5 years in, Operation Lone Star Seizes 870 Million Lethal Doses of Fentanyl

(Bethany Blankley, The Center Square)  Five years into Texas’ border security mission, Operation Lone Star officers have seized a record amount of illicit drugs.

Gov. Greg Abbott first launched OLS on March 4, 2021, in response to an unprecedented number of illegal border crossers and crime within the first year of the Biden administration.

From March 2021 through February 2026, OLS officers have apprehended 538,141 illegal border crossers, The Center Square reported.

They’ve also seized a record volume of illicit drugs, including enough fentanyl to kill nearly one tenth of the world’s population.

Although illegal crossings have dropped by more than 95% under the Trump administration, crime is ongoing and cartel networks are embedded throughout Texas and nationwide. OLS 2.0 is targeting them and criminal actors designated as foreign terrorist organizations like Tren de Aragua, The Center Square reported.

Roughly 4,200 Venezuelans illegally in the country have been arrested in Texas for a range of crimes. As of Jan. 8, there are 555 Venezuelans with active warrants issued by Texas law enforcement agencies. As of Feb. 27, there are 173 confirmed TdA members in Texas’ gang database, according to OLS data obtained by The Center Square.

TdA’s vast criminal network relies on smuggling and trafficking of illicit drugs and money laundering tied to these operations, authorities have found.

Despite record low illegal border crossings, law enforcement officers at the federal, state and local level are seeing an increase in narcotics coming across the border.

“Whether it’s through the ports of entry or between the ports of entry, we’ve seen large amounts of narcotics especially in commercial vehicles, as well as money and weapons heading south to Mexico,” Texas Department of Public Safety Lt. Chris Olivarez told The Center Square.

Since March 2021, OLS officers have seized significant volumes of illicit drugs in border communities and statewide. They’ve seized record amounts of marijuana (more than 40,000 pounds at the border/nearly 89,000 pounds statewide); cocaine (nearly 17,000 pounds at the border/25,000 pounds statewide) and heroin (more than 300 pounds at the border/more than 1,000 pounds statewide), according to the data.

OLS officers have also seized a record amount of fentanyl (more than 600 pounds at the border/nearly 4,000 statewide), according to the data.

This translates to OLS officers seizing more than 138 million lethal doses of fentanyl at the border and more than 870 million lethal doses statewide. The statewide seizure total is enough to kill one-tenth of the world population.

OLS officers have also seized a record amount of methamphetamine (nearly 25,000 pounds at the border/nearly 94,000 pounds statewide), according to the data.

They are also continuing to implement targeted traffic enforcement, which authorities have found helps them identify drug smuggling and trafficking and enforce commercial driving safety regulations. Last September, Texas DPS began suspending issuing CDL licenses in several categories and implementing targeted enforcement actions.

In the west Texas region near El Paso, OLS officers have conducted nearly 3,000 vehicle inspections, taking 13% of vehicles out of service.

In OLS areas of interest at the border, since last March, OLS officers have apprehended and referred to Border Patrol 2,212 illegal foreign nationals for illegally operating a commercial motor vehicle or other large vehicles. The vehicles were being driven on public highways and used “to transport passengers or property, including but not limited to a bus, tractor trailer, cargo/horse trailer, box truck, farm vehicle,” according to the data.

Earlier this month, in the small rural town of George West in Live Oak County, an OLS officer pulled over the driver of a semi-truck tractor trailer for a traffic violation and noticed signs of possible criminal activity. An OLS Live Oak Sheriff’s K-9 unit was called and identified 2,000 pounds of methamphetamine hidden in the trailer. The driver was headed for Dallas. He was arrested and the drugs, worth roughly $3.4 million, were seized.

