going well.

Weiss' inaugural "town hall" with opportunistic right wing grifter Erika Kirk was a ratings dud, her new nightly news broadcast has been an error-prone hot mess, and her murder of a 60 Minutes story about Trump concentration camps — and the network's decision to air a story lying about the ICE murder of Nicole Good — has spurred a revolt among the CBS journalists that haven't quit yet.

Weiss has, as all fail-upward media brunchlords do, repeatedly tried to blame her staffers for both her incompetence and for not doing more to coddle her public image. Things have gotten so heated at the crumbling CBS that Weiss has had to "pause" her "Honestly" podcast to put out fires at CBS:

"Thursday morning on her Free Press platform, Weiss said that taking on CBS News is a "huge responsibility," before continuing, "So here is the news: 'Honestly' is taking a little bit of a pause. I know it is hard to hear that, it's definitely hard for me to do that because I love doing this show. But I think and I hope that you will understand why."

"Don't worry, it's not forever; we'll be back in just a few short months," she added."

There's a dash of hubris there for Weiss to think that she can fix the problems at CBS in "just a few short months." There's every indication Weiss not only has absolutely no idea what she's doing, but that she lacks the introspection to be able to realize that she's the problem and to adjust accordingly. That likely means she continues to flounder until she's inevitably replaced by somebody even worse.

As we've noted previously, the problem for Weiss isn't that she's bad at journalism (though that's certainly true). The problem for Weiss is that she's bad at ratings-grabbing propaganda, the primary function she was hired for. If you're going to create noxious state race-baiting propaganda, you have to at least make it entertaining — something Roger Aisles understood well.

Weiss' incompetence is trouble for a CBS/Paramount parent company that has not only seen ratings in free fall at CBS, they've watched their stock drop 40 percent since Larry Ellison's clumsy hostile takeover attempt of Warner Brothers (and CNN, HBO).

Ellison, fresh off his new co-ownership stake in TikTok, clearly wants to dominate both old and new media and to create a modern version of state television. The sort of thing we've seen in countries like Russia and Hungary, where autocrats have hollowed out what was left of media and turned it into an extension of the state (something we've already seen across much of U.S. corporate media and Fox News):

During the Soviet era, at times of govt instability, the state broadcaster would typically preempt scheduled broadcasts by airing performances of Swan Lake

— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw.bsky.social) 2026-01-26T02:59:44.529Z

If there's any bright spot to this mess, it's that absolutely nobody in this chain of dysfunction, from the trust fund nepobaby son of Larry Ellison, to the weird contrarian culture war trolls they're hiring to spread agitprop, have the slightest idea what they're doing.

If U.S. media and democracy is saved from these zealots, it won't be thanks to competent media reforms by the opposition party (which pretty broadly don't exist in the United States, yet), it will be thanks to the raw, blistering hubris and incompetence of folks like Bari Weiss and David Ellison.

We've been running our annual public domain game jam for eight years now, and as far as game jams go, it's always been on the long side of the scale with a full month for people to work on their games. A lot of jams are much shorter, and that's worth keeping in mind today as we're just a little more than 24 hours away from the deadline for the latest installment, Gaming Like It's 1930! The ticking clock doesn't mean you've missed the boat, it means now is the perfect time to get creative, whip up a simple game, and make your submission!

There are lots of great tools available that let anyone build a simple digital game, like interactive fiction engine Twine and the storytelling platform Story Synth from Randy Lubin, our game design partner and co-host of this jam (check out his guide to building a Story Synth game in an hour here on Techdirt). And an analog game can be as simple as a single page of rules. In past years, we've been blown away by the creativity on display in even the most basic of games, so if you don't have anything to do tonight, why not try your hand?

Head over to the game jam page on Itch, read the full rules, and get some ideas about works you might use. Submissions close at midnight tomorrow, January 31st, and after that we'll be diving in to choose winners in our six categories. For inspiration, you can have a look at last year's winners and our series of winner spotlight posts that take a look at each year's winning entries in more detail.

We've already had some excellent submissions, and we can't wait to see what else comes in tomorrow night. Your game could be one of them!

A couple weeks ago, in the wake of the murder of Renee Good, we wrote about "border czar" Tom Homan's ridiculous TV comments suggesting that if Democrats didn't stop calling ICE & CBP murderers for murdering people, that they'd just be forced to murder again. Now that that has happened, with the murder of Alex Pretti, Homan was shipped off to Minneapolis to replace fascist-fashion lover Greg Bovino, and he gave a speech Thursday morning that the press so desperately wanted to portray as him "de-escalating" the mess in Minneapolis.

So much of the coverage is about the supposed "drawdown" of federal troops in Minneapolis:

But, if you listen to his actual words, he's still the same old Tom Homan, and this is all for show. He talked about how he supposedly "begged" for the toning down of rhetoric:

Homan: "I begged for the last two months on TV for the rhetoric to stop. I said in March — if the rhetoric doesn't stop, there is gonna be bloodshed. And there has been. I wish I wasn't right. I don't want to see anybody die."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-29T13:38:44.966Z

Hey Tom, gonna be bloodshed from who?

From who, Tom?

Because last I checked, the bloodshed has been entirely one-sided. Citizens of Minneapolis haven't shot anyone, Tom. Your agents have.

But, instead, Homan only wants the "de-escalation" to go in one direction, saying he demands that the rhetoric against law enforcement be toned down, not the demonization of people throughout the Minneapolis / St. Paul region:

Homan: "I call upon those officials to stand shoulder to shoulder with us to tone down the dangerous rhetoric and condemn all unlawful acts against law enforcement in the community"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-29T13:39:56.596Z

Where are the calls to de-escalate the dangerous, hateful language against Somali immigrants? Or asylum seekers? Or anyone exercising their First Amendment rights? Those don't count, Tom?

And, as Radley Balko points out, Homan has been at the front lines of encouraging violence:

"I'm coming to Boston and I'm bringing hell with me."-Homan in February"Do I expect violence to escalate? Absolutely."- Tom Homan in March"I actually thought about getting up and throwing that man a beating right there in the middle of the room"- Homan in July, referring to a D congressman

— Radley Balko (@radleybalko.bsky.social) 2026-01-29T15:32:03.784Z

So, look, if we want to "tone down the rhetoric" and stop the "bloodshed," that is entirely on the federal government and people like you, Tom Homan, to do.

But this is Tom Homan. And he can't help himself. When asked how many ICE & CBP agents are on the ground, he talked about how 3,000 of them are "in theater." That's a freaking military term, Tom. You're admitting that ICE & CBP is an invading force.

Q: Can you be specific about how many ICE and CBP agents are currently operating in the state?HOMAN: 3,000. There's been some rotations. They've been in theater a long time. Day after day, can't eat in restaurants, people spin on you, blowing whistles at you. But my main focus now is draw down

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-29T13:57:19.995Z

As for the complaint that they "can't eat in restaurants," maybe that's because they're dining in restaurants, and then kidnapping the staff. Maybe don't do that?

Also, when asked why they needed 3,000 thugs to invade a city, he lied again, and claimed "because of the threats of violence."

CNN: How did we get to a place where we had Bovino having Border Patrol agents stopping citizens in interior of the country, asking them ID, creating fear? Who made the decisions to allow this kind of operation to proceed?HOMAN: The reason for the massive deployment is bc of the threats & violence

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-29T13:49:26.506Z

There has been little violence from citizens of Minneapolis. Just federal officers crashing cars, tear gassing people for no reason at all, kidnapping, beating, and disappearing people. Oh, and shooting at least three people so far. The "threat of violence" came entirely from your forces. Don't gaslight America and say they had to come because of threats of violence.

You are the threats of violence.

As for the news headlines about a "drawdown," that's bullshit as well. In the video above, Homan says the pace of any "drawdown" is dependent on the "hateful rhetoric" stopping. Way to admit to a blatant First Amendment violation, Tom: "the beatings will continue until you're nicer to us" is a violation of basic fundamental rights.

Homan also admitted that federal thugs will only leave one they get "cooperation" from the city and state governments, getting help in further kidnapping and disappearing more residents.

Homan: "The withdrawal of law enforcement resources here is dependent upon cooperation … as we see that cooperation happen, then the redeployment will happen"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-01-29T13:43:34.390Z

And, so far, the people of Minneapolis are not impressed and have seen no evidence of any such drawdown or de-escalation.

Tom Homan wasn't sent to de-escalate anything other than all the negative press attention from federal thugs murdering people in the Twin Cities. And most of the media ate it right up.

