Mark Zuckerberg found himself on the stand yesterday, facing a lawsuit that claims Meta platforms like Instagram and Facebook are intentionally designed to hook kids. Before the real legal drama began, though, the judge had to lay down the law about smart glasses, specifically those snazzy Meta Ray-Bans worn by some of Zuckerberg’s team, as reported by Techspot. It seems Judge Carolyn Kuhl isn’t a fan of recording devices in her courtroom, and she made that abundantly clear.

The judge warned anyone wearing smart glasses that using their recording features would lead to contempt of court charges. She told everyone, “If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court.” It’s a pretty serious warning, and it came after at least two people on Zuckerberg’s escort team were spotted wearing the Meta Ray-Ban glasses as they entered the building.

California Superior Courtrooms have strict rules against recording and photography. If you’re caught breaking these rules, you could face monetary penalties, get removed from the courtroom, or even be charged with contempt of court. It’s a big deal, and the judge wasn’t messing around.

This incident just highlights a growing concern with smart glasses: privacy

While Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses are supposed to show a blinking LED when they’re recording, it’s possible to modify them to hide that light. We saw a similar situation in August 2025 when a TikTok user shared her experience at a European Wax Center in Manhattan. She noticed her aesthetician was wearing Meta Ray-Bans, which understandably made her feel a bit “shaken.”

The worker claimed the batteries were dead, and the company later stated their employees keep the glasses turned off during appointments. Still, it just shows how sensitive the public is becoming to these devices and their potential for discreet recording.

Back in the courtroom, the actual case, K.G.M. v. Meta et al., is much more serious than a smart glasses kerfuffle. This lawsuit involves a 20-year-old Californian identified as Kaley, who alleges that her years of using Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat as a child led to severe issues like body dysmorphia, depression, and self-destructive thoughts. TikTok and Snap Inc., which owns Snapchat, have already settled their parts of the case, leaving Meta to face the music.

During his testimony, Zuckerberg did admit that some people lie about their age when signing up for Instagram. The platform requires users to be 13 or older, but that rule hasn’t always been enforced in the same way. Plaintiff’s lawyers presented internal documents from 2015 that showed over 4 million Instagram users in the US were under 13 years old.

It’s interesting to note that Instagram didn’t even start requiring birthdays at sign-up until late 2019. Kaley, the plaintiff in this case, reportedly joined Instagram when she was just 9 years old. When asked why Instagram didn’t ask for user ages before 2019, Zuckerberg said it was due to privacy concerns. However, he never gave a direct answer when asked if Instagram was addictive.

Meta is making its biggest play yet in the political arena, launching what’s set to be its largest push to back political candidates in the company’s history. This significant move comes at a time when the social media giant is dealing with a lot of negative attention and some of its toughest legal challenges ever.

The company is kicking off a massive $65 million effort ahead of this year’s midterm elections, as reported by MS Now. The goal is to boost state politicians who are friendly to the artificial intelligence industry, with initial efforts focusing on Texas and Illinois. This is a record-breaking sum for Meta’s election investments.

Company representatives have indicated that this huge investment is fueled by worries over potential regulatory threats to the artificial intelligence industry. Meta is looking to fight back against legislation in various states that it fears could slow down or hinder AI development. It’s a pretty clear signal that they want to shape the future of AI without too much government interference.

What’s really interesting is that Meta isn’t picking sides; they’re backing both Democrats and Republicans

They’re using two different super PACs to do this. One group, called Forge the Future Project, is throwing its weight behind Republican candidates. The other, Making Our Tomorrow, is supporting Democrats. These new PACs are joining two others Meta already had, one of which focuses specifically on California, while the other is a broader organization that funds the company’s spending in other states.

For years, Meta and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, have shown support for President Donald Trump, who, in turn, has pushed to stop states from regulating companies that invest in artificial intelligence tools. So, in a way, what Meta is doing now with this spending spree feels a lot like the bold, almost oligarchic behavior we’ve seen from other tech leaders who use their financial power to influence midterm elections and the political system more generally.

However, I think there’s a unique level of public frustration directed at Meta and its platforms right now. You can see it in the numerous lawsuits they’re facing and the public condemnations from former employees. In recent years, the company has had to navigate various scandals where its algorithm-based platforms have been accused of being used to undermine democracy, facilitate child predation, and even incite violence, including in the lead-up to January 6, 2021.

Meta is currently fighting multiple lawsuits, some of which could be landmark cases. These lawsuits accuse its executives of knowingly creating products with addictive qualities that have been particularly harmful to children. The company, for its part, has denied these claims. Beyond the legal battles, Meta is also looking to expand its number of data centers, those massive, resource-intensive facilities that have drawn significant criticism from communities across the nation.

With all of this in mind, Meta’s decision to back candidates this election cycle presents a pretty big question for voters. It makes you wonder whether, and to what extent, people will support a candidate who is financially backed by a company that operates some of the world’s most widely criticized platforms.

President Donald Trump recently shared some interesting remarks about rapper Nicki Minaj, openly praising her “beautiful skin” and “long nails” during a Black History Month reception at the White House, as reported by Unilad. It seems the president is quite the fan of the Bang Bang star, expressing his admiration for her looks in front of an applauding crowd.

During his speech, President Trump really gushed over Minaj. “How about Nicki Minaj? Do we love Nicki Minaj? I love Nicki Minaj,” he said, getting a big cheer. He even mentioned that she had been there a couple of weeks prior. “She’s so beautiful, her skin is so beautiful,” he continued, adding, “I said, ‘Nicki, you’re so beautiful.’ Her nails are like that long, I said, ‘Nicki are they real?’”

He even gestured to show just how lengthy her nails were. However, it seems Minaj wasn’t quite ready to dive into that particular topic. “She didn’t want to get into that,” he noted, before concluding, “But she was so beautiful and so great and she gets it, more importantly.”