“There is a trend that happens under different administrations and policies that cartels are always going to adapt to,” Olivarez said. “Right now, the cartels are adapting to this current administration. We’re not seeing that large volume of people coming across the border, which was the cartels money maker the last four years. Now, they’re more careful. They’re more discreet with who they’re bringing across the border. They’re charging double, triple the amount that they normally would charge somebody to get across the border. Now they’re going back to what they normally would do: smuggling narcotics across the border and of course money and weapons going south.”

The continued need for OLS in the interior of the state is paramount for border security, he and others in law enforcement have told The Center Square.

“Things could change, elections always play a role in border security,” Olivarez said. “Cartels are well aware and pay attention to politics. Elections will always play a role in border security.”

Today: Ethics Hearing for Democrat Congresswoman Who Stole Public Funds

(Headline USAThe House Ethics Committee is holding a rare public hearing today at 2 p.m. into alleged ethics violations committed by Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida, pushing into the open a yearslong investigation into how she funded her political rise.

The two-term congresswoman is facing numerous ethics charges, including failing to follow campaign finance laws, commingling campaign, personal and business funds and using her position to benefit allies. She is also facing federal charges for allegedly stealing $5 million in COVID-19 disaster relief funds.

Over two years of work, committee investigators say they found “substantial evidence” that Cherfilus-McCormick committed the deeds alleged in the federal indictment. She denies any wrongdoing.

The hearing could carry significant political repercussions because some Republican lawmakers are threatening a vote to expel Cherfilus-McCormick from the House. Both parties are vying for the ethical high ground before the November elections.

Cherfilus-McCormick, who represents a heavily Democratic district in southeastern Florida, has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges and last year called it “an unjust, baseless, sham indictment.” She argued to have the committee postpone its hearing until after the conclusion of the criminal trial or to hold the proceedings in private, but the subcommittee examining the allegations unanimously denied those requests.

Ethics hearings are almost never public

The committee’s work rarely take place in the open. It has been more than 15 years since a sitting member of the House faced a public hearing, dating to the 2010 ethics trial of Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., on charges related to his personal finances. The panel also held a hearing for allegations against Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., that year, but found insufficient evidence to prove the allegations.

Thursday’s hearing, which is scheduled to last two hours, will give House investigators an opportunity to lay out their findings and make a motion for the panel of lawmakers to adopt their conclusion that Cherfilus-McCormick committed numerous ethics violations. The full committee could then later recommend a punishment.

Cherfilus-McCormick’s lawyer, William R. Barzee, is appealing for the subcommittee to reconsider the earlier decision to go ahead with the public hearing. Barzee told the committee that if she wants to preserve her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the upcoming federal trial, “she must remain silent before the committee.”

What is the committee alleging?

Committee investigators have laid out their findings in a 242-page report that concludes Cherfilus-McCormick committed 27 counts of ethics violations.

The report alleges that Cherfilus-McCormick first won a special election in 2022 with a campaign that presented itself as self-financed. But in reality, the campaign was substantially funded through a $5 million overpayment for COVID-19 vaccination services that her family’s company had received from the federal government, according to investigators.

They also found evidence that the congresswoman then funded her reelection campaign largely through outside groups run by her friends and family, including a company that was mostly funded by the Haitian government.

The investigation alleges that she continued to commit ethics violations in office, including using her position to benefit allies with special favors during the appropriations process and disregarding restrictions on volunteer work by her senior campaign adviser.

House ethics officials said the committee, which has been considering the matter since 2023, met a dozen times as part of the investigation, reviewed more than 33,000 documents and issued dozens of subpoenas.

What federal charges does Cherfilus-McCormick face?

In February, the Florida Democrat pleaded not guilty to more than a dozen federal counts, including theft of government funds, making and receiving straw donor contributions and money laundering, as well as conspiracy charges associated with each of those counts.

Prosecutors accuse her of conspiring to steal $5 million in federal disaster funds mistakenly overpaid to the health care company owned by her family through a federally funded COVID-19 vaccination staffing contract. Within two months of receiving the money, prosecutors allege, more than $100,000 had been spent to buy the congresswoman a 3-carat yellow diamond ring. Her brother, former chief of staff and accountant were also charged in the alleged scheme.

