 |
|
|
|||||
President Donald Trump took to social media on Thursday threatening to crack down on protests in Minnesota, as federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers face off with protestors in the streets on Minneapolis following the death of Renee Nicole Good, who was fatally shot by an ICE agent. The threat follows renewed clashes there overnight after a federal agent shot a local man in the leg after allegedly resisting arrest during a “targeted traffic stop,” according to CNN. There are also reports ICE officials are going “door-to-door” in Minneapolis, showing up at people’s homes, which Vice President JD Vance said will “ramp up” as more ICE troops are deployed to Minnesota. So far, about 2,000 federal agents have been sent there, with another 1,000 more U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents expected to arrive soon, per CNN. “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT,” Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social. This isn’t the first time Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to crack down on protestors and widespread dissent against the policies and actions of his administration. What is the Insurrection Act of 1807? The Brennan Center for Justice calls the Insurrection Act “a vague and rarely used law that gives the president broad power to deploy the military domesticallybut its not a blank check.” “It’s a series of statutes enacted from 1792-1871 that in its modern form allows the president to use the National Guard or regular military to enforce the law in extraordinary circumstances like rebellion or failure of local and state law enforcement to deal with extreme chaos,” Chris Edelson, a political science lecturer at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, tells Fast Company. “When the Insurrection Act is properly invoked in a real emergency, the military can be used for law enforcement.” However, according to Edelson, who is writing a book on presidential powers, “there is no [current] legal, legitimate basis for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which is designed to be used in a catastrophic situation, when there is rebellion or some massive breakdown in law enforcement. Nothing like that is happening right now in the U.S.either in MN or elsewhere.” But just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean Trump can’t do it. “If he does illegally invoke the Insurrection Act, the question would be whether the military follows his orders, and whether anyone (i.e. Congress, the courts) stops him,” says Edelson. “The law of course is not automatically enforcedsomeone has to act when the law is broken.” What has the Supreme Court said about the president invoking the Insurrection Act? “There are no recent Supreme Court decisions on the Insurrection Act as it is rarely used,” Edelson says. “Before 1992, it was used during the civil rights era when there was violent opposition to desegregation and local/state law enforcement sided with white supremacists.” There is a 19th century case called Martin v. Mott that is sometimes cited for the proposition that presidents have absolute authority to determine when to invoke the Insurrection Act. But some scholars, including Edelson, don’t think that’s the correct understanding of the case. In other words, if the president invokes the Insurrection Act when there is no real emergency, Edelson and others believe that can still be challenged in court. While the Supreme Court issued a recent ruling that Trump did not have authority to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois, that case was decided under a separate statute, not the Insurrection Act.
Category:
E-Commerce
If the byproduct of a raid on a Washington Post journalist’s home is to deter probing reporting of government action, the Trump administration could hardly have chosen a more compelling target. Hannah Natanson, nicknamed the federal government whisperer at the Post for her reporting on President Donald Trumps changes to the federal workforce, had a phone, two laptops, and a Garmin watch seized in the Wednesday search of her Virginia home, the newspaper said. A warrant for the raid said it was connected to an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified government materials, said Matt Murray, the Post‘s executive editor, in an email to his staff. The Post was told that Natanson and the newspaper are not targets of the investigation, he said. In a meeting Thursday, Murray told staff members that the best thing to do when people are trying to intimidate you is not be intimidated and that’s what we did yesterday. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said Thursday it has asked the U.S. District Court in Virginia to unseal the affidavit justifying the search of Natanson’s home. Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the search was done at the request of the Defense Department and that the journalist was obtaining and reporting classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor. If the attorney general can describe the justification for searching a reporter’s home on social media, it is difficult to see what harm could result from unsealing the justification that the Justice Department offered to this court, the Reporters Committee said in its application. Government raids to homes of journalists highly unusual Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, has been working on press freedom issues for a decade and said a government raid on a journalist’s home is so unusual he couldn’t remember the last time it happened. He said it can’t help but have a chilling effect on journalism. I strongly suspect that the search is meant to deter not just that reporter but other reporters from pursuing stories that are reliant on government whistleblowers, Jaffer said. And it’s also meant to deter whistleblowers. In a first-person piece published by the Post on Christmas Eve, Natanson wrote about how she was inundated with tips when she posted her contact information last February on a forum where government employees were discussing the impact of Trump administration changes to the federal workforce. She was contacted by 1,169 people on Signal, she wrote. The Post was notably aggressive last year in covering what was going on in federal agencies, and many came as a result of tips she received and was still getting. The stories came fast, the tips even faster, she wrote. Natanson acknowledged the work took a heavy toll, noting one disturbing note she received from a woman she was unable to contact. One day, a woman wrote to me on Signal, asking me not to respond, she wrote. She lived alone, she messaged, and planned to die that weekend. Before she did, she wanted at least one person to understand: Trump had unraveled the government, and with it, her life. Natanson did not return messages from The Associated Press. Murray said that this extraordinary, aggressive action is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work. The action signals a growing assault on independent reporting and undermines the First Amendment, said Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at the advocacy group PEN America. Like Jaffer, he believes it is intended to intimidate. Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary at the beginning of his first term, said the concerns are premature. If it turns out that Natanson did nothing wrong, then questions about whether the raid was an overreach are legitimate, said Spicer, host of the political news show The Huddle on streaming services. If Hannah did something wrong, then it should have a chilling effect, he said. A law passed in 1917 makes it illegal for journalists to possess classified information, Jaffer said. But there are still questions about whether that law conflicts with First Amendment protections for journalists. It was not enforced, for example, when The New York Times published a secret government report on U.S. involvement in Vietnam in 1971. Its the governments prerogative to pursue leakers of classified material, the Post said in an editorial. Yet journalists have First Amendment rights to gather and publish such secrets, and the Post also has a history of fighting for those freedoms. Not the first action taken against the press The raid was made in context of a series of actions taken against the media during the Trump administration, including lawsuits against The New York Times and the BBC. Most legacy news organizations no longer report from stations at the Pentagon after they refused to sign on new rules restricting their reporting set by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Funding for public broadcasting has been choked off due to Trump’s belief that its news coverage leaned left. Some news outlets have also taken steps to be more aligned with the administration, Jaffer said, citing CBS News since its corporate ownership changed last summer. The Washington Post has shifted its historically liberal opinion pages to the right under owner Jeff Bezos. The Justice Department over the years has developed, and revised, internal guidelines governing how it will respond to news media leaks. In April, Bondi issued new guidelines saying prosecutors would again have the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make unauthorized disclosures to journalists. The moves rescinded a policy from President Joe Bidens Democratic administration that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations. Leaking classified information puts Americas national security and the safety of our military heroes in serious jeopardy, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X. President Trump has zero tolerance for it and will continue to aggressively crack down on these illegal acts moving forward. The warrant says the search was related to an investigation into a system engineer and information technology specialist for a government contractor in Maryland who authorities allege took home classified materials, the Post reported. The worker, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, is accused of printing classified and sensitive reports at work, and some were found at his Maryland home, according to court papers. ___ Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social. By David Bauder, AP media writer
Category:
E-Commerce
2025 unleashed the enormous potential of AI. According to Pew Research, 62% of adults say they interact with AI at least several times a week, and 73% of U.S. adults say they are at least a little bit willing to let AI assist with their day-to-day activities. However, while most people today use AI primarily for answering their questions or researching products to buy, the real opportunity isn’t in better search functionality alone. In the consumer tech industry, we are at the threshold of a generational opportunity to leverage AI to make peoples lives better and more meaningful, saving them time on what they need to do so they can focus on doing what they want to do. We need to champion a fundamental shift in how we design technology from interfaces we control to companions we trust. Not through more screens or settings, but through intelligence that shapes what you see, how you cook, how you clean, and how your home responds to youoften invisibly, and always intentionally. This is what real AI looks like: a companion. It learns your habits. It helps without demanding attention. It anticipates rather than interrupts. In 2026, AI moves from optional to indispensable, especially inside the home, where its impact will be most personal. INVISIBLE INTELLIGENCE The signals are unmistakable. In an internal consumer survey Samsung conducted in late 2025, 74% of respondents said they want to see at least some personal tech become more human-like or instinctive. For example, that includes AI that recognizes context and anticipates needs without constant input. What does this look like in daily life? Imagine TVs that automatically optimize picture and sound based on what you’re watching and your room environment. Refrigerators that understand ingredients and suggest meals without you having to ask. Appliances that work together seamlessly, reducing everyday friction rather than adding complexity. That’s what invisible intelligence looks like. Whats ahead is exciting. Im just back from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas where the conversation around AI reached a crescendo. Samsung debuted a vision for AI Living that unifies intelligence across a broad ecosystem of mobile devices, home appliances, TVs, and services to bring connection, bringing the benefits of AI to create experiences that understand people and adapt to their lives. INTUITIVE, NOT INTRUSIVE I believe that AI must feel intuitive, not intrusive. In practical terms, a companion frees up something valuable: time and mental load. When your home acts like a companion by handling routine decisions, adjusting temperatures, suggesting meals, and managing energy, it returns your attention to what actually matters. Connection with family. Creative work. Rest. But a real companion cant operate in isolation. Innovation should no longer be individual AI features. Real companionship requires orchestration across an ecosystem of dozens of devices that actually know each other, learn together, and move in concert. This requires open standards, multi-brand compatibility, and foundational trust. Privacy and security can’t be afterthoughts. If your home is a true companion, it must be a trustworthy companion. That foundation is non-negotiable. As AI becomes a constant presence in our lives, the companies that win won’t be the ones with the most features. They’ll be the ones that understand something fundamental, which is that the best technology is the technology you don’t think about. The question isn’t whether AI companions are coming. They are. The question is whether we design them thoughtfully, to be our true partners in daily life or to be systems that extract value while appearing to serve us. In 2026, we are choosing genuine companionship. Yoonie Joung is President and CEO of Samsung Electronics North America.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||