The story of Minneapolis is not a story of "threats of violence." It's a story of violence, murder, and mayhem entirely from federal officers. The story of the people of Minneapolis is a story of a community banding together to help each other and support each other in the face of such unhinged and unnecessary violence.

Yeah, there's the overt cruelty. There's the murder of protesters. The chasing of day laborers across Home Depot parking lots. The snatching and separation of children from parents. The day-in, day-out portrayal of migrants as filthy leeches from "shithole" countries by [vomits] the Commander-in-Chief.

Then there's everything surrounding it. The camping out at immigration courts to kidnap people who are just trying to follow the law by performing their required check-ins. The sweeping up of anyone in the area who looks a little bit foreign any time federal officers are actually engaged in a "targeted" arrest.

There's so much of it happening every day that it's easy to lose sight of all the victims of this administration's cruelty. There's a human cost that never factors into the administration's calculations because, well, most of the upper echelon ghouls don't actually consider these people to be "human."

Politico's Kyle Cheney has been tracking thousands of immigration cases since the anti-migrant surge began. What he's collected — and this is only a small part of it — should make your blood boil. After all, you still have some pumping through your veins, even if the administration seems to be able to function on bile alone.

Consider the case of Sonik Manaserian, a 70-year-old Iranian refugee who fled religious persecution in her country, arriving in the United States in May of 1999. Her asylum request didn't work out and she was given an order of removal in October 1999. However, she was not deported and has lived here for the past 18 years under an Order of Supervision and Unsupervised Parole (OSUP) after she was picked up by ICE in 2008. In other words, as long as she continued to check in with the immigration court, she could stay indefinitely.

That ended once Trump took office and sent his goon squads out to remove pretty much anyone he felt didn't belong here. ICE officers arrested her at a check-in last November, without any prior notice or warrant for arrest. The government has already admitted it doesn't really have any way to deport her to Iran since our government has no diplomatic relationship with the country for obvious reasons. ICE can't deport her, but it also won't release her. She's been stuck in a detention center since this arrest — a place where she can't receive the medical help she needs. On top of that, ICE lost the medication she had on her when she was arrested and denied her an opportunity to attend a pre-scheduled medical appointment.

Why? Because it can. Even the government can't explain why it's doing this to her, instead assuming it can continue to do what it wants as long as it keeps tapping the 26-year-old order of removal. The California judge handling her petition lays this all out in devastating fashion:

Respondents do not contest either of these claims—or, indeed, any of Petitioner's other claims. Respondents' Answer to the Petition consists of three sentences, two of which recite the procedural history of this case. The remaining sentence reads, in full, "[a]t this time, Respondents do not have an opposition argument to present." They have not denied or contested any of the factual allegations in the Petition. They have not offered any additional facts or defenses. They have not argued that different statutes or regulations should govern this case. They have not lodged any relevant documents, despite being ordered to do so.

These are the actions of a government that feels it's above the law. It can't even be bothered to fake something up that might be taken as a counterargument. Instead, it hands in three sentences and moves on to address the outcome of another violation of rights in similarly cavalier fashion. Look at these assholes, the court says without actually using any of those words:

Thus, it appears that Respondents arrested a chronically ill, 70-year-old woman, who came to this country to avoid religious persecution and applied for asylum, who has lived here peacefully for 26 years and complied with all check-in requirements and other conditions of release, who has no known criminal record and poses no threat to anyone, without notice or the process required by their own regulations and without any plan for removing her from this country, then kept her in detention for months without sufficient medical care—and they do not have any argument to offer to even try to justify these actions.

Further, having acknowledged that they have no opposition to present to Petitioner's habeas petition, have they voluntarily released her? No. Thus, Petitioner remains in custody, and her counsel, and the Court, are required to expend resources and effort to address a matter that Respondents either cannot be bothered to defend or realize is indefensible.

That's the other "fuck you" this administration uses. There's the overt stuff that makes headlines and whips up the frothy loyalists. Then there's stuff like this where the government doesn't even care enough about the people it's illegally locking up to even toss a few paragraphs of boilerplate into the mix. This is just part of the dehumanization process: the administrative shrug. A collective GOP "so what" when confronted about the violations of the law.

"Worst of the worst" always meant "people the bigots in charge don't like." This ruling deals with a Mexican man who has lived here since 2006 with his wife, raising three children and, like most migrants, working hard, paying taxes, and living clean. When asked about this, the administration shrugs again — a shrug that prompts an order for his release:

Respondents make no suggestion that Audberto J. has a criminal history, and the Court concludes he has none.

There's more in that thread and it's all awful. There's the Minnesota man who was arrested and tossed in a detainment center despite having active refugee status. Or how about the mother with a 5-month-old baby and recently discovered heart condition who was arrested and sent to a detention center 1,100 miles away from her child and her primary physician? Are you cool with that, Trump voters? The court certainly isn't.

Ms. Lah has already lost important bonding and nursing time with her baby. While the Court recognizes that many families are suffering due to Operation PARRIS and other ICE actions in the District of Minnesota, there is something particularly craven about transferring a nursing refugee mother out-of-state.

It is craven. This is the government's shrug in response to a judge asking why it sent Lah to a detention center in Houston, Texas almost immediately after arresting her.

On January 14, 2026, Respondents filed their one-page Response to Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Transfer but it did not actually respond to the Petition nor follow Judge Davis's Order to Show Cause. Respondents assert that Ms. Lah was transferred to Houston, Texas, on January 10, 2026, within hours of Ms. Lah's arrest, "due to local detention bed space shortage." Respondents' Motion asserts that the transfer occurred before the Court's Order to Show Cause enjoining removal. Respondents submitted the Declaration of Angela Minner in support of their Motion and purportedly attached documents in support. No documents were attached, and no support was otherwise provided.

In any normal world, the people handing in this sloppy work would be reprimanded by their superiors and perhaps even taken off immigration cases. That will never happen here. Not bothering to do the job right is just an easy way to do what you want while providing a minimum amount of lip service to any notions of the federal rules of procedure. If it destroys lives, harms people, or actually deports them to places where they'll end up dead, so be it. They were never considered people by this administration in the first place.

Keep your workspace neat and clutter-free with this premium magnetic cable management system. The latest version of Cable Blocks is almost twice as heavy as the original version with only a slight increase in size. Featuring three connectable silicone blocks, each double-weighted to hold cables in place securely, Cable Blocks prevent annoying cable drops and eliminate messy adhesives. The built-in neodymium magnets allow seamless connection between blocks and attachment to metal surfaces like desk legs for hidden cable routing. Easily reposition them as needed and create a streamlined, organized workspace with ultimate flexibility. Offered in a variety of colors, a 6-pack is on sale for $30 or 9 for $45.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Back in May, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt offered what might be the single most audacious statement of the Trump era—and that's saying something:

I think everybody - the American public believe it's absurd for anyone to insinuate that this president is profiting off of the presidency.

Anyway, in unrelated news, Donald Trump just filed a lawsuit against his own IRS, demanding that taxpayers pay him $10 billion.

Ten. Billion. Dollars.

The lawsuit, filed this week in federal court in Miami, claims that Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization were grievously harmed when IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn leaked Trump's tax returns to the New York Times and ProPublica back in 2019 and 2020. Littlejohn was caught, prosecuted, and is currently serving a five-year prison sentence—the system worked, justice was served, case closed. But apparently that's not enough for a man whose appetite for grift has no discernible ceiling.

Before we dive into why this lawsuit is weapons-grade insane, let's establish some context that the complaint conveniently glosses over.

When Trump first ran for president in 2016, he broke with decades of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns. Every major party nominee since Nixon had done so voluntarily. Trump's excuse? He was being audited and would release them after the audit was complete. Somehow, nearly a decade later, those returns were never officially released. There's no clear evidence the audit ever existed. The whole thing had the distinct aroma of a man who had something to hide.

In 2020, the New York Times obtained 17 years of Trump's tax records from Littlejohn. The reporting revealed that Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017, and paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years—largely by reporting chronic business losses. The House Ways & Means Committee later obtained and released some of his returns through proper legal channels.

And the result of all this exposure? Trump won the 2024 election and his net worth has skyrocketed in such an obvious way that, contra Karoline Leavitt's statement, it would be difficult to find anyone who legitimately believes that Trump isn't profiting off his Presidency.