Minaj has been quite vocal about her support for President Trump

Just days before these comments, Minaj herself had shared an AI-generated image of her with President Trump. The picture, posted on Monday, January 16 to mark Presidents’ Day, showed her in a convertible car alongside the president, counting money. This particular post caused quite a stir, with some calling her tribute “tacky” and “cringe,” while many Trump supporters thanked her for her apparent backing.

Back in January, she met him at the Trump Accounts Summit in Washington, D.C., where she confidently declared herself his “number one fan.” She wasn’t shy about it either, stating, “I am probably the president’s number one fan and that’s not going to change. What people have to say, it does not affect me at all. It actually motivates me to support him more. And it’s going to motivate all of us to support him more.”

She also made it clear that she feels President Trump is being unfairly targeted. “We’re not going to let them get away with bullying him. And you know, the smear campaigns. It’s not going to work. He has a lot of force behind him and God is protecting him,” she added.

She later explained her motivation for supporting him more openly while speaking with podcaster Katie Miller. Minaj revealed that religious freedom is super important to her, but it was really President Trump’s treatment that spurred her on. “If I’m being honest, President Trump, when I saw how he was being treated, over and over and over, I just couldn’t handle it,” she confessed.

She felt a connection, seeing parallels between his experiences and her own. “I felt that same, you know, a lot of that bullying in this man’s campaign, and all of the lying,” Minaj said. “I felt that that had been done to me for so many years, and I was watching it in real time happen to someone else, and I didn’t think he deserved it. And it made me think, I can’t do this anymore.”

Her public support isn’t a new development either. In December, Minaj even made a surprise appearance at a Turning Point USA event held in Phoenix, Arizona. During her speech there, she went as far as to call President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance “role models.”

A TikTok user is making waves after vowing to directly confront Home Depot’s CEO over what he calls ‘rampant greed,’ sparked by a surprisingly expensive bottle of water, as reported by BroBible. This isn’t just about a single purchase, it’s hitting a nerve with many who feel everyday items are getting pricier than ever before.

Rhett Palmer, who goes by @rhettpalmer975 on TikTok, shared his frustration in a video that’s now racked up over 17,000 views. He started the clip standing outside a Home Depot, clearly agitated. “Greed has run rampant, OK?” he declared, setting the tone for his complaint. Palmer, an older gentleman, explained that he went into the store with a dry mouth and grabbed a bottle of Dasani water, which he admitted isn’t usually his first choice.

The sticker shock came at the checkout. “I said, ‘$2.48? Are you nuts? For $4, I can get the case of 24 at Publix or something similar to that,’” Palmer recounted. He couldn’t believe the difference in price, especially for something as basic as bottled water. For him, this wasn’t just an isolated incident; it was a glaring example of a much larger issue in modern society.

The inflation on everyday things are getting out of hand

He firmly believes that “Greed is running rampant, and everybody thinks they can just pile on.” Palmer warned that if this trend of increasing prices continues unchecked, “The party’s gonna end suddenly.” He concluded his video by stating his intention to call out and directly contact the CEO of Home Depot about this specific pricing issue.

Now, you might be wondering why a bottle of water at Home Depot would cost so much more than at a grocery store. It’s easy to compare the two and feel like Palmer does, but there’s a reason behind it, and it’s pretty standard business practice. What Palmer experienced is called “Value-Based Pricing.” This is where a product’s price isn’t really based on how much it cost to make, but rather on what customers perceive its value to be in a particular situation.

Of course, Palmer did have other options. He could have gone to a nearby grocery store for a cheaper bottle of water, or simply chosen not to buy it at Home Depot. If he feels strongly that stores shouldn’t be able to hike prices this much, he could even advocate for government restrictions on price increases. But in that moment, he opted for the convenience.

Interestingly, while many agreed the water price was high, commenters on Palmer’s video weren’t exactly lining up to sympathize with him. Many pointed out the simple economics of the situation. One user bluntly wrote, “And yet you bought it….” Another commenter added, “Everyone needs to understand supply and demand. Stop buying it if you don’t like the price.” It’s a tough truth, but it highlights the consumer’s power of choice.

Someone else humorously chimed in, “Wait till [he] goes to a professional sporting event and that sucker is $5–$6,” reminding everyone that convenience pricing is a widespread practice.

President Trump recently hosted the inaugural meeting of his new Board of Peace in Washington. The gathering quickly veered off-script when President Trump made some rather personal comments, particularly about the looks of world leaders in attendance, as reported by NDTV.

This Board of Peace, which President Trump established in September, is primarily focused on Gaza reconstruction. However, he’s definitely hoping it’ll grow into a major global body for conflict resolution. Critics, though, aren’t so sure, suggesting it might just get in the way of the United Nations’ existing work. Interestingly, several key US allies decided not to join this initial meeting. President Trump had a direct message for those who skipped out, stating, “You can’t play cute with me.”

President Trump was in a very convivial mood, greeting the world leaders with plenty of fanfare and personal flattery. While he’s known for his good-cop-bad-cop routine in past interactions, this time, it was all praise, with no mention of the human rights records of some of the attendees. The tone was literally set by the soundtrack of James Brown’s 1966 song, “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World,” which blared overhead as leaders gathered for a group photo.

It took about 25 minutes into his welcome speech before President Trump even touched on the Middle East conflict

Instead, he spent that time complimenting the various world leaders seated on stage with him, openly rating them on their looks, wealth, and strength. FIFA President Gianni Infantino was also among those present, and several leaders even had red MAGA hats in front of them on the table.

He singled out Paraguay’s President Santiago Pena, a 47-year-old leader, commenting, “Young handsome guy. It’s always nice to be young and handsome. Doesn’t mean we have to like you. I don’t like young, handsome men. Women I like. Men, I don’t have any interest.” Despite that last statement, his interest in the male physique seemed pretty clear. At another point, he told the crowd to check out the “tough” face of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.

