At least two are dead and others were wounded after a shooting Saturday at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, the New York Times reported.

An active shooter was reported just after 4:30 p.m. near the Barus and Holley engineering building on Hope Street, officials at the Ivy League college said, according to Fox News. Police were still searching for the shooter, who was described as a man dressed in black, the Times said.

‘It is imperative that all members of our community remain sheltered in place.’

Providence Mayor Brett Smiley told CNN that the doors of the engineering building where the shooting took place were unlocked since numerous final exams were being held there, according to the Times: “Based on what we heard from officials at Brown, anybody could have accessed the building at that time.”

Providence Fire Chief Derek Silva told the Times that two of the shooting victims were found dead at the scene.

Eight other shooting victims were being treated at Rhode Island Hospital, a spokeswoman told the Times, adding that six were in critical but stable condition, one was in critical condition, and another was in stable condition.

However, Smiley later announced that a ninth injured victim was identified, the Times said in a subsequent update, and that victim suffered non-life-threatening injuries from “fragments” related to the gunfire.

RELATED: VIDEO: 3 dead, multiple victims injured in North Carolina mass shooting; suspect reportedly flees by boat

Smiley declined to provide any information about the victims, including whether they were Brown students, the Times said.

Brown University officials said just before 8:30 p.m. that the “campus continues to be in lockdown, and it is imperative that all members of our community remain sheltered in place,” the Times added.

Providence Deputy Police Chief Timothy O’Hara said police believe they are looking for a single gunman, the Times also said, adding that no weapon had been recovered and officials did not know what type of gun was used.

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee (D) said he spoke to FBI Director Kash Patel and that local, state, and federal officers were all searching for the gunman, the Times reported: “Everyone is working under the same goal right now — to keep everybody in that area safe and also to pursue” the attacker, McKee added to the paper.

This is a developing story; updates may be added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Brown university, Providence, Rhode island, Fatal shooting, Mass shooting, Ivy league, Police, Shooter at large, Crime 

While the children may be nestled all snug in their beds, with visions of iPhones dancing in their heads, I hope, dear parents, that you will think twice about the gift of technology this Christmas.

No doubt a shiny new smartphone, Nintendo Switch, Meta Virtual Reality headset, or cool AI toy will be at the top of many children’s and teens’ Christmas lists this year. However, these “gifts” can arrive with hidden costs: anxiety, sleep loss, social pressures, addictive algorithms, exposure to pornography, a connection to predators, and development of a gaming addiction.

Many parents buy the myth that their child is immune from online risks or think that relying solely on parental controls will be enough.

To that end, Enough Is Enough just released its Naughty and Nice List of Holiday Gifts for Children and Teens that provides a much-needed guide of gifts to buy and to avoid. Perhaps it’s no surprise, but AI toys, smartphones, and Roblox gift cards are on the “naughty” list.

Even in my own family, I know that resisting the pressure to give tech products is strong. My grandsons want Roblox gift cards, so they can continue to play the online games they have enjoyed for years.

But the so-called “reward” of tech does not always outweigh the risks. The reality is that the online exploitation of minor children is a global pandemic, and it’s growing exponentially worse, year after year.

At the very foundation, an internet-connected device is literally handing a child both the good, bad, and dangerous digital world — no guardrails, no safety net, no filters. A gaming platform will inevitably lead to increased screen time, possibly even leading to an online gaming disorder — now a DSM-5 mental disorder. Virtual reality is designed to feel real and may even become preferable to a teen.

Digging deeper, the risks are even greater than parents might realize. Many parents buy the myth that their child is immune from online risks or think that relying solely on parental controls will be enough.

But consider these sobering facts:

Younger and younger children are being targeted “on an industrial scale” by internet groomers, with a three-fold increase in imagery showing 7- to 10-year-olds. Global financial sextortion is one of the fastest growing crimes targeting children, in particular minor-aged boys. The Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health indicated social media could pose a “profound risk of harm” to the mental health and well-being of children, stating it’s a “defining public health challenge of our times.”

Predators use social media and even online gaming sites to groom children. A California man was recently sentenced for luring minors through Snapchat before sexually assaulting them. The FBI reported that a 22-year-old man used Discord to groom minors and sexually extort them.

The aforementioned Roblox — a gaming platform extremely popular with children — enables predators to contact children and is facing over 35 lawsuits as a result. The platform was described by Hindenburg Research as an “X-rated pedophile’s hellscape.”