According to Forbes, Trump's wealth jumped from $3.9 billion in 2024 to $7.3 billion by September 2025, driven largely by his crypto ventures and the value of Trump Media and Technology Group. So grievous was the harm from this leak that Trump is now richer than he's ever been.

Which brings us to the lawsuit. Trump is demanding $10 billion—more than his entire current net worth—from the federal government. The federal government he controls and which he's stocked with cronies.

I need to repeat that. Donald Trump is trying to more than double his personal wealth by simply demanding that the IRS, which he controls, give him $10 billion in taxpayer funds. This goes beyond corruption. You need a different word for this altogether.

Let's break down the multiple levels on which this is absolutely batshit:

The President is suing his own government. Think about this for a moment. Trump controls the executive branch. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department. The Department of Justice—which would normally defend the government in such lawsuits—is currently headed by an Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General who previously worked as Trump's personal lawyers and who have repeatedly made it clear that they view their current jobs as still being the President's personal lawyers. The idea that Trump can file a lawsuit against agencies he controls, staffed with loyalists who seem to believe they work for him personally rather than the American people, is so blatantly corrupt that it puts pretty much all past corruption to shame.

As I wrote last year when Trump demanded a mere $230 million in a similar scheme, this creates a situation where Trump's own lawyers get to decide whether Trump's claims should be successful—and potentially how much taxpayer money flows directly into his pocket. The fact that it's now more than 40 times that amount just demonstrates that his corruption has no upper bound.

The damages claimed are laughable. The complaint lists the horrifying "harm" Trump suffered. Hold onto your hats:

ProPublica published at least 50 articles as a result of Defendants' unlawful disclosures, many of which contained false and inflammatory claims about Defendants' confidential tax documents.

And:

Because of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs were subject to, among many others, at least eight ("8") separate stories in the New York Times which wrongly and specifically alleged various improprieties related to Plaintiffs' financial records and taxpayer history

Eight. Stories. In the New York Times. That's apparently worth $10 billion in damages. From the US taxpayer. Trump has probably generated more negative headlines in a single weekend of Truth Social posts.

And if the stories were really defamatory (note: they weren't) sue those publications for defamation and… see how that goes. Because Trump's defamation lawsuits have a remarkable track record of getting laughed out of court.

But here—clever, clever, clever—this case need never go to court. The IRS and the DOJ (both run by Trump loyalists) can just "settle" and hand over however much taxpayer money Trump wants.

The complaint undermines itself. In a truly galaxy-brained move, Trump's lawyers included this gem from Littlejohn's deposition:

When asked, "so you were looking to do something to cause some kind of harm to him?" Mr. Littlejohn responded, "Less about harm, more just about a statement. I mean, there's little harm that can actually be done to him, I think. . . He's shown a remarkable resilience."

They put this in their own complaint. The guy who leaked the documents, when asked under oath whether he intended to cause harm, essentially said "nah, you can't really hurt that guy." And Trump's lawyers thought this helped their case.

Or… they knew that it doesn't matter how bad the complaint actually is because Trump is effectively playing both sides, and that means the side the benefits Trump personally (at the expense of the American taxpayer) is almost certain to win out.

Isn't it great the Roberts Supreme Court said there's nothing the courts can do to stop this?

The legal theory is absurd. The complaint argues that the IRS should have known Littlejohn would leak documents because… the Treasury Inspector General had warned about "security deficiencies" in the IRS's data protection systems. By this logic, any time any government system has any vulnerability, taxpayers should be on the hook for billions if that vulnerability is ever exploited. It's malpractice dressed up in legal formatting.

The complaint also leans heavily on politicized language that has no place in a legal filing:

From May 2019 through at least September 2020, former IRS employee Charles "Chaz" Littlejohn, who was jointly employed by the IRS and/or one of its contractors, illegally obtained access to, and disclosed Plaintiffs' tax returns and return information to the New York Times, ProPublica, and other leftist media outlets.

"Leftist media outlets." In a legal complaint. Filed by a sitting president. Against his own government. Demanding $10 billion. This is a political document, rather than a serious legal complaint. Because, again, the legal stance here makes no difference. There is no adversarial process. Only Trump's insatiable desire to take people's money.

This is especially rich given everything else happening. This lawsuit lands at a time when Trump's administration is gutting the IRS's enforcement capabilities, when the DOJ has been transformed into Trump's personal law firm, and when the government is lurching from shutdown to shutdown. But sure, let's cut Donald Trump a check for ten billion dollars because reporters wrote stories about his taxes—taxes he refused to release voluntarily despite decades of precedent (and which also, once leaked, didn't appear to do him the slightest bit of political damage).

For all the talk about cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse," the president himself is attempting to walk off with enough taxpayer money to fund the entire National Endowment for the Arts for the next 60 years.

And the most galling part? Every other presidential candidate in modern history released their tax returns willingly. Trump's entire complaint rests on the premise that he was harmed by the public learning information that every other candidate simply… disclosed. The audacity of claiming $10 billion in damages for being forced into a transparency that was voluntary for everyone else is genuinely breathtaking.

Littlejohn broke the law. He knew it, he did it anyway, and he's paying for it with five years of his life. Some have argued he was a whistleblower serving the public interest; others say a law is a law. But none of that matters here, because what Trump is doing has nothing to do with justice or compensation for actual harm.

This is a sitting president attempting to use the legal system to transfer $10 billion from the U.S. Treasury—which belongs to the American people—into his personal bank account. The case will be litigated by a Justice Department stuffed with his former personal attorneys. The damages he claims are fantastical. The harm he allegedly suffered resulted in him getting richer than ever and winning re-election.

So yes, Karoline, you're right: this is absurd. Just not in the way you meant.

Winter mornings tend to follow a familiar pattern. Outerwear is chosen quickly, often before the day has fully taken shape. The priority is immediate: warmth, protection, readiness to step outside. In this early moment, padded jackets play a decisive role. They are put on without hesitation, used instinctively, and then - almost immediately - forgotten.

This ability to disappear from attention is not accidental. In everyday winter dressing, padded jackets are at their most effective when they stop being noticed. Once they have fulfilled their initial purpose, they fade into the background, allowing the rest of the day to unfold without interruption or awareness of what is being worn.

The role of early decisions in winter dressing

In cold weather, many clothing choices are made before routine takes over. The first layer that matters is often the outermost one. Padded jackets are frequently chosen at this stage because they resolve the immediate need for warmth without requiring further thought.

Once worn, however, their role shifts. They are no longer part of an active decision-making process. The jacket remains present, but it no longer demands attention. This transition - from deliberate choice to background presence - defines how padded outerwear functions in daily life.

Why the best outerwear disappears from focus

Clothing that constantly asks to be adjusted or reconsidered stays visible in the mind. Women's padded coats and jackets work differently. Their design prioritises comfort and consistency, allowing the wearer to stop thinking about them shortly after leaving home.

This absence of friction is crucial. When a jacket does not restrict movement, overheat the body or require frequent opening and closing, it becomes easy to forget. The wearer's awareness shifts away from clothing and towards activity. In winter, when layers can easily become intrusive, this quiet efficiency becomes a defining quality.

Everyday winter dressing without interruption

Daily winter routines involve constant transitions: moving between indoors and outdoors, walking, standing, sitting, commuting. Outerwear that performs reliably across these shifts quickly blends into the background.

Padded jackets support this rhythm by maintaining comfort without noticeable change. They do not mark each transition with a need for adjustment. Instead, they allow the day to continue uninterrupted. This is why they are often remembered only at the beginning and end of the day - worn early, removed late, and largely unnoticed in between.

Familiarity through repetition

Repetition plays a key role in how padded jackets are perceived. Worn regularly, often across consecutive days, they become part of the expected structure of winter dressing. This familiarity reduces their visual and physical presence.

As the jacket becomes habitual, it stops feeling like an added layer and starts functioning as a neutral constant. It neither defines the outfit nor competes with it. Instead, it supports everything else quietly, reinforcing the sense that winter dressing does not need to be actively managed once the right outerwear is in place.

Forgetting as a measure of success

In many cases, forgetting a garment is a sign that it is doing its job well. Padded jackets succeed in everyday winter dressing precisely because they do not remain at the centre of attention. Their effectiveness lies in how quickly they allow the wearer to move past the act of dressing itself.

By resolving warmth early and maintaining it consistently, padded outerwear frees the day from further consideration of clothing. It becomes a background element, present but unobtrusive. In winter, when excess layers and constant adjustment can dominate experience, this quality matters.