President Trump also shared some stories where he painted himself as the one who coerced leaders into doing exactly what he wanted. He recounted how he supposedly used tariff threats to pressure countries like India and Pakistan into ending conflicts. India, however, has firmly rejected this assertion, saying it didn’t happen that way.

Looking ahead, President Trump suggested his new board could even surpass the United Nations in prominence. He said, “The Board of Peace is going to almost be looking over the United Nations… they need help.” He then took a detour to recall an incident last year when he and First Lady Melania Trump got stuck on an escalator at the UN headquarters in New York. “I was lucky my movie-star first lady was in front of me, because I put my hand on a certain part of her body,” President Trump shared about the escalator mishap.

Throughout his speech, President Trump used the term “beautiful” at least 14 times, praising both his administration’s work and the event space itself. It turns out the US Institute of Peace, where the event was held, had been renamed in his honor. President Trump mentioned that Secretary of State Marco Rubio came up with the “surprise” renaming. President Trump also added, “I didn’t know the surprise. I thought maybe they were going to give me a lot of money or something, maybe cash.”

A new banner featuring a large image of President Trump, along with the slogan “Make America Safe Again,” was unveiled at the Department of Justice (DOJ), as reported by The Hill. This is a pretty striking move, especially considering President Trump himself submitted two claims against the very same department in 2025, seeking up to $230 million in damages.

While this measure isn’t standard practice, it’s not the first time we’ve seen a large banner with the president’s photo on a federal building. Last year, similar banners featuring President Trump were hung outside the Department of Labor. Typically, White House leaders tend to distance themselves from the DOJ to maintain an appearance of political impartiality.

However, President Trump has frequently weighed in on federal prosecutions and investigations, marking a significant departure from how things have been done in past years. His unprecedented claims for damages against the DOJ definitely turned heads.

You might recall President Trump taking a victory lap during a speech at the DOJ headquarters last March

This event really got critics talking, as they’ve accused him of launching a retribution campaign against his political opponents, reportedly with the help of Attorney General Pam Bondi. During that speech, President Trump told those gathered at the department’s headquarters, “First, we must be honest about the lies and abuses that have occurred within these walls.”

He continued, “Unfortunately in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and goodwill built up over generations. They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.”

He added that they “spied on my campaign, launched one hoax and disinformation operation after another, broke the law on a colossal scale, persecuted my family, staff and supporters, raided my home, Mar-a-Lago, and did everything within their power to prevent me from becoming the president of the United States.” President Trump declared that all who wronged him would be held accountable for their actions.

Following this, President Trump ordered Attorney General Bondi to investigate several individuals. These included New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who had previously brought charges against him in his home state. He also targeted Senator Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, who investigated him as a member of the House select committee on the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Finally, Federal Reserve board of governors member Lisa Cook was also on the list, after criticizing interest rates set by the central bank.

President Trump weighed in on the arrest of Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, calling the whole situation “very sad,” as reported by The Hill. “I think it’s a shame,” President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to Georgia.

He added, “I think it’s very sad. I think it’s so bad for the royal family.” He even took a moment to praise Mountbatten-Windsor’s brother, King Charles III, calling him “fantastic” and noting that the British monarch will be visiting the U.S. pretty soon.

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested at Sandringham House, a historical estate in the English countryside that belongs to the royal family. Thames Valley Police confirmed they arrested a man in his 60s from Norfolk “on suspicion of misconduct in public office.” They also mentioned that searches are underway at addresses in both Norfolk and Berkshire, which tells you this is a serious investigation. After the arrest, Mountbatten-Windsor was later photographed leaving the police station in a car.

This arrest comes on the heels of new revelations from documents released by the U.S. DOJ under the Epstein Files Transparency Act

These documents reportedly show Mountbatten-Windsor sharing confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the U.K.’s special representative for trade and investment. The fallout from the documents linked to the convicted sex offender Epstein has really shaken things up on both sides of the Atlantic. King Charles stripped his brother of his royal titles just last year. That decision came after files released by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee unveiled even more details about Mountbatten-Windsor’s connections to Epstein.

One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, who tragically died by suicide last year, wrote in her posthumous memoir that Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell trafficked her to Mountbatten-Windsor, who she alleged sexually abused her. For his part, the former prince has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein, maintaining his innocence.

Amid all this, President Trump himself is mentioned numerous times throughout the Epstein documents, but it’s important to note that he hasn’t been publicly accused of any wrongdoing. However, when asked about Epstein on Wednesday, President Trump took a rather surprising turn in his comments.

“It’s really interesting because nobody used to speak about Epstein when he was alive, but now they speak,” President Trump said to reporters. He then added a personal take: “But now I’m the one who can talk about him because I’ve been totally exonerated. I did nothing.”

Then came the truly unexpected pivot: “He was against me. He was fighting me in the election, which I just found out through the last 3 million pages of documents.”

Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, just slapped some huge restrictions on its image creation feature for the vast majority of users, as per The Guardian. This massive rollback happened after a widespread outcry regarding the tool’s use to generate extremely disturbing and illegal content, specifically sexually explicit and violent imagery.

The pressure on Musk and the company was intense. He was facing serious threats of massive fines and regulatory action from global bodies, including reports of a possible ban on X in the UK. The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, demanded X “get a grip” on the deluge of AI-created photos of women and children appearing on the platform, calling the content “disgraceful” and “disgusting.”

Starmer indicated that a de facto ban might be considered. He stated the communications regulator Ofcom “has our full support to take action in relation to this.” Under the UK’s Online Safety Act, Ofcom can seek a court order to block a website or app entirely or impose fines up to 10% of a company’s global turnover. Starmer added that the content is “unlawful” and they aren’t going to tolerate it.