Parents should rethink buying Roblox gift cards this holiday season.

Moreover a congressional hearing where two Meta whistleblowers testified confirmed every parent’s worst nightmare: If their children have used Meta’s virtual reality devices, their children have likely been sexually exploited.

RELATED: How smartphones expose your kids to predators — and why Congress must step in

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Parents need to be aware of the growing trend of AI toys, falsely marketed as safe and educational for kids as young as 2. Most AI toys are powered by the same AI technology that has already harmed children, and the embedded chatbots are programmed to listen and speak with the child like a trusted friend and mimic human emotions. Examples include: Loona Robot Dog and Smart Teddy.

Recently, an AI teddy bear marketed to children told a tester “where to find knives, pills, and matches when asked … spoke graphically about sex positions, sexual kinks, and ‘teacher-student role-play.’”

As our society becomes increasingly tech-focused, parents are becoming more aware of the negative impact tech can have on their children. But can they win the battle with their kids over the latest tech and more tech time?

Schools nationwide are rapidly embracing smartphone-free schools because they are distracting to students. Many schools are reporting success, and even students themselves have seen the benefits of not having their phones on them during school hours.

Some parents are wisely rethinking handing their phones to their children as a way to calm or distract them. One couple used a smartphone to pacify their 6-month-old daughter, saying they’d hand it to her frequently. Despite that the phone worked to calm the little girl down, the parents eventually realized it wasn’t what they intended, saying their daughter was “zoned in” on the phone.

They may think you’re the Grinch, but the rewards of a tech-free holiday are great.

You may be asking: If not an internet-connected tech gift, what do you suggest?

I realize that deciding on something else to give will take a little creativity.

Many children — especially older ones — enjoy experiences. Teens may relish time spent with their families taking a cooking class, going bowling, going to sporting events, or trying out an axe-throwing venue. Children of any age could appreciate an outing to a retro arcade, new board games, books, or art kits.

Even an outing to their favorite restaurant — where quality time can be spent with mom or dad — is a great option. In lieu of a material present, some families have successfully planned a place to visit or vacation together.

Instead of using the holidays to reinforce potentially unhealthy tech habits or introduce new tech gifts, consider delaying tech by not giving in to the notion that children need tech to be happy and productive. Grandparents my age remember fondly a merry childhood well before the computer and internet technologies were invented.

They may think you’re the Grinch, but the rewards of a tech-free holiday are great. And maybe, just maybe, your children will have sugarplums instead of iPhones dancing in their heads.

​Big tech, Virtual reality, Roblox, Children, Protect children, Christmas 

Watch out, speed demons — the open road might be getting a little less free.

Arizona, known for its sun-soaked, sprawling highways, may soon become the first state to offer a high-tech alternative for habitual speeders: a “digital ankle bracelet” for your car.

With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law.

Lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow drivers at risk of losing their licenses to keep their privileges by installing devices that actively prevent their vehicles from exceeding posted speed limits.

The proposal, spearheaded by Republican state Representative Quang Nguyen, would let drivers voluntarily equip their cars with speed-limiting technology. The system relies on a combination of GPS and cellular signals to determine the legal speed on any given road. Electronics connected to the car’s engine control unit then prevent the vehicle from exceeding that limit, no matter how hard the driver presses the accelerator.

Speed bump

For practical reasons, the technology does include an override mode that permits a temporary 10 mph boost up to three times per month, giving drivers a limited margin to react in emergencies or avoid accidents.

Nguyen estimates the devices would cost around $250 to install, with a daily operating fee of roughly $4. He has been working closely with companies that manufacture the technology, including Smart Start and LifeSafer, to ensure the system is effective and reliable. This makes me wonder if he owns a piece of the company or has stock in the company.

Under the bill, which Nguyen plans to formally introduce when the state legislature reconvenes in January, participation is optional — probably Nguyen’s earlier attempt to make it mandatory was a nonstarter.

Slow lane

Arizona is not alone in exploring this approach. Virginia, Washington State, and Washington, D.C., have already enacted similar laws. In Virginia, courts can require drivers with multiple speeding violations or reckless driving convictions to install electronic speed-limiting devices as an alternative to license suspension. Washington State has adopted a comparable program, giving judges discretion to mandate the technology for repeat offenders while monitoring compliance.