Padded jackets demonstrate that outerwear does not need to assert itself to be effective. When worn early and forgotten quickly, they fulfil their role with quiet reliability, supporting everyday winter dressing by staying out of the way once it matters most.

Max Mara and an understated approach to everyday warmth

Warmth, in Max Mara's universe, is never conceived as a purely technical requirement. It is understood as part of a broader dialogue between comfort, proportion and composure -  a quality that should integrate into daily life without altering a woman's sense of self. This perspective reflects the Maison's long-standing belief that elegance is most convincing when it feels natural, balanced and quietly assured.

Rather than treating functionality as a separate layer, Max Mara embeds it within a coherent design vision. The brand approaches everyday dressing with restraint and precision, shaping garments that respond to real conditions while maintaining a refined presence. This philosophy resonates with women who seek clothing that supports their routines without drawing attention to performance itself - pieces that feel considered, reliable and intuitively wearable.

Within this framework, warmth becomes an experience rather than a feature. Max Mara's interpretation of padded outerwear is guided by subtlety: insulation that protects, silhouettes that retain clarity even in colder months, and materials chosen for both their technical qualities and tactile appeal. The result is outerwear that feels aligned with the rhythm of contemporary life, capable of moving effortlessly between environments and moments.

Padded coats and jackets express this understated approach with precision. Lightweight constructions, fluid lines and carefully calibrated proportions ensure freedom of movement while preserving a composed aesthetic. These garments are designed to integrate seamlessly into a wardrobe built on continuity, offering reassurance without rigidity and comfort without excess.

Through this measured vision, Max Mara continues to define an idea of modern elegance rooted in intelligence and restraint. Its designs reaffirm that practicality, when shaped by intention, can become an integral part of a refined and enduring style language.

Image Source: Max Mara

By Nathan Spears

More explosive accusations from today's new release of Epstein files. An FBI report from a "credible" and confidential human source says that US president Donald Trump was "compromised by Israel" and that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was effectively running his organisation and presidency.

The report links Kushner's family to corruption, Russian cash and the ultra-Zionist Chabad group. It also names Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer Alan Dershowitz as "co-opted by [Israel's intelligence service] Mossad" to control elite students. Kushner's father was convicted of financial crimes but then pardoned by Trump.

Epstein's status as an Israeli intelligence operative — now beyond reasonable doubt — and ties to his "closest friend" Trump provide a likely means of 'kompromat' allegedly making Trump a tool of Israel. The report comes hot on the heels of other released documents detailing witness testimony accusing Trump of raping and beating children provided to him by Epstein. Dershowitz is also accused in the same files of at least being present during the rape — and in at least one case murder — of children.

The allegations would certainly be borne out by Trump's willingness to do what Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu demands — particularly the US collaboration in Israel's Gaza genocide and its heightened belligerence toward Iran, Venezuela and Greenland.

Featured image via ABC

By Skwawkbox

Expect a US attack on Iran imminently. Trump has been moving forces to surround the Islamic Republic for some time, but appeared to be backing away from an assault.

But today's Epstein file disclosures, which have exposed repeated allegations that he raped children — as well as already being accused of attending the murder and disposal of a 13-year-old victim's baby — mean that Trump urgently needs to distract US attention.

The fact that he will cause the deaths of thousands and probably plunge the world into economic catastrophe and potentially a third world war - those considerations will not give him a moment's pause.

And he is already threatening as much.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

The Syrian regime under terrorist-turned-'president' Ahmed al-Sharaa — AKA al-Joulani — has reached a ceasefire deal with progressive Kurdish-led forces in the north of the country. But will the former al-Qaeda extremist now in charge of Syria stay true to his word and respect the country's rich mosaic of diversity?

Syria — Not ideal, but better than no deal

The diverse but largely Kurdish north of Syria (Rojava) resisted the onslaught of Daesh (Isis/Isil) and other extremists during the country's devastating civil war, while trying to build a "multinational, multicultural, multi-religious" democracy centring on women's rights, environmental protection, and a co-operative economy.

Al-Sharaa's invasion this month put Rojava's fighters on the back foot. But it was always going to be difficult to capture all of the territory militarily without significant loss of life, due to firm resistance. Human rights abuses and fears of genocide increased global concern and a push for a peaceful resolution.

On 30 January, an agreement came. Al-Sharaa's forces would take over "oil and gas fields", prisons, and "administrative and civil bodies". In return, fighters from Rojava would have three brigades within a new Syrian military division. Displaced civilians would finally be able to start returning home, and a decree said the state would protect "Kurdish cultural, linguistic and civil rights".

Perhaps the biggest symbolic step was the:

first formal recognition of Kurdish national rights since Syria's independence in 1946.

In particular, people who had remained stateless for decades would finally have Syrian nationality.

It seems the progressive parts of Rojava's revolution may struggle to survive under al-Sharaa's rule, though.

Why it's hard to trust al-Sharaa

Rojava led the fight to defeat Daesh in Syria. And it also resisted attacks from al-Sharaa's Jabhat al-Nusra, Syria's al-Qaeda affiliate during the early years of the Syrian civil war. Al-Nusra and Daesh both reportedly received support from NATO member Turkey, which joined extremists attacking Rojava as an extension of its own war on Kurdish communities at home.

Turkey also supported al-Nusra's successor, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), whose members (including its leader al-Sharaa) now control Syria's government. But just as al-Nusra engaged in torture, abductions, and repression of dissent, there were also "serious human rights violations" in areas under HTS rule.

HTS confiscated hundreds of properties from local Christians. And it reportedly assassinated one non-violent Syrian activist for proudly expressing sentiments such as:

I'm Druze, Alawite, Sunni, Kurdish, Ismaili, Christian, Jewish and Assyrian… I'm the Syrian Revolutionary and proud to be!

It also has a weak record on women's rights. In areas it controlled, for example, it severely restricted women's movement, clothing, and participation in public life.

Following the HTS takeover of Syria in late 2024, the new regime either allowed or failed to stop war crimes against Alawite citizens (with whom tensions continue today). Druze communities have also faced attacks and sexual violence.

Nonetheless, Western governments have rehabilitated al-Sharaa into Syria's leader, and ended sanctions on the country. Al-Sharaa even reached an agreement in early January with Israel, and has just visited Russia (which he once called an enemy).

Understandings with global powers (including Turkey) may indeed have helped to greenlight al-Sharaa's assault on Rojava.

Keep both eyes open

Al-Sharaa and his allies have power. They aren't allies of Iran, are happy to deal with Israel, and have strong ideological connections to Western allies in Turkey and the Gulf dictatorships. For the West, that means Syria is no longer a 'problem'.

The diverse communities of Syria, however, will hope the world keeps paying attention to the country. Because al-Sharaa's record hardly inspires confidence for an inclusive future.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

The Met Police 'Service' has sent cops and a car to remove, or oversee the removal of an ad expressing support for political prisoners held captive by the UK and Israeli governments.

The ad, on a backdrop of barbed wire and guard towers, reads:

From HMP Bronzefield to Sde Teiman - solidarity with all prisoners for Palestine.

But within a short space of time a Met police car and removal workers were scraping it away — solidarity with those oppressed by the state, whether Israel or its Starmeroid UK glove-puppet, is beyond the pale in the current police state:

Given recent events, it would be no surprise at all if the police were responding to the demands of the Israel lobby for its removal.

Featured image provided via the author

By Skwawkbox

The Unite union has been accused of using union resources to canvass support for general secretary Sharon Graham's favoured candidates in elections for its executive council (EC). The union has denied involvement — but the denial missed, or deliberately ignored, the key point in the accusations.

Unite branch secretaries have been receiving calls to ask whether their branch has met to nominate candidates. Branch nominations play a key role in union elections and a significant number of nominations helps portray momentum for the nominated candidate.

All the calls, regardless of the branch's location, have come from the same number — but the person calling gives a different name each time, suggesting a phone-banking operation.

Unite Union asked questions

Skwawkbox asked Unite:

Branch secretaries and others are receiving calls from 07309926817, asking them if their branch has voted yet in the EC elections and if so, who for — and promoting Sharon Graham's preferred candidates. The line is the 'need' to 'have the right people in place'.

The Phonely site classifies the number as a harasser based on feedback from recipients.

Questions:

• How do the phone-bankers have branch officials' numbers?
• How does Unite justify what appears to be a GDPR breach?
• Why is Unite interfering in the election and spending members' money promoting one set of candidates over another?
• Does this indicate SG is worried about the unpopularity of her preferred candidates?