The reason for the lockdown is truly chilling, but totally warranted, given the gravity of the situation

Now, Grok is trying to control the damage. Posting on X, the official Grok account confirmed, “Image generation and editing are currently limited to paying subscribers.” This means the feature is gone for almost everyone who uses the platform for free. The idea here is that paying subscribers have their full details and credit card information stored by X, which means they can be easily identified if they misuse the function.

Reports showed Grok was being used to manipulate images of women to remove their clothes or place them in sexualized positions without their consent. Even worse, research found that the tool had been used to create pornographic videos of women and images depicting women being shot and killed. Thousands of sexualized images of women have been created without their consent over the past two weeks, largely after the Grok image creation feature was updated at the end of December.

The problem appears even worse off the main X platform, which is integrated with Grok. Research by AI Forensics, a Paris-based non-profit organization, found about 800 images and videos created specifically through the Grok Imagine app that included pornographic and sexually violent content. Researcher Paul Bouchaud noted, “These are fully pornographic videos and they look professional.”

Adding to the complexity, non-paying users have reported that they can still generate sexualized imagery of women and children on the separate Grok app, which does not share images publicly. It seems like the fight to keep these powerful AI tools safe and ethical is far from over, and simply restricting the feature to paying users might not be enough to satisfy regulators.

The European Union slapped a hefty fine on X previously for violating the Digital Services Act, and a move like that is most likely required again.

YouTube is ripping up the entire search filters menu structure and reorganizing it completely after hearing from users who weren’t happy with the current setup, as per Android Authority. If you are someone who actively uses the filters to refine your search results, you’ll definitely notice some massive changes coming soon.

If you’re on desktop, you usually find the filter button near the top right of the screen after you’ve typed in a search. Mobile users have to tap on those vertical three dots in the top right corner. The platform says this massive update is designed to simplify the menu, make it more intuitive, and generally improve how you find videos. That sounds great, right?

The best part of this overhaul is that YouTube is actually admitting some filters just weren’t working properly in the first place. They are ditching the ability to sort results by “Last hour” and “Rating.” YouTube specifically noted that these options “had contributed to user complaints” because they “were not working as expected.” I think it’s a smart move to pull the broken features out of the system entirely. However, losing the “Rating” filter is a little rough, though.

Being able to filter Shorts when you’re looking for a deep dive tutorial is a top-tier feature we’ve needed for a while

Now for the new filter that should have been here ages ago. You’re finally going to see a dedicated option for “Shorts” located under the Type category. You can now tell the search results whether you want to see short-form vertical videos or stick strictly to the traditional long-form content. I’m genuinely baffled that this filter didn’t exist years ago. It’s a necessity now that Shorts are being pushed into every corner of the platform, that too with their dislike buttons practically hidden.

While fixing broken filters and adding necessary ones is smart, some of the name changes they’re implementing are truly confusing. After getting on with YouTube’s ad update last year, now get ready for some tech jargon nonsense that doesn’t feel intuitive at all.

The category currently known as “Sort By” is now going to be called “Prioritize.” Additionally, the “View count” filter is being renamed to “Popularity.” I honestly don’t know who decided “Prioritize” sounds better or clearer than “Sort By,” but this just seems like unnecessary complexity. If the goal is to simplify the menu and make it more accessible, changing familiar, useful terms for academic-sounding replacements seems like a strange choice.

If you use the filters heavily, you might also notice that the “Upload Date” option is moving right into the middle of the menu as part of the overall reorganization. While I appreciate the effort to ditch the broken features and finally give us a dedicated Shorts filter, I can’t help but feel that these confusing renames might just trade one set of user complaints for another.

If you’re worried about getting sick from restaurant food, you probably shouldn’t be focusing on that seafood special; a veteran chef just warned that the number one dish giving people food-borne illnesses is actually the humble salad. As per BroBible, Chef Solomon Ince of Tableaux Eats recently offered a glimpse into back-of-house reality on TikTok, explaining that unless he’s eating somewhere truly exceptional, he refuses to order greens because of how often cooks skip the crucial washing step.

In a follow-up video, Ince explained that if the lettuce isn’t washed and prepared correctly, you’re eating a bunch of bacteria like E. coli. “Salad is the number one thing you’re going to get a food-borne illness from,” he stated. Ince noted that even at some nice places he’s worked, people “throw a fit over washing some damn Romaine.”

Ince is a veteran of some of America’s best kitchens, having spent time at chef Daniel Boulud’s two-Michelin-starred flagship establishment, Restaurant Daniel, where a meal runs nearly $200 per person. While the salad risk is shocking, Ince also backed up a classic piece of restaurant advice that many diners have heard before: Stay away from the fish specials.

That’s some great insight before your next restaurant visit

He explained that a special is often just a way to get rid of stock. If a chef has too much of something they need to move quickly, they’ll rapidly invent a dish to sell it before it goes bad. “A special is something you’re trying to get rid of,” he confirmed. “If you don’t know that, it’s the truth.”

Interestingly, many viewers immediately referenced the late, great Anthony Bourdain, whose tell-all book, Kitchen Confidential, offered similar warnings about seafood specials years ago. Ince is definitely a fan, saying of Bourdain’s work, “Anyone who enjoys the grittiness of the industry will love this book. It was the first book I read that made me want to become a chef.”

Now, not everyone agrees with the “specials are bad” rule, especially when talking about high-end dining. One viewer who worked in expensive restaurants pushed back, saying their specials were always fresh and they always ordered them. Another commenter agreed, noting their high-end restaurant used to order fresh fish every Friday specifically for weekend specials. That same commenter did add one important calendar-based caveat, though: “Now on a Monday or Tuesday I may agree.”

So, how can you spot a special that’s actually suspicious? One commenter noted that if the special is a mixed dish, like a seafood stew or a medley of some sort, it’s usually built from leftover seafood they couldn’t sell but desperately need to move, such as old fish, clams, or shrimp.

Ince himself offered a great rule of thumb for judging the overall quality of the establishment. He said that specials aren’t all going to be bad, but you absolutely have to know what type of restaurant you’re at. If the menu has forty or more items and serves both Italian and Latin American cuisine, you should probably steer clear of the special board.