She has said she had no plans to resign. But Cherfilus-McCormick has stepped down from her position as ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, in keeping with House Democratic Caucus rules that require indicted members to relinquish committee leadership positions.

Could Cherfilus-McCormick be expelled from the House?

Republicans are moving to do just that, although it would require a significant number of Democrats to join them. It takes a two-thirds vote to expel a member from the House.

Democratic leaders have so far declined to condemn Cherfilus-McCormick. California Rep. Pete Aguilar, the third-ranked Democrat in House leadership, said this week that he would not “prejudge” the allegations against her.

“Let’s see what happens in the Ethics Committee,” he said at a news conference Tuesday.

The last member of Congress to be expelled was Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., in 2023. Santos had not yet been convicted of federal charges, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., voted against it at the time, expressing concern about setting a precedent of expelling members based on untried allegations.

But a scathing House Ethics Committee report preceded the expulsion vote for Santos. ___

Kinnard reported from Columbia, S.C., and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

 

Top GOP Lawmaker Says Pentagon Not Sharing Enough Details on Potential Iran Ground War

(Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.comRep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, denounced the US War Department on Wednesday for not providing enough information about the US war against Iran, including plans for potential ground operations.

According to POLITICO, Rogers said that during a briefing, members told Pentagon officials that any US troop movements should be “thoughtful and deliberate” and that they were not given enough details about the war.

“We want to know more about what’s going on, what the options are, and why they’re being considered,” Rogers said. “And we’re just not getting enough answers on those questions.”

Rogers’ comments appeared to be reaffirmed by his Senate counterpart, Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-MS). “Let me put it this way: I can see why he might have said that,” he told POLITICOafter a Senate briefing. “I haven’t heard his comment, and I don’t know the context. But I can see why he might have said that.”

Rogers also said that he warned the administration could lose support for the war if it didn’t share more information. “That’s what I conveyed to them at the end of this hearing, is this has consequences if you don’t remedy it,” he said.

The comments from Rogers and Wicker, who are both known as hawks, come as the Trump administration is sending thousands of Marines to the region and is poised to deploy the 82nd Airborne for potential operations aimed at seizing Iran’s Kharg Island or Iranian ports near the Strait of Hormuz. Any ground operation would likely result in significant American casualties since US troops would face major Iranian drone and missile barrages.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who attended the House briefing, suggested in several posts on X that the Trump administration was heading toward a ground invasion of Iran. “Just walked out of a House Armed Services briefing on Iran. Let me repeat: I will not support troops on the ground in Iran, even more so after this briefing,” she said.

In another post, Mace said, “Washington’s war machine is hard at work. They are trying to drag us into Iran to make it another Iraq. We can’t let them.” The South Carolina congresswoman also suggested that the administration was lying to the American public about the war.

“The justifications presented to the American public for the war in Iran were not the same military objectives we were briefed on today in the House Armed Services Committee. This gap is deeply troubling. The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people,” she wrote.

While Mace is critical of the idea of a ground war with Iran, she voted against a War Powers Resolution to end the conflict without congressional authorization earlier this month. Another War Powers Resolution vote could happen soon, though Democratic leadership may delay it until after an upcoming two-week recess, which would push the vote back to mid-April, even though it now has a better chance of passing.

This article originally appeared at Antiwar.com.

US Arms Control Official Refuses To Comment When Asked If Israel Has Nuclear Weapons

(Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.comA senior US arms control official on Wednesday refused to comment when asked during a congressional hearing if Israel has nuclear weapons, maintaining the US government’s ambiguity over Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.

“I can’t comment on that specific question. I’d have to refer you to the Israelis on that,” Thomas DiNanno, the US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) when asked about Israel’s nuclear capabilities.