Phonely, a digital voice services provider, reports that the number, at the time of writing, has only started to be reported in the last two days. In that time, more than sixty people have searched for 07309926817. Four people have complained about the number making unsolicited calls, classifying it as "harassing":

Unusually, Unite responded directly rather than through its lawyers. Not unusually at all, it attempted to attack Skwawkbox for asking the question.

The union's press office denied any involvement and tried to dismiss the issue as a 'laughable smear' and to claim that the calls were just "candidates and their supporters" trying to get support:

Another day, another laughable attempt to smear Unite from Skwawkbox. As you well know, the union does not provide money or contact data to anyone involved in internal elections. Candidates and their supporters on all sides will no doubt be campaigning, including using whatever contacts they have within their usual day to day networks, to speak with activists who are eligible to vote during the election.

However, despite being notified in the press enquiry that all the calls were from a single number, Unite did not address this — and it undermines the claim that the calls are coming from various people all contending for support.

Skwawkbox understands that several branch secretaries have already, or are preparing, formal complaints about the data breach. One Unite rep posted to Facebook that:

"Just had a call from someone claiming to be from Unite called Scott Smith and saying he was campaigning for workers unite and wanted to talk about the elections. I told him that I was very concerned as to how he got my private number and he said "probably from a WhatsApp group" which tells me from his tone he's getting a bank of numbers from a unite source that he's work [sic] through. My private number is only on Unite's internal system or amongst people I know. His number is +44 (0)7309926817 ln case he calls anyone else with a different name." Different names, same number

Others have reported different names being given, but the same number.

Another wrote, in a thread about the issue:

That's funny I had a call on Tuesday evening about 6.30pm asking if my branch had made nominations for the EC and I told them we had on Thursday 22nd Jan, he phoned my number but asked for William who is the chair of our branch and I am the secretary, was it not a genuine call then?

A week ago the US President Trump warned Canadian leader Mark Carney not to strike trade deals with China. This week it is UK PM Keir Starmer's turn. Yet the US has itself moved away from China. So what is The Donald thinking?

Starmer has been in Beijing looking to improve relations. It's the first visit by a UK PM since 2018. He said the two countries should:

work together on issues like climate change, global stability during challenging times.

Bold aims. But looking at Starmer's entourage, it's all business, Al Jazeera noted:

The prime minister is accompanied by a delegation of nearly 60 representatives of businesses and cultural organisations, including banking conglomerate HSBC, pharmaceutical giant GSK, carmaker Jaguar Land Rover and the UK's National Theatre.

The visit is also a chance for a reset, Starmer seems to think. Relations have been strained for some years. Starmer said:

China is a vital player on the global stage, and it's vital that we build a more sophisticated relationship where we can identify opportunities to collaborate, but of course, also allow a meaningful dialogue on areas where we disagree.

Trump isn't happy…

Asked about the UK visit on 30 January, Trump said:

It's very dangerous for them to do that.

He immediately then pivoted back to Canada, who he'd slammed days before for deepening relations with China:

 And it's even more dangerous, I think, for Canada to get into business with China.

He added:

Canada is not doing well. They're doing very poorly, and you can't look at China as the answer.

Trump and Carney clashed at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Their war of words followed a lofty speech about the end of the global order from Carney on 23 January. Trump's subsequent speech was customarily rambling and erratic. Though the president backed down over his threats to annex Greenland — for now.

And Trump made sure that he took the chance to fire a warning shot at Carney, who was present:

Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.

But beneath the posturing, there is something else cooking.

Move away from China

The US made it clear in its recent National Security Strategy (NSS) that China is being de-prioritised. The western hemisphere is what matters to US leaders now.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out on 6 December:

the document… plays down ideological differences between the U.S. and China, instead placing economics and trade front and center in the relationship.

They added:

It names China only a handful of times—almost exclusively in terms of the economic relationship.

Also softened are the previous US administration's commitments to Taiwan, a territory China claims as its own.

Jessica Chen Weiss, a professor of China studies at Johns Hopkins University, told the Journal China would see the NSS as:

a relatively favorable turn in U.S. grand strategy.

It is always hard to know what's going on the brain of Emperor Donald. But his discomfort at the idea of countries he thinks owe him loyalty working with China is clear. Carney's speech was right after all: what for decades passed as a global rules-based order is coming apart. It's been doing so for a while.

It might be this that is weighing on Trump. And that insecurity may account for his cajoling of Starmer and Carney over China. Because fading empires tend to be volatile beasts, if nothing else.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

A newly-released batch of Epstein files shows that a witness accused US President Donald Trump of orally raping a girl of 13-14 years old — then beating her after she bit him during the ordeal. The same girl was raped by deceased(?) serial child rapist Jeffrey Epstein, who described Trump as his 'closest friend':

Another document newly released details horrific accusations against Trump and Epstein of further rapes. It also alleges that Elon Musk, Epstein's lawyer Alan Dershowitz — yet another Israel fanatic — and several of Trump's children were at least present during the crimes:

Yet another lists Trump as one of those implicated in a 'sex party' where one attendee strangled a young girl to death. All this was also witnessed by members of a Mexican drug cartel:

Trump is said to appear more than 12,000 times in the Epstein files — potentially much more. The Department of Justice has released millions more pages today.

Last month's release included records of a woman accusing Trump of raping her as a 13-year-old and, after she became pregnant, being present as her uncle murdered the baby and dumped its body in a huge lake.

The new revelations make a US attack on Iran almost certain, as he bombs to distract.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

The Migrants' Rights Network has issued an urgent callout to allies. The charity is asking that we complete a government consultation on its so-called 'earned settlement' immigration scheme.

The consultation closes at 11:59pm on 12 February 2026. That gives us under two weeks left to act. 

In its statement, the MRN explained that:

Over the last year, we've seen relentless attacks on our communities. Since the Immigration White Paper announcement in May 2025, the Government has attempted to exclude people who have built their lives here.

From citizenship  changes to the misleadingly titled 'good character guidance', and an increase in the salary thresholds for thousands of skilled workers - who now risk being unable to renew their work visas - to the Prime Minister's now-infamous 'Island of Strangers' speech, it's clear in the Government's eyes we are not welcome and do not belong.

'Earned settlement'

Now, Labour has put forward new proposals for an 'earned settlement' model. The MRN didn't mince its words, stating outright that the concept is "rooted in cruelty".

The change could come into force as soon as April of this year. The government consultation itself states that:

'Earned settlement' is a principle that recognises the value of long-term contribution to the UK. Rather than granting settlement automatically after a fixed period, this approach requires individuals to demonstrate sustained commitment (through work, community involvement, or other meaningful contributions) before being granted permanent status.

The proposed framework sets a starting point of 10 years before settlement can be obtained. This duration may be reduced based on positive indicators (e.g. contributing to the Exchequer by earning a certain salary) or extended based on negative indicators (e.g. reliance on public funds).

The MRN pointed out that the change would heap yet more uncertainty on migrants and refugees, and extend waiting times for settlement — if not preventing it altogether in some cases. Likewise, the very concept of 'earned settlement' is rooted in racism and classism, with high-paid workers receiving preferential treatment.

Limitations to the consultation

The consultation itself is a joke. The deadline is on 12 February, but the government expects that it could begin to implement the changes as early as April. This planned two-month gap clearly indicates that Labour has no intention of listening to any dissenting views.

Likewise, the survey features vague, confusing questions, and gives very little opportunity for meaningful feedback. At a fundamental level, the consultation presupposes that migrants' rights are up for debate:

many questions ask you to accept a framework which we fundamentally reject. A framework that suggests settlement should be 'earned' or that some groups should be exempted from longer routes - a proposal that would give others preferential treatment over others. […] It's ultimately an attempt to appease the far-right rather than challenge anti-migrant racism.

Given the clear biases in the consultation, the MRN is under no illusions that it might convince the government to reverse course. However, it's urging us to fill it out anyway:

We are engaging with the consultation as we think it's important to make our voices heard, register opposition to the proposals, and because we have been asked to by community members. Some groups are exploring legal challenges, and we think the consultation data could be useful for this.

How can you help?