In Washington D.C., the program is more limited but aims to reduce repeat speeding among drivers with multiple moving violations. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is currently considering similar legislation.

These programs highlight a growing trend: Rather than grounding drivers entirely, some states are experimenting with technology as a way to enforce safe driving without taking away mobility. Proponents argue that these devices could prevent serious accidents while still allowing drivers to maintain employment, care for families, and perform other essential daily tasks. The technology also provides courts with a tangible tool to ensure compliance, rather than relying solely on citations and license suspensions.

RELATED: Spinning out at Discount Tire’s Treadwell test track

Discount Tire

Machine learning

However, critics remain cautious. Some transportation and safety experts question whether the technology is advanced enough to accurately detect all posted speed limits. GPS mapping errors, temporary speed changes in construction zones, or malfunctioning sensors could cause a car to slow unexpectedly or fail to limit speed when needed, creating new safety risks. Privacy advocates also worry about how these devices track and store location data, raising concerns about government overreach or potential misuse.

From a practical standpoint, the legislation raises fundamental questions about the balance between personal responsibility and technological enforcement. Supporters argue it offers a lifeline to drivers who repeatedly violate speed laws but are otherwise safe, while critics maintain that it may encourage riskier behavior by transferring accountability from the individual to the machine.

There’s also the question of fairness. Not all drivers have access to new technology or the financial resources to participate in a program that charges daily operating fees. While $4 per day may seem modest, over a month or a year, it could be prohibitive for some families, effectively limiting the program to more affluent drivers. Additionally, the optional nature of the program could create inconsistencies across jurisdictions, leaving some habitual offenders unmonitored while others are under constant technological supervision.

Whether the measure passes will depend not only on lawmakers’ assessment of safety and effectiveness but also on public perception. Speeding remains the most common moving violation in the United States, and habitual offenders are a persistent concern for states nationwide. With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law — but whether that future is practical, safe, or desirable remains up for debate.

At the very least, it’s a bold experiment in road safety and personal responsibility, one that could reshape the way states think about controlling speed without grounding drivers entirely. As the legislature prepares to weigh the bill, motorists, safety experts, and privacy advocates alike will be watching closely, asking the same question: Can a car truly keep its driver out of trouble, or is this just another way to shift accountability from human judgment to technology?

​Speed limit, Speed limiters, Big tech, Lifestyle, Surveillance state, Nanny state, Arizona, Align cars 

President Donald Trump promised “very serious retaliation” after an “ISIS attack” that killed two U.S. Army soldiers and one U.S. interpreter interpreter Saturday in Syria.

Fox News reported that a lone Islamic State gunman carried out the ambush, which also left three others wounded. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that “the savage who perpetrated this attack was killed by partner forces.”

‘Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you.’

“We mourn the loss of three Great American Patriots in Syria, two soldiers, and one Civilian Interpreter,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, according to the cable news network. “Likewise, we pray for the three injured soldiers who, it has just been confirmed, are doing well. This was an ISIS attack against the U.S., and Syria, in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.”

Trump added that “the President of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, is extremely angry and disturbed by this attack. There will be very serious retaliation,” Fox News noted.

Trump also said Saturday to reporters outside the White House that “this was an ISIS attack on us and Syria. And again, we mourn the loss, and we pray for them and their parents and their loved ones,” the cable news network reported.

Hegseth added on X: “Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you.”

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on X that the attack in the town of Palmyra “occurred as the soldiers were conducting a key leader engagement. Their mission was in support of ongoing counter-ISIS/counter-terrorism operations in the region. The soldiers’ names, as well as identifying information about their units, are being withheld until 24 hours after the next of kin notification. This attack is currently under active investigation.”

RELATED: Trump warns Israel about interference in Syria after deadly raid, airstrikes

The cable news network added that there are about 900 U.S. troops in Syria.

More from Fox News:

The U.S. had eight bases in Syria to keep an eye on ISIS since the U.S. military went in to prevent the terrorist group from setting up a caliphate in 2014, although three of those bases have since been closed down or turned over to the Syrian Democratic Forces.

On Monday, tens of thousands of Syrians flooded the streets of Damascus to mark the first anniversary of the Assad regime’s collapse.

Those celebrations came a year after former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad fled the capital as rebel forces swept through the country in a lightning offensive that ended five decades of Assad family rule and opened a new chapter in Syrian history.