Castro asked why DiNanno wouldn’t answer whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons, but DiNanno continued to say he wouldn’t comment. “I don’t understand why this issue is so taboo when it’s a basic question, and we’re in a war alongside Israel against Iran. We’re dealing with the potential for nuclear fallout, and you won’t answer this basic question,” Castro said.

Every US presidential administration since President Nixon has maintained an understanding with Israel under which the US and Israel do not acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and the US doesn’t pressure Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The ambiguity has allowed the US presidents to provide military assistance without worrying about the 1976 Symington Amendment, a foreign assistance law that prohibits aid to countries that traffic in or receive nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside of international safeguards.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which is estimated to be somewhere between 70 and 400 nuclear warheads, is almost always missing from the conversation in US media coverage and political discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, which has never been used to develop weapons. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory of the NPT, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader killed by an Israeli strike on February 28, had maintained a Fatwa banning the development of nuclear weapons.

Iran recently targeted the Israeli city of Dimona, which is near the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center, a facility where Israel first developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s and is believed to still be a crucial part of Israel’s undeclared nuclear weapons program. Last year, The Associated Press reported that satellite images showed construction work on a major new facility at the Dimona nuclear site, and seven experts who examined the images all told the AP that they believed the construction was related to Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

This article originally appeared at Antiwar.com.

A “Gold Bear” in a Bull Market? Setting the Stage

(Money Metals News Service) In a recent episode of the Money Metals Midweek Memo podcast, Mike Maharrey opens with a surprising admission. In the short term, he has turned bearish on gold.

This is not a reversal of conviction but a recognition of current market realities. Maharrey makes clear that his role is not to promote precious metals blindly but to interpret conditions as they are. Right now, sentiment rather than fundamentals is driving the market.

That distinction sets the tone for the entire discussion. While the long-term case for gold remains intact, the near-term environment is being shaped by fear, liquidity pressures, and expectations surrounding central bank policy.

Market Turmoil and the Selloff in Gold

Gold’s recent price action has been dramatic. After surging above $5,400 amid geopolitical tensions, the metal suffered a sharp correction. It briefly fell below $4,300 and even tested the $4,000 level.

Maharrey emphasizes that this decline must be viewed in context. Gold is not falling in isolation. Stocks, bonds, and other assets have also come under pressure as markets react to war-related uncertainty, particularly surrounding the Iran conflict.

This is a classic sell-everything environment. Investors are retreating into cash and waiting for clarity. The U.S. dollar has strengthened, and oil has become the focal point of volatility, swinging wildly based on shifting headlines.

In such conditions, gold’s safe-haven role can appear temporarily muted. Maharrey notes that this is not unusual. It is part of a recurring pattern seen in past crises.

The Case Against Gold and Why It Falls Short

The primary narrative weighing on gold is the expectation of persistent inflation leading to higher interest rates. Markets increasingly believe the Federal Reserve will either hold rates higher for longer or potentially raise them further in response to rising oil prices.

Because gold yields nothing, higher interest rates are typically viewed as a headwind. This has created a paradoxical situation. Inflation fears, which are normally bullish for gold, are now driving prices lower.

Maharrey dismantles this logic by returning to first principles. Inflation, properly defined, is the expansion of the money supply rather than simply rising prices. Oil shocks can push prices higher, but they are not the root cause of systemic inflation.

Meanwhile, money supply growth continues even as official narratives suggest tight monetary policy. This disconnect between perception and reality is central to the current mispricing of gold.

The Dominance of Fed Expectations

One of the most important insights from the episode is that gold is no longer reacting primarily to inflation itself. It is reacting to expectations about Federal Reserve policy.

Over the past decade, markets have conditioned themselves to respond not to what is happening but to what they believe the Fed will do next. When inflation appears hot, gold sells off due to fears of tightening. When inflation cools, gold rallies due to expectations of easing.

This inversion of logic has created a fragile environment where sentiment can shift rapidly. The current bearishness reflects a widespread belief that the Fed will remain hawkish in the face of rising prices.