In the face of such an obvious stitch-up, it's easy to feel powerless. However, the MRN suggested four ways in which we can help:

1. First and foremost, you should complete the consultation. As the MRN explained, we need to register our opposition to lay the groundwork for resistance further down the line. If you need help, you can check out the MRN's consultation response here.
2. Share the consultation with your group chats, colleagues, family and friends. Anyone can get involved, so it helps to get it in front of as many sympathetic eyes as possible.
3. Check in on your migrant friends and neighbours. These changes will make people's lives worse when they're implemented, but the proposals themselves are designed to make migrants feel unwanted. It's our duty to show people that this isn't the case.
4. Join the 'Not a Stranger' campaign:
   

   Not a Stranger is a migrant-led campaigning group established in June 2025 in response to the UK Government's Immigration White Paper (IWP) proposal. Find out more and join the campaign here.

The UK government's intense hostility is intended to make migrants and their allies feel like there's nothing they can do. They want us apathetic in the face of their right-wing pandering.

We must stand up now and demonstrate that there are still people who believe that we're stronger together, and we won't back down without a fight.

Featured image via Change.org

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Zack Polanski has landed himself in a Twitter spat with Labour's David Pinto-Duschinsky, the MP for Hendon. The Green leader called out Labour's pathetic flip-flopping on abolishing leaseholds.

Labour previously pledged to abolish leaseholds altogether. However, the party recently announced that it would cap the charge at a 'mere' £250.

Given the PLP's spineless U-turn, it's unsurprising that the war of words isn't going in Pinto-Duschinsky's favour. 

The boring part

First, a quick recap for those of us who don't keep up with the thrilling minutiae of the UK housing market.

(Stay with me, please — I promise there's dunks).

Across England and Wales, there are currently around 5 million leasehold properties. Flats make up at least 70% of that number.

As things currently stand, a property's freeholder owns both the building and the land it's built on. By contrast, leaseholders pay for the right to live on that land for a given period of time. That fee is called 'ground rent'. After the lease expires, the freeholder resumes ownership of the property.

On January 27, Keir Starmer announced that Labour will cap ground rent for leaseholders at £250 per year. The party also plans to ban the sale of new leasehold flats.

Yet another U-turn — Zack Polanski unimpressed

However, as the Canary's HG pointed out, Starmer conveniently forgot to mention that the 2024 Labour manifesto stated:

Labour will act where the Conservatives have failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end.

As HG wrote at the time:

Labour literally promised to end leasehold. Whilst we shouldn't be surprised that Starmer has made yet another U-turn, a £250 cap is a shitshow when it should be zero. And yes, after 40 years, it will change to 'peppercorn', or zero. But why in 40 years and not now?

As Zack Polanski pointed out, Labour hardly look like they're on the renters' side here:

How quickly did "abolish leasehold" become work with managing agents and insurance companies to "reform?"

Labour constantly showing where their loyalties lie - and it's definitely not with the people. https://t.co/fZhL5Ypizz

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) January 9, 2026

Likewise, Labour have also neglected to do anything to stop renters being hit with out-of-control service charges. Notionally, these are variable fees that landlords charge for improvements, insurance, repairs, maintenance, or management costs etc.

As such, there's nothing stopping landlords from simply hiking their service charges to make up for lost ground rent. In some areas of the country, leaseholders are already paying service charges of up to £16,000 a year.

Take the L, buddy

Fortunately for us at the Canary, Labour can never take a loss without digging themselves deeper. Enter the honourable member for Hendon:

Labour MPs discussing in detail with brokers and regulators practical steps to actually bring down leaseholders' insurance costs. @ZackPolanski sniping on social media with no plan. Same old Greens.

What's your actual plan, Zack? Are you going hypnotise insurers to lower rates? https://t.co/fi5U9iGy9W

— David Pinto-Duschinsky MP (@DavidPintoD) January 9, 2026

Anyone else getting bored of the fucking 'hypnotist' bit? These people have one joke, seriously.

If your party isn't in the pockets of landlords and their cronies, then abolishing ground rent is the plan. You simply don't have to worry about appeasing leeches for taking away one of their methods of sucking money from the hands of renters.

Zack Polanski — 'Replace Labour, abolish leasehold'

So, Polanski quickly pointed out that he has a plan. It happens to be exactly the same as Labour's stated plan back in 2024 — 'abolish leasehold':

As for what we're going to do David - I've repeated it lots. But happy to again:

Replace Labour.

Abolish Leasehold.https://t.co/0qbagSvIYp

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) January 29, 2026

Oh yes, sorry — "Replace Labour, Abolish Leasehold". Labour is apparently already working on keeping itself out of power in the next election, so Polanski's following the PLP on two counts there.

Labour's pathetic attempt at 'abolishing' leasehold is a fig leaf, and nothing more. The party promised to end this feudal system, but wound up siding with the landlords after all. £250 ground rent is a far cry from zero, and renters have no protection from jacked-up, retaliatory service charges.

Zack Polanski is advocating for real change. That simply doesn't compute for a Labour party that's forgotten what it's like to be on the side of the people.

Featured image via the Independent

By Alex/Rose Cocker

During the Nakba of 1948, zionist paramilitaries — from which the Israeli 'Defence' Force (IDF) was formed — destroyed hundreds of Palestinian villages. They also forcibly displaced around 750,000 of Palestine's 1.4 million Arab population. As a result of this mass displacement and expulsion, Palestinian refugee camps were established in the West Bank. These were managed by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), especially set up after 1948 for the welfare and human development of Palestinian refugees.

3,500 Palestinians from Jerusalem were displaced during the Nakba. Eventually they ended up in Shuafat Refugee Camp

UNRWA closes in Jerusalem

In the old city of Jerusalem, UNRWA hosted around 500 Palestinian families, approximately 3,500 people, in its Centre for Refugees. But in 1964, these refugees were moved from Jerusalem's old city, which is now the Jewish Quarter, to Shuafat Refugee Camp. Each family was given a plot of land, but nothing more, and until the 1970s there were no roads or electricity either.

Dr. Salim Anati was brought up in Shuafat Refugee Camp. He is a retired doctor who worked in UNRWA's health centre there, before its closure by the Israeli occupation. 

Around 42,000 people now live inside the one square kilometre camp. Another 40,000 people live in the area adjacent to it, and the numbers continue to rise. According to Dr. Anati, five or six thousand people have made Shuafat Refugee Camp their home in the past few years alone. Buildings are constructed upwards to save space. But as with all Palestinian structures, planning permission is not granted, and so home demolitions are common.

The Camp is technically within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, and many residents hold Jerusalem ID cards. But in 2003 the occupation built the separation barrier. This now surrounds the whole area and separates the refugee camp from Jerusalem. 

Dr. Anati says life is very hard for the residents. Many of their problems stem from a checkpoint at the entrance to the camp. This is manned 24 hours a day by the Israeli occupation.

Checkpoint makes life very difficult for residents of Shuafat Refugee Camp

Dr. Anati says:

If we want to go to Jerusalem, we have to pass the checkpoint. This restricts the movement of the people, and creates economic and psychological problems for them. People here used to go smoothly to East Jerusalem, but now they are losing their jobs, and there is around 47 percent unemployment.

There are problems with the checkpoint now, and people started to accept the situation, so they don't leave the camp. It's like a big jail here, of more than 80,000 in the area. Many Palestinians are also beaten at the checkpoint, or shot and killed by the Israeli police for no reason. It's collective punishment for the refugees. They want to get rid of them, so that they can't take back their homes from 1948.

For several years now, the Israeli occupation has made every effort to paralyse UNRWA in any means possible. And now the Agency has been banned from operating in 'Israel' and the occupied Palestinian territories. Just last week, 'Israel' brought in bulldozers and tore down UNRWA's headquarters in occupied East Jerusalem. In a statement, UN Commissioner General, Philippe Lazzarini, said this latest attack was part of an "ongoing attempt to dismantle the status of Palestinian refugees, and erase their history."

As a result, all UNRWA facilities in refugee camps in the occupied territory are now closed. And have had their electricity, water and communications cut. This includes the three schools in Shuafat camp, and the health centre where Dr. Anati used to work.

UNRWA also used to collect rubbish, take care of the streets, water and sewage system, and run health awareness programmes.

He says:

These have all stopped now. We don't know what will happen in the future. They say the municipality will take care of these things, but the people must pay tax for the services. All people would be forced to pay. The people are in a bad place, things are very difficult and they are suffering.

Kids can't go to school here now, and the health centre is closed so there is no more medication for the community. Children aren't vaccinated any more. Women, the elderly, disabled and chronically ill are also affected.

But Israeli occupation forces have not only gone after UNRWA in Shuafat refugee camp. They also harass and impose conditions on other facilities important to the community. On 28 January, a fine equivalent to more than £60,000 was imposed on Shuafat refugee camp's youth centre, which provides education and vital activities for children aged between 12 and 17 years.