The Associated Press reported that Saturday’s attack on U.S. troops was the first to cause fatalities since Assad’s fall.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Trump, Donald trump, Retaliation, Isis attack, Islamic state, Syria, Us service members killed, Us civilian killed, Ambush, Us military, Us army, Politics 

The government shouldn’t be in the business of buying junk food for school children.

Of all the positions splitting Americans today, you wouldn’t expect this one to be controversial. And yet this is the plate we’ve been served.

Each side accuses the other of not caring about disadvantaged children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as ‘healthy’ food.

The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 is currently awaiting action in the Senate Agriculture Committee, where it has sat since Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced it in February, with no markup or vote scheduled.

Even so, the bill — now championed by Republicans — has revived a familiar argument: Who should decide what children eat, and why do voters reverse their positions depending on which party proposes the rules?

Lunch lady

President Obama enacted his wife’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 with the stated goal of providing USDA-approved nutritious meals to school children and combating childhood hunger and obesity. Michelle Obama advocated for children to have access to more vegetables, fruit, whole grains, and milk — and less sugary soda and junk food — which she claimed were especially hurting impoverished children.

“Think about why someone is OK with your kids eating crap,” she said at the time. “Because here is the secret — if someone is doing that, they don’t care about your kid.”

Conservatives pushed back, suspecting Mrs. Obama of ulterior motives and calling the law an instance of government overreach. Whose business was it what children ate? Surely not the first lady’s.

There was a lot of fear (or hope) that when Trump got into office, he would overturn all that the Obamas had done and “simplify” the lunch menu.

No (burger) kings

The new president did not disappoint. Throughout his first term, President Trump steadily rolled back Obama-era school-nutrition standards. The USDA first relaxed rules on whole grains, sodium, and flavored milk in 2017 and finalized those changes in 2018. In early 2020, it proposed further revisions to ease fruit and vegetable requirements and expand options like pizza and burgers, drawing renewed national scrutiny.

Those efforts were partially blocked in court, and the underlying Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act remained intact. But the political terrain shifted over the next few years: Rising concern about obesity and chronic disease, new dietary-guideline updates, and state-level experiments with SNAP restrictions created an opening for conservatives to reframe nutrition policy as a matter of fiscal responsibility and public health rather than federal overreach.

Menu change

Fast-forward to 2025, and the same movement that once dismissed “nanny-state” lunch rules now promotes the Healthy SNAP Act — an initiative that mirrors Michelle Obama’s nutrition goals almost point for point.

All that’s changed is the politician behind the policy. That alone seems to be enough to flip public opinion. Voters who once said junk food was victimizing impoverished children now attack nearly identical proposals coming from the Trump administration.

The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 would bar SNAP benefits from being used for the very same foods Michelle Obama targeted in 2010. According to Congress.gov, SNAP recipients would not be able to use benefits for “soft drinks, candy, ice cream, or prepared desserts, such as cakes, pies, cookies, or similar products.”

RELATED: $500 million in SNAP funds is reportedly spent on fast food because of state program

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Where’s the beef?

Foods purchased with SNAP would have to meet nutritional standards based on sugar, fat, and salt content. In structure, the bill is strikingly similar to the Obama-era reforms. The only real difference is whose name is on it.

The same people who supported Michelle Obama’s restrictions now vehemently oppose nearly identical measures from Trump. Meanwhile those who once denounced government interference now applaud the idea when framed as a conservative reform. Each side accuses the other of not caring about poor children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as “healthy” food, unless their politician is doing the dictating. Party comes first, safety second, liberty somewhere further down the list.

Some liberals now argue that children deserve a treat — that SNAP should not limit junk-food purchases at all. But SNAP has always been regulated. In most states, fast food, hot deli meals, vitamins, alcohol, and tobacco have long been prohibited. WIC is even more restrictive to ensure mothers receive high-quality, protein-rich foods.

SNAP decision

Government aid will always come with rules. Whether it should include “treats” is a matter of personal philosophy. SNAP already provides incentives to buy fresh produce at farmers markets. Families can still make simple desserts within existing guidelines.

And any parent can spend a dollar on an occasional donut or soda if that is truly important to them — while still ensuring that children have reliable access to nutritious meals funded by taxpayers, who can rest easier at night knowing we are ensuring a better future for children.