Until that belief changes, Maharrey expects continued headwinds for gold in the near term.

Liquidity Stress and Forced Selling

Beyond interest rate expectations, another critical factor is liquidity stress within the financial system.

Maharrey points to growing cracks in the private credit market. Non-bank lenders are beginning to restrict withdrawals, a process known as gating. Funds are limiting redemptions as investors rush for liquidity, which signals deeper structural strain.

This has important implications for gold. In times of financial stress, investors often sell their most liquid assets first to meet margin calls. Gold, being highly liquid, becomes a prime candidate.

This dynamic was evident during both the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic. In each case, gold initially declined before embarking on a powerful rally once liquidity pressures eased.

War and the Myth of Immediate Safe Haven Demand

Many investors are confused by gold’s lackluster performance during geopolitical turmoil. The expectation is that war should automatically drive gold higher.

Maharrey challenges this assumption by pointing to historical precedent. Gold may experience an initial surge at the onset of conflict. However, its trajectory is ultimately shaped by broader economic forces, especially monetary policy.

During both the 2008 crisis and the early stages of the pandemic, gold declined sharply before rebounding. The same pattern is unfolding today.

The lesson is clear. Gold’s safe-haven status is real, but it does not operate in a straight line. Short-term liquidity needs and policy expectations can temporarily override its fundamental drivers.

The Bigger Picture of Debt and Monetary Policy

While the short-term case against gold is rooted in perception, Maharrey argues that the long-term fundamentals remain overwhelmingly bullish.

The U.S. economy is burdened by massive debt, now exceeding $39 trillion. Persistent deficits and rising government spending, especially during wartime, continue to undermine the dollar’s stability.

At the same time, the Federal Reserve faces a difficult choice. It must decide between fighting inflation and supporting an increasingly fragile economy.

Maharrey is clear in his view. When forced to choose, the Fed will prioritize economic support. That means lower interest rates, renewed quantitative easing, and further currency debasement.

Global Demand Tells a Different Story

Despite bearish sentiment in Western markets, global demand trends tell a different story.

Asian investors continue to accumulate gold. ETF inflows in Asia are rising even as Western funds experience outflows. Physical demand remains strong, with dealers in places like Singapore preparing for increased buying.

This divergence suggests the current selloff is not driven by a collapse in underlying demand. Instead, it reflects localized sentiment and financial positioning.

The same pattern is visible in silver. While paper prices remain volatile, physical demand, especially from China, is surging. Imports have increased sharply, and the global silver market is facing another structural deficit.

Conclusion

Maharrey’s bearish stance is tactical rather than structural. He expects continued volatility and possible downside in the near term as markets grapple with inflation fears, interest rate expectations, and liquidity pressures.

At the same time, he makes it clear that this bearish case rests on weak foundations. The structural drivers of gold’s bull market, including debt expansion, monetary debasement, and fiscal instability, remain firmly in place.

For investors who understand this distinction, the current pullback may represent an opportunity rather than a warning. Short-term sentiment may dominate headlines, but long-term fundamentals continue to point in a very different direction.

DOJ to Pay Michael Flynn $1.2 Million for Malicious Russiagate Prosecution

(Headline USAThe Justice Department has settled for roughly $1.2 million a lawsuit from Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump who was prosecuted during the Republican’s first term as part of the FBI’s politically motivated Russiagate investigation.

Court papers filed Wednesday do not reveal the settlement amount, but an anonymous source confirmed the total as about $1.2 million.

The settlement resolves a 2023 lawsuit in which Flynn sought at least $50 million and asserted that the criminal case against him amounted to a malicious prosecution. It also represents a stark turnabout in position for a Justice Department that during the Biden administration had pressed a judge to dismiss Flynn’s complaint. Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former personal lawyer for the president, has openly criticized the Russia investigation in which Flynn was charged and the Justice Department in the last year has opened investigations into former officials who participated in that inquiry.