Children severely traumatised by the almost daily violent raids

Dr. Anati and some of his friends from the refugee camp, established Al Quds Charitable Trust, back in 1993, with the aim of easing the hardships of the residents of the camp. Things have become increasingly difficult in the West Bank since the start of the genocide in Gaza, Dr. Anati describes the situation as collective punishment and says more people than ever are asking for the charity's support and assistance. Many benefit from the physiotherapy sessions, whilst a lawyer is available to provide essential legal advice.

The charity's centre also teaches women handicrafts and embroidery, with the aim of these skills providing a livelihood for them and their family. Several Bedouin communities close to Shuafat camp, who are regularly targeted by Israeli occupation authorities and settlers, are also supported. Many activities are also organised for children.

Dr. Anati says:

We work with the YMCA in Jerusalem, to provide psychosocial support. We also now have a speech therapy programme, that we didn't have before. Children are really affected by the daily raids on the camp. They get traumatised and have nightmares, bed wetting, difficulties speaking and writing. So we try and help them.

These violent raids, carried out by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) and border police, have been increasing since October 2023, but over the past two months they have occurred on an often daily basis, at all times of the day and night, without warning. Children returning home find themselves being chased, beaten, shot at and arrested for no reason at all. The Israeli occupation also attacks people in their homes, often smashing down their doors and causing widespread destruction. These raids do not only have a psychological impact on those living in the refugee camp but also can cause them severe health issues — due to the widespread use of tear gas, which can often lead to infections and suffocation.

But tear gas is not the only cause of health problems. Chronic diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure are increasing among the population, as are respiratory and gastrointestinal problems.

UNRWA closure creates a growing number of health problems

Dr. Anati explains:

Nowadays, no less than 20 percent of the population in this camp have diabetes. Health conditions are deteriorating because of the stress and pressure, unhealthy conditions, and psychosocial problems here. And the lack of medicines also has an influence on and adds to the complications these people face.

The Al Quds Charitable Trust is run entirely by volunteers. It has no regular funding source. Unfortunately, due to Israeli occupation's restrictions, no Palestinian charities in Jerusalem are permitted to receive any funding through their bank accounts — they rely entirely on the generosity of visitors. But despite the numerous efforts to drive Palestinians away from Shuafat refugee camp, its residents remain determined to stay. 

Dr. Anati and others like him continue working to keep the services and sense of community going, that UNRWA, until very recently provided. Although the Israeli occupation wants these Palestinians to leave, they are going nowhere. And in the face of recurrent raids, poverty and isolation behind the separation barrier, life inside the camp has become a daily act of resistance and resilience.

Featured image via UN RWA

By Charlie Jaay

ICE's war on the US people — under the guise of a racist 'immigration' purge — continues to spread. After murders and maimings in Minnesota and the tear-gassing of peaceful protesters in Texas, the viciousness has hit Colorado.

Citizens of Durango, a small Colorado town of fewer than 20,000 people, were holding their weekly peaceful protest against ICE violence and racism. Several people were filming the protest — by now a must-do activity to capture the lawlessness of the 'law enforcement' mob.

Suddenly, a masked ICE agent is filmed snatching an elderly woman's phone from her as she uses it to record. The thug then physically attacks the woman and throws her down a hill, assisted by others from the 'Trump Gestapo'. The attackers then retreat behind a fence:

https://www.thecanary.co/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/tEQf5aEQmZTEmq01.mp4

The vicious attack follows a period of openly racist escalation in the area. As the Durango Herald reported on Monday, ICE stormtroopers have begun leaving 'ace of spades' cards in the vehicles of victims of their raids. White supremacist groups have long used the symbol as a means of intimidation:

Image provided by a victim's family.

Alex Sanchez of the Voces Unidas immigrant advocacy group, said:

We are disgusted by ICE's actions in Eagle County," he said in his post. "Leaving a racist death card behind after targeting Latino workers is deliberate intimidation rooted in a long history of racial violence. This is an abuse of power.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Many European CSPs are being cut loose, sources say, forcing customer transitions

exclusive Broadcom this week brought the hammer down on the Advantage Partner Program for VMware Cloud Service Providers (VCSPs) - and the clock is now ticking for any third parties working to close sales.…

Less than 40 minutes after federal immigration agents shot and killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti on Nicollet Avenue in south Minneapolis, Clayton Kelly was thrown face-first onto the sidewalk, tasting snow and street grime as a federal agent's knee drove into his back.

The incident, a video of which The Intercept reviewed and corroborated with an independent eyewitness, occurred not long after Kelly and his wife arrived in the area where Pretti was killed. With protesters amassing and agents from Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement flooding the area, the couple told The Intercept, they just wanted to observe the scene. 

"All of a sudden," Kelly said, a federal agent "started running toward me, pointing and yelling, 'That's him. Get him.'" 

Ten days earlier, Kelly had watched as an immigration agent shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg during a federal enforcement action in north Minneapolis. As Kelly told the local outlet Sahan Journal, an SUV with police lights chased another vehicle, and then, "They went into a house. … I heard two shots before the area was just being swarmed by ICE immediately." Sosa-Celis was injured — and Kelly's account contradicted the official narrative released by the Department of Homeland Security.

At the scene of Pretti's killing, Kelly told agents they would find themselves "on the wrong side of history," he recalled. After the exchange, he and his wife, Alana Ericson, began walking toward another section of Nicollet Avenue where people were congregating, and as soon as Kelly turned his back, that was when agents began shouting and running toward him.

"I had my hands up. I kept saying, 'I'm leaving. I'm leaving,'" Kelly said.

Kelly is far from the only civilian to be brutalized by federal agents in Minneapolis this month. But his detailed account of his beating and detention offers a clear example of how the agents, ostensibly deployed to carry out immigration enforcement, have instead shifted their purpose to encompass a crackdown on dissent. In Kelly's case, it raises the question of whether he was facing retaliation for acting as a witness.

In December 2025, a group of Minnesota residents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a federal class-action lawsuit, Tincher v. Noem, alleging that federal agents participating in Operation Metro Surge used excessive force, intimidation, and arrests to deter civilians from observing, recording, or protesting immigration enforcement. 

Related Federal Agents Keep Invoking Killing of Renee Good to Threaten Protesters in Minnesota

The complaint alleges retaliation against people engaging in constitutionally protected conduct, including arrests of observers who were not interfering with federal operations. In January, a federal judge issued a limited injunction barring agents from retaliating against peaceful protesters and observers.

While federal agents pinned Kelly down, given Pretti's recent shooting, Ericson feared they could kill her husband.

"I kept telling them he's a U.S. citizen. They said, 'We don't give a f—,'" she said.

Kelly had previously undergone fusion surgery in his thoracic spine, a procedure that permanently joins vertebrae to stabilize the back. "Several agents piled on top of me," Kelly said, and one put his knee on the site of his surgical wounds. "They were sitting directly on my spine."

"I was screaming that I couldn't breathe, but I had almost no air left," Kelly said. "An agent pushed the pepper spray nozzle right into my left eye and sprayed. I turned my head so I wouldn't get it in both eyes, but my left eye was completely burned."

Pinned beneath multiple agents, Kelly said panic quickly gave way to fear that he might not survive. He said he was unable to catch his breath and felt his limbs go limp beneath the weight on his body.

"An agent pushed the pepper spray nozzle right into my left eye and sprayed."

Kelly was then forced to his feet and handcuffed, leaving deep indentations on both wrists that were still visible in photographs taken three days later and shared with The Intercept. At some point, his phone fell out of his pocket. He was dragged to a vehicle and placed in the back seat, where he said agents told him he was being taken to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis for detention.

After being pepper-sprayed, Ericson said she was unable to drive. A bystander offered her a ride home, where she and her mother-in-law spent the day calling attorneys and trying to determine where Kelly had been taken and whether he was alive.

An independent eyewitness who said they did not know Kelly or his wife said they were standing nearby when agents rushed Kelly, tackled him to the ground, and deployed pepper spray, corroborating Kelly's account of the arrest. After Kelly and Ericson were gone, the witness remained near Nicollet Avenue as federal agents continued clearing the area.

Moments later, the witness said they were grabbed from behind, thrown to the pavement, and sprayed in the face. Medical records from Hennepin County Medical Center reviewed by The Intercept show the witness sustained a fractured shoulder. According to the documentation, the injury will require surgery and months of physical therapy.