Conversely, if you visit a well-thought-out restaurant with only about eight items on the menu, and it’s obvious that a lot of care went into the customer experience, he suggests you’re probably in for a treat with any special menu item. That attention to detail usually translates to fresh ingredients.

The Senate took a significant step by voting to advance a bipartisan resolution under the War Powers Act, aiming to block President Trump from using military force against Venezuela. This move comes amid escalating tensions and the president’s clear intentions regarding the South American nation, actions that progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has absolutely slammed as “old-fashioned imperialism,” as per The Hill.

The president has been very open about his intentions in the aftermath of the capture and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. President Trump stated the U.S. will essentially run the country until a stable, orderly transition can occur. Even more controversially, the president has indicated that U.S. oil companies will take control of Venezuela’s vital petroleum infrastructure.

Sanders drew comparisons to evil, powerful regimes in history. “You’re talking about old-fashioned imperialism,” Sanders explained. “And all that that is, throughout the history of the world — England, Spain, Portugal, way back when — powerful nations went into poor, undeveloped areas, and just exploited their resources.”

Sanders stated the obvious, but does the current administration and its jingoism have any limits?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently confirmed just how close the administration is to executing their plan. He told reporters on Capitol Hill that a deal is nearly finalized to sell between 30 million and 50 barrels of Venezuelan oil on the open market. The proceeds from this sale would then be used to assist in the nation’s transition to a new government.

This is where the administration says it’s helping the Venezuelan people, but it’s certainly a unique form of aid. Rubio clarified how the finances would work: “We’re going to sell in the marketplace — at market rates, not at the discounts that Venezuela was getting. That money will then be handled in such a way that we will control how it’s dispersed in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people.”

The rhetoric isn’t just focused on Venezuela, either. The president has also threatened action in other countries across the Western Hemisphere, specifically calling out U.S. allies Colombia and Mexico, claiming they aren’t adequately addressing drug trafficking issues. The president also claimed that the communist government in Cuba is “ready to fall.”

For Sanders, this entire approach flies in the face of a century-long movement throughout Latin America to push back on U.S. intervention. He argues that the region has worked hard to say, “These are our countries. You can’t overthrow our governments, you can’t run our governments, you can’t steal our natural resources. We have to control our own future.” The Vermont progressive concluded that President Trump is basically saying, “To hell with all of that. We have the power, we’re going to do anything we want.”

The bipartisan resolution to block military force was advanced with the support of the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, which is expected, but also five Republicans. Unsurprisingly, President Trump quickly condemned the senators who voted for the resolution, arguing they should not be reelected.

Minnesota’s state investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer has been effectively shut down because the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department have refused to cooperate with local authorities. This is a truly awful development for anyone who wants accountability, because it means the state won’t have any say in determining if a crime was committed.

As reported by AP News, Governor Tim Walz immediately demanded that Minnesota be allowed to take part in the process, and it would be “very difficult for Minnesotans” to accept that an investigation excluding the state could possibly be fair. Drew Evans, who heads the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, echoed that frustration. He stated they simply “cannot meet the investigative standards that Minnesota law and the public demands” without full access to evidence, witnesses, and collected information.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, however, has maintained that the state has absolutely no jurisdiction in this matter. This deadly encounter occurred on the second day of what the Trump administration is calling the biggest immigration enforcement operation ever. The crackdown focused on the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, involving more than 2,000 officers. Secretary Noem reported that the operation has already resulted in over 1,500 arrests.

If DHS gets its way, it will set a dangerous precedent for future

Federal officials, including President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary Noem, have repeatedly characterized the Minneapolis shooting as an act of self-defense. They’ve suggested that Ms. Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, used her vehicle as a weapon to attack the officer who shot her, essentially casting her as the villain. Vice President Vance suggested that the shooting was justified and that Ms. Good was a “victim of left-wing ideology.”

Local officials are having none of that narrative. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey flatly rejected the federal characterization, saying video recordings show the self-defense argument is “garbage.” The video evidence captured by several bystanders shows an officer approaching Ms. Good’s SUV, which was stopped in the middle of the road, demanding she open the door and grabbing the handle.

As the Honda Pilot began to pull forward, a different ICE officer standing in front of the vehicle pulled his weapon and immediately fired at least two shots at close range, jumping back as the car moved toward him. It isn’t clear from the recordings if the vehicle actually made contact with the officer. After the shooting, the SUV sped into two parked cars before finally crashing to a stop.

The federal agent involved has been identified in records as Jonathan Ross, an Iraq War veteran who has served for nearly two decades in the Border Patrol and ICE. Secretary Noem hasn’t publicly named him, but a Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed that her description of the officer’s injury last summer refers to an incident in Bloomington, Minnesota.

Court documents identify the officer in that case as Ross. During that previous event, Ross got his arm stuck in a window after a driver fled an immigration arrest. Ross was dragged and fired his Taser, and a jury later found the driver guilty of assaulting a federal officer.

A shooting involving federal agents in Portland, Oregon, left two people injured, immediately following a similar deadly incident in Minneapolis and prompting local officials to demand a halt to all federal immigration operations, as per ABC News. The chaotic incident involved agents from Customs and Border Protection who were reportedly conducting a targeted stop in the city.

Federal officials were quick to release their version of events. The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, confirmed the agents were part of an operation dubbed “Operation Oregon.” They were targeting a vehicle carrying two individuals allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, specifically naming the passenger as the primary target. According to the DHS statement, when agents identified themselves, the driver “weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents.”

This is a seriously concerning escalation. The driver, who was not the initial target of the operation, was driving a red Toyota when they allegedly tried to flee the scene. After the shooting occurred, the two people who were shot drove themselves about three miles from the initial location, near Southeast Main Street, to an apartment complex before calling for help.