The Justice Department cast the settlement as an “important step in redressing” what it says was a “historic injustice” of the Russia investigation that shadowed Trump for much of his first term.

“This Department of Justice will continue to pursue accountability at all levels for this wrongdoing. Such weaponization of the federal government must never be allowed to happen again,” a spokesperson said.

In a separate statement, Flynn said: “Nothing can fully compensate for the hell that my family and I have endured over these many years — the relentless attacks, the destruction of reputations, the financial ruin, and the profound personal toll inflicted upon us all. No amount of money or formal resolution can erase the pain caused by a prosecution that should never have been brought.”

The settlement is the latest turn in the long-running legal saga involving Flynn, one of six Trump associates charged as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who vigorously campaigned at Trump’s side, served for weeks as his first national security adviser before being pushed out of his position. He remained a Trump ally even after agreeing to cooperate with Mueller’s team. He was pardoned in the final weeks of the president’s first term.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

 

Bipartisan Senate Bill Would Ban Sports Betting on Prediction Markets

(José Niño, Headline USA) ​​A cross-party coalition of U.S. legislators has put forward a measure that would ban wagering on athletic events through prediction exchanges, specifically aimed at services like Polymarket and Kalshi.

The measure unveiled Monday would “bar any entity registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from listing or facilitating transactions linked to sporting events or athletic competitions,” the New York Post reported Monday.

Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California and Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah jointly backed the proposal, Breitbart noted. This marks the initial instance of any congressional representative attempting to restrict gambling expansion in recent years.

The proposal arrives following criminal accusations filed by Arizona’s top prosecutor against Kalshi, claiming the digital futures exchange ran an unlawful betting enterprise according to Arizona statutes.

“Too many young people in Utah are getting exposed to addictive sports betting and casino-style gaming contracts that belong under state control, not under federal regulators,” Curtis declared.

Schiff contended that futures exchanges mislead customers. “Sports prediction contracts are sports bets — just with a different name. And yet, these contracts have been offered in all fifty states in clear violation of state and federal law. Rather than enforce the law, the CFTC is greenlighting these markets and even promoting their growth. It’s time for Congress to step in.”

Kalshi voiced surprise at the proposal.

“Banning sports on regulated prediction markets would just push this behavior offshore, where no regulation exists,” the firm informed the Post Monday. “It’s clear this bill is motivated by casino interests that are threatened by competition.”

Though Schiff and Curtis contend that Kalshi, Polymarket, and similar futures operations represent disguised gambling ventures, futures exchanges function under distinct regulations from conventional wagering operations.

“While sports betting is typically overseen at the state level, prediction markets use financial instruments such as futures and commodity contracts, placing them under federal jurisdiction. Recent months have seen lawmakers, state governments and federal regulators debate about who should have oversight of event and sports contracts on prediction platforms,” the Post clarified.

These futures services have nonetheless drawn criticism for dramatically broadening their scope. They encountered opposition for accepting wagers on recent U.S. Venezuela actions, the Iran conflict, and have progressively moved into athletic betting territories.

The suggested measure would additionally ban wagers on casino entertainment like poker and blackjack.

The authority dispute between state wagering regulators and federal commodity watchdogs has generated an ambiguous zone that prediction exchanges have leveraged to provide offerings functioning like athletic wagers while asserting immunity from state gambling statutes. This measure constitutes a legislative effort to eliminate that regulatory loophole and reinstate state control over what detractors label as wagering under a different guise.

José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino 

 

Pentagon Secretly Dictates What Satellite Companies Can Say About Iran War Damage

(José Niño, Headline USA) The Defense Department has discreetly directed private space imaging firms on approved terminology for Iran conflict coverage, imposing information controls on what Americans can learn.

Defense insiders informed journalist Ken Klippenstein that information restrictions surrounding the Iran campaign remain unprecedented, with virtually no public disclosure regarding strike intensity, targeted locations, or damage evaluations. Trump’s government now seeks expanded control over corporate messaging through unreported coordination efforts. 