The Intercept reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and ICE with detailed questions about the use of force by federal agents in Minneapolis, the detention and processing of civilians, the seizure of phones and other personal property, and policies governing crowd control. DHS, CBP, and ICE did not provide responses by publication time.

Kelly was transported to the federal building in downtown Minneapolis, a facility commonly used by immigration authorities for detention and processing.

Several of the people detained alongside him, Kelly said, had directly witnessed or recorded the fatal shooting of Pretti earlier that morning.

Kelly said detainees were never told why they were being held and were not informed of any charges. He said federal officials discussed possible criminal violations but ultimately filed none.

Shauna Kieffer, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild who is now representing Kelly, said her client was never read his Miranda rights. They're required only when law enforcement seeks to obtain a statement, she said, so a person may be detained without being advised of those rights if officers are not questioning them and no statement is taken. At one point, Kelly said, ICE agents asked whether detainees would be willing to give interviews. All declined and invoked their right to remain silent.

According to Kelly, no medical care was provided upon arrival, even though multiple detainees had visible injuries and repeatedly asked for assistance. One older man, Kelly said, was bleeding from his elbow when brought into custody. Kelly said detainees used their drinking water to clean blood from the man's arm while the staff ignored their requests for assistance, and that the man didn't receive treatment until after a shift change.

Related Even the Top Prosecutor in Minneapolis Doesn't Know the Identity of the Agents Who Killed Alex Pretti

Kelly and his family have been unable to recover his phone. At the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Kelly said agents later showed him the phone, asked whether it belonged to him, and told him he would not be getting it back. According to Kelly, no one listed the device on his property inventory, and agents told him they would seek a warrant to access its contents. 

A copy of the property inventory receipt reviewed by The Intercept does not list a cellphone among Kelly's belongings. Additional photographs show his belongings placed in an ICE-labeled property bag bearing his name and a U.S. citizen designation.

In an affidavit he signed with his attorney, Kelly said the confiscated phone contained photos he took of the January 14 shooting of Sosa-Celis that he witnessed, a detail he says underscores its evidentiary value and why he wanted it returned.

Attorneys representing several detainees said federal officials told them they were considering charges of assaulting, interfering with, or resisting federal officers, according to Kieffer and another detainee's attorney. Kieffer said the statute is often interpreted broadly, but verbal objections, mere presence at a scene, or passive conduct alone do not meet its standard.

In Kelly's case, "any movements of his body are simply because a bunch of grown men are pummeling him," Kieffer said, referring to the video of his arrest.

Kelly estimated he was detained for roughly eight hours before being abruptly released. After a brief stop at home, he sought medical treatment at Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park. Discharge paperwork from that visit, reviewed by The Intercept, documents his injuries as assault-related.

Kelly said he continues to fear retaliation following his detention.

Read Our Complete Coverage

Unmasking ICE

The following morning, he said, several federal vehicles drove slowly down the residential street where he and his wife live, an occurrence he described as highly unusual for their area.

Kieffer said her client's fears are not unfounded.

She described instances in Minneapolis in which attorneys and civilian observers reported being followed by federal vehicles after monitoring immigration enforcement activity, and in some cases later saw federal agents parked outside their homes. One attorney shared video of ICE agents following him and parking outside his house with The Intercept.

In Kieffer's view, the sheer number of people taken into custody while observing or documenting federal activity has made Minneapolis stand out.

The emotional toll of the arrest, Kelly and his wife said, has not ended with his release.

"I've been having nightmares. This doesn't feel like real life. It feels like a really bad dream that I can't wake up from," Ericson said. "After he spoke publicly about that shooting, I felt like he was already on their radar."

The post He Witnessed an Earlier Shooting. Feds Arrested Him at the Scene of Alex Pretti's Killing appeared first on The Intercept.

Journalist Georgia Fort, right, and Minnesota State Senate candidate Jamael Lundy hold leave the Federal Courthouse in Minneapolis, Minn., on Friday, January 30, 2026.  Photo: Renee Jones Schneider/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images

The FACE Act was written with a very specific purpose: to protect those seeking abortions without restricting First Amendment-protected speech. Passed in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act arose after a horrific string of attacks on reproductive care facilities and providers across the United States.

Two decades later, the Trump administration is twisting this law to chill dissent by prosecuting journalists for the crime of reporting.

Two journalists, former CNN host Don Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort, were arrested Friday after covering a recent protest at a Minneapolis church. According to the Department of Justice, Lemon's crime was a start-to-finish livestream reporting on the protest, beginning with an organizing meeting and concluding with the protest itself at the at the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. As for Fort, the only allegation proffered by federal prosecutors is that she and Lemon approached the pastor - who has a day job running the local Immigration and Customs Authority field office — in "close proximity" and tried to oppress and intimidate him by "peppering him with questions."

Covering a protest - even one inside a church - isn't a crime.

Such actions, prosecutors allege, are violations of the FACE Act, which includes a provision focused on houses of worship.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi brought these charges despite the fact that the FACE Act protects "expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) from the jeopardy of prosecution." That language clearly did not confuse a federal magistrate and an appellate court when they refused to issue a warrant. So the Justice Department convinced a grand jury to indict them.

Courts have found the right to report and record events of public concern almost universally to be "expressive conduct."

The FACE Act itself provides specific instructions on the kind of behavior that constitutes a violation. It notes that one cannot interfere, intimidate, or obstruct ingress or egress to a reproductive health services clinic or to or from a place of worship, "rendering passage to or from such a place of worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous."

It's this language about a place of worship that the Trump administration is leaning on. But it's clear that this language ensures that the law applies only to actions involving restriction on physical freedom of movement, interference in access to property, or actions causing a person to experience reasonable fear of harm.

In this case, the term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of movement. "Intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to themselves or to others. And "physical obstruction" means making it unreasonably difficult or dangerous to enter or leave a facility that provides reproductive health services or a place of worship.

Looking at video of the protest, it's clear that these journalists weren't interfering, obstructing, or intimidating in ways that would violate the FACE Act. Covering a protest — even one inside a church — isn't a crime. And asking questions — including difficult ones — isn't a violation of religious freedom.

These are things all journalists do, which is precisely what makes this prosecution so chilling.

Courts have warned about the danger of the FACE Act being abused by overzealous prosecutors for years.

Related Even the Top Prosecutor in Minneapolis Doesn't Know the Identity of the Agents Who Killed Alex Pretti

In the case New York v. Operation Rescue, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted in 2001 that courts must prevent abuse of the FACE Act because an erroneous application "threatens to impinge legitimate First Amendment activity." The courts have made a distinction between actions that make going to a place of worship "unpleasant or even emotionally difficult, including yelling," and conduct that is prohibited by the FACE Act. Since the Act does not criminalize protesting or even unpleasant yelling, it certainly does not criminalize two reporters doing their job by covering a community crisis - even if that community crisis is at a house of worship.

This, of course, isn't the first attempt by the Trump administration to stifle the press. Just this month, for instance, federal agents raided the home of a Washington Post reporter and seized her devices in a leak investigation.

As the Trump administration's attacks on press freedom continue to mount, it's critical that journalists who find themselves under fire find support. As the director of the Press Freedom Defense Fund, I'm working to make sure that Fort has the resources she'll need to mount a strong defense.

Weaponizing the FACE Act against journalists is a dangerous escalation from the White House. What's critical is that the media cover this attack, look at the administration's motivations, and pay attention to who is being prosecuted — whether it's a Washington Post reporter with a deep rolodex of government sources or two Black journalists covering anti-ICE activism in Minnesota.

The news industry must also continue to chronicle the litany of abuses carried out by the Trump administration's immigration enforcement apparatus on the streets of Minneapolis and other cities across the U.S. This is not simply a shambolic legal gambit, but also an obvious attempt to divert attention away from the horrifying assault that has resulted in true violations of First Amendment rights of protestors and journalists, and the brutal killings of Nicole Good and Alex Pretti.

The post The Farcical Case Against Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for Protest Reporting appeared first on The Intercept.

Consider yourselves compromised, experts warn

Ivanti has patched two critical zero-day vulnerabilities in its Endpoint Manager Mobile (EPMM) product that are already being exploited, continuing a grim run of January security incidents for enterprise IT vendors.…

Lying means dying

Lying means dying, at least for one falsehood-peddling government AI. A Microsoft-powered chatbot that New York City rolled out to help business owners answer frequently asked questions - but was often wrong - has been silenced as the city grapples with a $12 billion budget shortfall.…