This Portland shooting comes just after an ICE officer allegedly shot and killed a woman in her car in Minneapolis the previous day

Just like how Minneapolis mayor slammed the official narrative of the fatal shooting, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson did not mince words when addressing the situation, making it crystal clear that local government is highly skeptical of the federal narrative. “We know what the federal government says happened here,” Mayor Wilson told reporters. “There was a time when we could take them at their word. That time is long past.”

He immediately called for a pause on all immigration enforcement operations in the city, stating, “We are calling on ICE to halt all operations in Portland until a full and independent investigation can take place. Our community deserves answers.”

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek echoed that demand for immediate federal cooperation and transparency. She emphasized that the state’s priority is a complete investigation, not more detentions. “My message to the federal government is this: We demand transparency,” Governor Kotek said. “We demand your cooperation with Portland Police and the Multnomah County DA, because we need to investigate this incident efficiently and effectively so we can rebuild trust with our nation’s government.”

Adding to the official pushback, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced that his office was opening an investigation. The Oregon Department of Justice investigation will specifically look at whether any federal officers acted outside the scope of their lawful authority during the encounter, including reviewing video evidence and witness interviews.

Mayor Wilson called the incident “deeply troubling” and urged residents to respond with calm, not violence. “Portland does not respond to violence with violence,” he reminded the community. “We respond with clarity, unity, and a commitment to justice. We must stand together to protect Portland.”

President Trump just dropped a truly massive foreign policy bombshell, stating that whether China moves militarily against Taiwan is entirely up to Chinese President Xi Jinping to decide, as per The Hill. This is a jaw-dropping departure from decades of established American policy, which has always prioritized maintaining the status quo and supporting Taipei’s defense.

The president stated that Xi views Taiwan “to be a part of China and that’s up to him what he’s going to be doing.” That phrasing alone is shocking because it implies the US is taking a neutral stance on what its own intelligence agencies view as one of the world’s biggest potential flashpoints. While President Trump gave his counterpart the ultimate authority, he did express personal reservations. He noted that he has told Xi that he would be “very unhappy if he did that and I don’t think he’ll do that. I hope he doesn’t.”

This conversation is happening against a backdrop of serious escalation. Over recent weeks, Beijing has been ramping up aggressive military actions dangerously close to the island. Chinese officials confirmed they conducted live drills that included a massive show of force. We’re talking about 130 aircraft, including fighters and bombers, 14 military ships, and eight other official vessels all operating in the area.

President Trump tried to draw a distinction between the China/Taiwan situation and the recent US operation to capture Venezuelan regime leader Nicolás Maduro

It’s no surprise that lawmakers in Washington are extremely concerned about these drills. The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party immediately condemned the action, reiterating Washington’s firm commitment to its alliance with Taipei.

Committee Chair John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and then-ranking member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) released a joint statement. They wrote that the drills are “intended to intimidate Taiwan and other democracies in the region and to undermine peace and stability across the Indo-Pacific.” They also argued that “By rehearsing coercive military scenarios and projecting force beyond its borders, the Chinese Communist Party is seeking to reshape the regional order through aggression and intimidation.”

The lawmakers made it clear that the traditional US position remains intact, stating, “The United States stands with Taiwan and fellow democracies and will continue to work with partners to preserve Taiwan’s security and uphold a free, open, and stable Indo-Pacific.” This sharp contrast between the president’s personal remarks and the formal stance of Congress highlights just how complex the situation has become.

He noted that Maduro’s capture followed signs of a “real threat” to the United States. Ultimately, the president seemed confident that Xi wouldn’t take action while he is in office. “He may do it after we have a different president, but I don’t think he’s going to do it with me as president,” Trump said.

Economist Paul Krugman just dropped some serious analysis, claiming that the vast oil wealth President Trump believes the U.S. is seizing in Venezuela simply doesn’t exist, as reported by The Hill. President Trump has made oil the absolute centerpiece of his plan to manage Venezuela following the recent capture of the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, and the military strikes conducted on Caracas.

In fact, following the abduction, Krugman noted that the president mentioned the word “oil” a staggering 27 times during a press conference. The president declared, “We’re going to take back the oil that, frankly, we should have taken back a long time ago.” However, Krugman argues that this entire venture isn’t really a war for oil; it’s a war for oil fantasies. The economist wrote that the immense fortune President Trump seems to imagine waiting there to be taken just isn’t real.

The president announced that Venezuela will turn over between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S. He said the oil would be brought directly to unloading docks via storage ships, with help from Energy Secretary Chris Wright. As for how the money will be handled, he wrote that this oil “will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!”

It seems like the U.S. might be stuck with a high-cost asset that won’t deliver the riches President Trump is expecting

President Trump believes that acquiring this asset will allow the U.S. to “fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.” This aggressive plan comes after the president designated Maduro as the head of a “terrorist cartel” and accused the Venezuelan government of sending drugs to the U.S.

Here’s where Krugman’s economic reality check comes in, and frankly, it makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. While Venezuela is often cited as having the world’s largest known oil reserves, Krugman explains that this claim is based on a reclassification of heavy oil as “proved” oil.

Krugman cited economist Torsten Slok, who previously highlighted that most of the oil is “extra-heavy, which has low recovery and a high cost to produce.” If you’re trying to turn a profit, low recovery and high cost are the two things you absolutely want to avoid. This suggests that the immense, usable reserves are just politically motivated bluster.

Furthermore, even if the oil were easy to extract, the market conditions aren’t playing ball. Thanks to the increased supply from fracking, oil prices are cheap. Krugman calculates that the break-even price for Venezuela’s oil is around $62 a barrel. That figure simply wouldn’t allow oil companies to make a profit, making it a very unattractive investment.

Krugman concluded that President Trump’s conviction that he has captured a lucrative prize in Venezuela’s oil fields is an “unrealistic fantasy.”