Following the February 28 launch of U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran, military authorities rapidly distributed instructions to satellite operators specifying what “language and terms to avoid” when characterizing Iranian attacks on American regional installations, per leaked documents Klippenstein obtained.

“Avoid language that implies battle damage assessment (BDA) or operational conclusions,” warns one U.S. Space Force presentation. It prohibits terminology including “Target destroyed,” “Target eliminated,” and “Structure rendered inoperable.”

These instructions offer concrete illustrations of sanctioned versus banned language. The Pentagon’s Incorrect Example states, “Strike successfully destroyed the facility.” The Correct Example states, “Imagery shows the structure largely collapsed with debris covering the building footprint.”

Around 100 U.S. firms possess federal authorization to operate spy satellites within a sector valued at $6-7 billion yearly. The dominant quartet—Maxar Intelligence, Planet Labs, BlackSky Technology, and Spire Global—controls approximately 350 observation and signal interception platforms. Federal defense contracts generate the bulk of these firms’ income.

Though Pentagon officials characterize their instructions as recommendations, corporations comply because contractual dependencies make them reluctant to oppose their dominant revenue source.

“While there’s a case to be made that they [the companies] should fight it, almost everyone makes the vast majority of their revenue from government contracts in this industry and after Anthropic, nobody is interested in putting up a fight,” an informed source told Klippenstein. “I think it’s also another layer of trying to make things [about the war] seem less bad than they are.”

Beginning in February, Anthropic declined to permit its Claude AI system for operations involving widespread domestic monitoring and autonomous weaponry. Pentagon officials have threatened Defense Production Act invocation to compel participation.

Defense Department influence has yielded tangible outcomes. Planet Labs, ranking among the world’s premier commercial satellite imaging providers, restricted public Iran conflict zone imagery access by implementing a 96-hour postponement February 28, subsequently expanding it to 14 days March 10. Company officials maintain this represented an independent choice following consultation with defense and intelligence advisers.

Such indirect information control transcends the current administration. When Klippenstein initially documented emerging “Little Brother” dynamics outlined in an obscure intelligence community memorandum addressing coordination with “Non-State Entities,” Biden’s Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines authorized it.

That memorandum commanded intelligence organizations to “routinize” and “expand” corporate collaborations, explicitly permitting such arrangements even when presenting elevated “risk” to government operations through security or legal vulnerabilities.

Across AI, cyber operations, unmanned systems, or satellite reconnaissance, corporate entities have accumulated capabilities approaching sovereign nation resources. Nevertheless, Little Brother maintains willing collaboration with Big Brother.

José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino 

 

Move Over, Goofy Elizabeth. Liberals Questions DHS Secretary Mullin’s Cherokee Identity

(Luis CornelioHeadline USA) Less than 24 hours after being sworn in as homeland security secretary, Sen. Markwayne Mullin became a target of left-wing criticism — not for his policies, but for his identity as a member of the Cherokee Nation.

Some left-wing social media users questioned Mullin’s heritage despite his status as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and recognition from tribal leadership.

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. praised Mullin’s elevation to DHS as a “testament to the resilience, capability and enduring impact of our people.”

Republicans quickly pointed to an apparent double standard, noting that Democrats and the media blindly accepted Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s decades-long claims of Native American ancestry.

DNA evidence later released by Warren suggested her purported Native American ancestry was limited to six to ten generations ago.

The DNA analysis indicated she could be as little as 1/64 Native American if her great-great-great-grandmother was fully Native, according to reports.

That distant ancestry did not stop Warren from identifying herself as American Indian for nearly two decades, including on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas, according to The Washington Post.

Cherokee Nation spokesperson Julie Hubbard said that Warren apologized to the nation for the confusion and for releasing the DNA test.

“Senator Warren has reached out to us and has apologized to the tribe,” Hubbard told media outlets then. “We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws not through DNA tests. We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end.”