Reasonable readers at this point should be asking themselves what they, as voters, really care about when it comes to policies like this. Would any of this be a discussion if voters thought less about who was in office? We all should be asking ourselves what it is we truly value and act accordingly.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — who in March introduced a similar, and in some respects even broader, bill of his own — put it this way:

“It makes no sense that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund an epidemic of obesity and diet-related illness in low-income communities. My bill ensures that this assistance program actually supports health and wellness, not chronic disease.”

His words sound eerily interchangeable with what Michelle Obama was saying 15 years ago. It makes one wonder if perhaps we don’t need to bicker over politics as much as we do. Maybe our differences aren’t as pronounced as we think — at least when it comes to the health of American children.

​Snap, Welfare, School lunches, Michelle obama, Junk food, Donald trump, Mike lee, Rand paul, Nutrition, Children’s health, Public education, Lifestyle, Where’s the beef? 

Just over a year ago, the headlines were everywhere: Three Mile Island Unit 1 was coming back online as the Crane Clean Energy Center. A site that once defined an entire industry’s future has done it again, this time as a symbol of hope, optimism, and unity as we move toward a reliable and clean energy future.

For us, young professionals in the nuclear industry, this moment showed what’s possible when communities come together. From union members and business leaders to viral social media posts and major media outlets, everyone celebrated the announcement of the restart. In a society often defined by polarization, this was a rare moment of shared pride and common purpose.

We know that America’s ability to deliver reliable, emissions-free energy will define the nation that Gen Z will lead tomorrow — politically, economically, and environmentally.

As 2025 draws to a close, nuclear energy sits at the center of a new national conversation — one driven by optimism, innovation, and a shared commitment to a cleaner future. Public support for nuclear energy is at historic highs, with six in 10 Americans in favor of its expansion. Companies that defined Gen Z’s childhood, like Meta, Google, and Amazon, are partnering with nuclear producers to power the data centers that keep our digital lives running. For Gen Z, this isn’t just about keeping the lights on: It’s about building a future where clean energy powers our ambitions, our communities, and our planet.

Growing up, many of us felt politics was a binary choice — two parties, two options, and endless division. But today, nuclear energy stands out as something different: a safe haven for young people across the political spectrum. It’s one of the few issues drawing support from both sides, with the Biden and Trump administrations both advancing policies that strengthen nuclear energy’s role in America’s energy mix.

For Gen Z, that bipartisanship represents progress, not politics. We know that America’s ability to deliver reliable, emissions-free energy will define the nation that Gen Z will lead tomorrow — politically, economically, and environmentally.

Now it’s up to all of us to seize this unique opportunity and recognize nuclear power’s potential to redefine America’s energy conversation. Nuclear energy is more than a technology — it’s a catalyst for unity, resilience, and innovation. It can deliver on our generation’s hopes for a cleaner, fairer, and more sustainable world.

Nuclear power doesn’t just create reliable, emissions-free energy: It offers countless societal benefits. Generating stations do more than generate electricity. They can also support system add-ons that produce clean water through desalination and help yield valuable medical materials for diagnosing heart disease and providing crucial cancer care.

When we think back to history class, we learned about iconic generational causes like the space race and the wonders that could be unlocked in the internet age. Each generation had something tangible to rally around, something that brought people together to move the world forward. For Gen Z, that unifying cause can be nuclear energy: a reliable, emissions-free solution that defines progress for our time.

RELATED: 5 truths the climate cult can’t bury any more

Photo by Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

We’ve seen it firsthand. We both took the leap to work in the nuclear industry, and more specifically, on a historic nuclear restart. Three Mile Island Unit 1 in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, closed for economic reasons in 2019, hurting hundreds of families whose livelihoods depended on it.

Yet as energy demands surged, the world rediscovered nuclear energy’s critical role. This momentum led to the announcement of the unit’s restart exactly five years after being shut down.

We are both at the beginning of our careers and hope the momentum we’re seeing now will carry forward for future generations. Being part of the nuclear renaissance, which is turning into a national movement, has filled our young careers with pride and purpose.

Whether you are Gen Z or not, clean nuclear energy can be a uniting force in a divided world. The bipartisan support, private investment, and widespread public acceptance happening today didn’t happen by coincidence — it happened because people came together to focus on what works. We can’t afford to lose that momentum. Let’s build on it to create the next-generation cause: a nuclear energy-powered future.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at RealClearWire.

​Three mile island, Nuclear energy, Gen z, Opinion & analysis, Crane clean energy center