Vice President Vance is strongly defending the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer involved in the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good in Minneapolis, going so far as to label the incident “classic terrorism,” as per The Hill. This is a pretty intense charge, especially since a Justice Department investigation is currently underway.

Vance spent a good chunk of time at a White House press briefing defending the officer and pushing back against what he called media demonization. However, the administration simultaneously characterized Macklin Good in the harshest possible terms, describing her as a domestic terrorist from a “lunatic fringe” who intentionally tried to kill a law enforcement official.

“What you see is what you get in this case,” Vance told reporters. “You have a woman who was trying to obstruct a legitimate law enforcement officer. Nobody debates that. You have a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator. Nobody debates that.”

Even as the administration pushes this strong narrative, President Trump inadvertently complicated it during a recent interview

Vance made it clear that while her death is a tragedy, he believes it’s a “tragedy of her own making and a tragedy of the far left, who has marshaled an entire movement, a lunatic fringe against our law enforcement officers.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has also doubled down on this belief, insisting that Macklin Good was committing an act of “domestic terrorism.”

Here’s where things get interesting. Reporters told President Trump that the videos of the incident circulating online were unclear, so he had an aide play a video of the shooting on a laptop right there for them to watch. Before showing the footage, President Trump did condemn the woman’s actions, saying “she behaved horribly.”

But after the reporters viewed the surveillance footage, they noted that the angle didn’t seem to show the ICE officer actually being run over. The president’s response seemed to soften a bit after that viewing. “Well,” President Trump said. “I — the way I look at it.” It sounds like even the administration’s own evidence might not fully support the claim that the officer was physically struck by the vehicle.

I’m skeptical that the country will truly buy the “domestic terrorism” label, and I’m not alone. Mick Mulvaney, who served as President Trump’s chief of staff in his first administration, expressed deep doubt. He pointed out that while the action of hitting the agent with a car might be legally justified for the officer to shoot, and Macklin Good may have been breaking the law, most people probably don’t think the appropriate penalty for that should be death.

The hardline stance from federal officials stands in stark contrast to the reactions coming out of Minnesota. Minneapolis Police Department Chief Brian O’Hara said that the shooting was “entirely predictable.” O’Hara stressed that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, should recognize the loss of life is a tragedy. He hopes the community avoids further destruction, especially since they’ve been through so much trauma over the last five years.

President Trump recently revealed that the only thing that actually limits his power when it comes to ordering foreign military intervention is his own personal moral compass. That’s a pretty staggering statement, and it came out during a New York Times interview following weeks of intense scrutiny over U.S. actions overseas.

When asked specifically if there were any limits on his international authority, the president was crystal clear about where the true boundary lies. He told the interviewer, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

The president was blunt about his priorities, stating directly, “I don’t need international law.” He quickly added that he is “not looking to hurt people.” While his initial comments dismissed international law entirely, he did walk that back slightly later in the discussion. He suggested he does have to adhere to international law, but qualified that adherence by saying it “depends what your definition of international law is.”

These comments follow a really active period for the U.S. military

In the first year of his second term, the U.S. has conducted strikes against groups in places like Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran. The most high-profile action was definitely the decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. That move immediately drew intense backlash and serious concerns that a major war might start.

Congressional pushback is already happening, and it’s coming from both sides of the aisle. Five Senate Republicans actually joined a bipartisan group to advance a War Powers resolution. This resolution is designed specifically to block the president from using any further military force against Venezuela without explicit congressional authorization.

Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, voiced her significant concerns about the president’s intent to essentially “run” Venezuela. While she was supportive of the initial action, calling the operation to seize Maduro “extraordinary in its precision and complexity,” she drew a hard line on further military expansion.

Senator Collins made it clear that while she supported the initial seizure, “I do not support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”

The president is still absolutely focused on acquiring Greenland, which is a Danish territory. He brought up the issue in the same interview, saying that “ownership is important.” For months, he’s been describing the island as essential to national security. Now he’s adding a psychological element to his reasoning, stating that the territory is “psychologically needed for success.”

He explained his perspective on why ownership matters so much more than any agreement. “Ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document,” he said.

President Donald Trump warned that any country producing and selling drugs into the U.S. could be “subject to attack,” specifically calling out Colombia, prompting an immediate and strong rejection from Bogota, as per Newsweek. Colombian President Gustavo Petro didn’t just issue a formal diplomatic response, though. He went straight to X and gave President Trump a genuinely bizarre invitation.

Petro said, “Come to Colombia, Mr. Trump, I invite you, so that you can participate in the destruction of the 9 laboratories we do daily to prevent cocaine from reaching the US.” Earlier during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, President Trump told reporters that any country involved in the drug trade was at risk. The president mentioned that if drugs come through a certain country, or if the U.S. thinks they are building “mills for, whether it’s fentanyl or cocaine,” they are “subject to attack.”

He specifically cited Colombia, stating, “I hear the country of Colombia is making cocaine, they have cocaine manufacturing plants.” The Colombian Foreign Ministry swiftly pushed back, stating that they reject “Any threat of external aggression that violates the dignity, integrity of the territory and sovereignty of the Colombian people.” The ministry also stressed that Colombia “continues with its unwavering commitment to the fight against drug trafficking.”

Colombia made an urgent call for fraternity between Latin America and the Caribbean to ensure unity prevails against any external intervention

This latest threat comes amid mounting tensions between the U.S. and several South American nations. The Trump administration has been contemplating military strikes in Venezuela, and both Venezuela and Colombia have condemned U.S. military strikes in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The White House claims these are necessary routes for drug trafficking.

Bogota has been especially vocal in its opposition to these U.S. boat strikes, which the White House defends as lawful operations targeting “narco-terrorists.” Unfortunately, these operations have resulted in significant casualties. Since early September, these lethal operations against suspected non-state vessels have allegedly killed more than 80 people.