At the time, Hoskin Jr. — the same Cherokee Nation official who praised Mullin — had sharply criticized Warren’s claims, stating:

“Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”

Hoskin Jr. added that Warren undermined “tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

In a statement to The Post, Warren said she could not “go back,” but added that she was “sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted.”

Jury Finds Instagram and YouTube Liable in a Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial

(Headline USA) Meta and YouTube must pay millions in damages to a 20-year-old woman after a jury decided the social media giant and video streamer designed their platforms to hook young users without concern for their well being.

The California jury’s decision Wednesday in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm.

The plaintiff, known by her initials KGM, testified at trial that she became addicted to social media as a child and that this addiction exacerbated her mental health struggles. After more than 40 hours of deliberations, a majority of jurors agreed and awarded her $3 million in damages.

Jurors later recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages after deciding the companies acted with malice, oppression or fraud in harming children with their platforms. The judge has final say over how much damages are awarded.

It’s the second verdict against Meta this week, after a jury in New Mexico determined the company harms children’s mental health and safety, in violation of state law.

Meta, the parent of Instagram and Facebook, and Google-owned YouTube issued statements disagreeing with the verdict and vowed to explore their legal options, which includes appeals.

Google spokesperson Jose Castañeda said the verdict misrepresents YouTube “which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.” A Meta spokesperson said teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”

The jury determined that Meta and YouTube knew the design or operation of their platforms was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor. They also agreed that the platforms failed to adequately warn of that danger, further contributing to the plaintiff’s harm.

Only nine of the 12 jurors had to agree on each claim against each defendant. Two jurors consistently disagreed with the other 10 on whether the companies should be held liable.

The jurors also decided Meta held more responsibility for harm to the plaintiff, who has been identified by her initials KGM. The jury said Meta shouldered 70% of the responsibility while YouTube bore the remaining 30%. That division was reflected in the breakdown of the $3 million in punitive damages, with the jury deciding on $2.1 million from Meta and $900,000 from YouTube.

Meta and YouTube were the two remaining defendants in the case. TikTok and Snap settled before the trial began.

Jurors listened to about a month of lawyers’ arguments, testimony and evidence, and they heard from KGM, or Kaley as her lawyers called her during the trial, as well as Meta leaders Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri. YouTube’s CEO, Neal Mohan, was not called to testify.

Kaley said she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9. She told the jury she was on social media “all day long” as a child.

Lawyers representing Kaley, led by Mark Lanier, were tasked with proving that the respective defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Kaley’s harm. They pointed to specific design features they said are designed to “hook” young users, like the “infinite” nature of feeds that allowed for an endless supply of content, autoplay features, and notifications.

The jurors were told not to take into account the content of the posts and videos Kaley viewed because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for posted content, based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta argued that Kaley’s mental health struggles were not connected to her social media use and pointed to her turbulent home life. Meta also said “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

YouTube focused more on the nature of the platform, arguing that it’s a video platform akin to television rather than a social media platform. The company also mentioned her declining YouTube use as she aged. According to their data, she spent about one minute a day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, delivers short-form, vertical videos with the “infinite scroll” feature that plaintiffs argued was addictive.

Lawyers representing both platforms also pointed to their safety features and guardrails for users to monitor and customize their use.

The Los Angeles case was filed by a single plaintiff against Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Snap. After the latter two settled, she argued that Meta and YouTube were addictive by design, and that they especially target young users.

“The reason why this case is consequential is not the individual case, but the way that it’s a bellwether test case that might guide the resolution of other lawsuits,” said Sarah Kreps, a professor and director of Cornell University’s Tech Policy Institute.

“So there are thousands pending, and hundreds in California. So the concern if you’re a social media platform is, as this case goes, so might these others. And I think the reason why they would be concerned, and I’ve seen this analogy with the tobacco lawsuits, is that once you have this type of verdict in one case, it just opens the floodgates for so many more.”

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press