These strikes have raised serious concerns about accountability and human rights. Lawmakers are currently reviewing reports that said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth verbally ordered a second strike on an alleged drug smuggling vessel back in September, reportedly to kill survivors. Critics are pointing out that this action could amount to a war crime.

The situation is complicated because Colombia is, undeniably, one of the world’s largest producers of cocaine. While the country has historically cooperated with the U.S. on counter-narcotics efforts, that relationship has deteriorated sharply. In September, Colombia was listed as a country failing to cooperate in U.S. anti-drug efforts for the first time in nearly 30 years. Following that, the Trump administration imposed sweeping sanctions against President Petro, his family, and a top Cabinet member, accusing them of aiding the global drug trade.

In November, President Petro ceased intelligence cooperation with the U.S. and condemned attacks on suspected drug-running boats that resulted in the deaths of Colombian nationals. The Trump administration is expected to continue its controversial strikes, though what specific military action may be taken against Colombia and Venezuela remains unclear.

Russian President Vladimir Putin just delivered a chilling warning to European powers, stating that if they initiated a war with Moscow, the resulting defeat would be so swift and absolute that there would be no one remaining to even broker a peace deal, according to CNN. This direct threat came after a reporter asked the president about comments circulating in Russian media.

The reporter brought up remarks allegedly made by Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, who cautioned that Europe might be preparing for war against Russia. Putin immediately pushed back on the idea that Russia wants a war with Europe, but he emphasized their readiness. He stated that if Europe “suddenly wants to start a war with us and starts it,” it would end so swiftly for Europe that Russia would have no one left to negotiate with.

This threat comes nearly four years into the war in Ukraine. That conflict, the deadliest in Europe since World War II, has seen European powers and the United States heavily support Ukraine, a much smaller neighbor that Russia has failed to conquer completely.

Putin distinguishes the current conflict in Ukraine from a direct confrontation with European states

Putin suggested that the war in Ukraine is not actually a full-blown war, claiming Russia is acting in a “surgical” manner there. This careful framing implies that the methods and intensity used in Ukraine would not be repeated in a direct fight with European powers, suggesting a confrontation with Europe would be far more destructive.

For context on the scale of the current conflict, the invasion began in February 2022. It immediately triggered the largest confrontation between Russia and the West since the height of the Cold War. U.S. officials have stated that the war has resulted in the deaths of more than 1.2 million Russian and Ukrainian men, though neither Kyiv nor Moscow publicly discloses its losses.

On the diplomatic front, the political rhetoric is just as hot as the battle lines. Ukraine and European powers have repeatedly warned that if Putin wins the war in Ukraine, he might then attack a NATO member. Putin has repeatedly dismissed this claim as pure nonsense, but he shifted the blame for the lack of peace talks squarely onto European states.

Putin accused European powers of actively hindering the peace efforts being pursued by U.S. President Donald Trump. He claimed that European states are putting forward proposals they know are “absolutely unacceptable” to Moscow. Michael McGrath, the European commissioner for justice and democracy, recently warned that any final deal absolutely cannot let Russian forces off the hook for the war crimes they’ve committed.

According to Putin, they are using these doomed proposals as a way to then accuse Russia of not wanting peace. Putin also said that European states have essentially locked themselves out of any peace talks on Ukraine because “They are on the side of war.”

In addition to the warnings about a swift European defeat, Putin delivered a specific, new threat regarding the Black Sea. He threatened to sever Ukraine’s access to the sea entirely. This threat is in response to recent drone attacks targeting tankers belonging to Russia’s “shadow fleet.” Given the importance of the Black Sea for both military and economic activity, executing this threat would be a major escalation of the conflict.

The family of a Colombian fisherman, Alejandro Carranza, has filed what is believed to be the first formal complaint against US strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), according to CNN. This isn’t just a quiet protest, either; the petition names US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as the perpetrator of the alleged killing.

The petition, filed by US human rights attorney Dan Kovalik, alleges that Carranza was killed when the US struck his boat off the coast of Colombia on September 15. The core of the complaint is that the United States carried out an extrajudicial killing that fundamentally violated Carranza’s human rights. The complaint states that Hegseth “was responsible for ordering the bombing of boats like those of Alejandro Carranza Medina and the murder of all those on such boats.” It also claims that President Donald Trump ratified Hegseth’s conduct.

The US has a very different story about what happened on September 15. President Trump claimed the strike had successfully killed three “narcoterrorists from Venezuela” who were transporting drugs to the United States. However, attorney Kovalik and Colombian President Gustavo Petro push back hard on that narrative. Kovalik says Carranza was a Colombian citizen who was simply out fishing for marlin and tuna, emphasizing that fishing was his “profession and his vocation.”

Hegseth’s worries deepen as the US Defense Secretary finds himself cornered from all directions

President Petro previously insisted Carranza was a lifelong fisherman with zero ties to the drug trade. Petro even noted that Carranza’s boat was displaying a distress signal because of engine damage. However, the Colombian president later made a critical concession, suggesting Carranza might have accepted money to carry prohibited goods due to his difficult financial situation. Even so, Petro was clear that even if that were true, “never did his actions deserve the death penalty.”

President Petro announced Monday that Kovalik had launched a “judicial defense” for the family. Petro also said his country must convene a commission of Colombian lawyers to investigate what he considered “crimes” happening in the Caribbean. Kovalik told CNN they are seeking compensation for Carranza’s wife and kids, but more importantly, they want these types of killings to stop. Kovalik is arguing that these strikes violate both international law and US law.

This action comes after the US has seriously ramped up its efforts in the region. Since early September, the US has executed at least 22 strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats across the Caribbean and the Pacific, resulting in the deaths of at least 83 people. The White House has repeatedly tried to justify these actions by claiming the boats were carrying individuals linked to cartels that are engaged in an armed conflict with the US.

While Pete Hegseth has doubled down on his support for the Navy, that narrative is facing a lot of scrutiny even inside the US.