All the big names in AI are sounding the alarm, proclaiming that AI-enabled cyber attacks are becoming more prevalent. The fix? They want corporations, cybersecurity firms, and the government to mitigate the damage before it spirals out of control. The only problem is that Big AI created this mess in the first place, and so far, no one’s holding it accountable.

This message was shared through a joint letter published directly to OpenAI’s website. On the list of signatories, you’ll find familiar names, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Perplexity, and many other big brands in tech. The letter serves as a warning for what is positioned as impending doom, unless powerful groups work together.

These companies created the AI that is now poised to wreak havoc on our systems.

The first several paragraphs clearly lay out the danger ahead with a bit of hope on the horizon sprinkled in:

We have a limited window to strengthen cyber defenses.

In the coming months, AI-enabled cyber attacks will become far more widespread and sophisticated as models around the world become increasingly capable. The companies and public services our communities depend on — from hospitals to water treatment plants to the infrastructure that powers the internet — are at risk.

Today’s AI advances are already giving defenders new ways to fix weaknesses that have accumulated for years. If we act decisively, we can use the defenders’ window to make our digital world much more secure.

On one hand, the warning is a good thing. Any company that knows about a potential widespread cyber threat has a moral obligation to tell the people and the government so that protections can be put in place.

On the other hand, many of the companies that signed the letter created the AI that is now poised to wreak havoc on our systems. At least in some part, they should be held responsible for creating the thing that can automatically break into websites without any human purview or knowledge. As for the other signers, many of them are tech organizations that will suffer because of the latest AI models on the market.

RELATED: Automated cyberattacks are here — careless techies and well-funded foreigners are getting the blame

Moor Studio/Getty Images

The good news is that Big Tech has a solution, regardless of how self-unaware it seems to be about the whole issue:

Each of us can reduce risk now. All organizations, cybersecurity companies, technology partners, governments, and AI frontier companies have an important role: accelerate defenders’ priorities with tools, funding, and hands-on support, especially for critical infrastructure organizations with limited budgets.

Big Tech goes on to shuck responsibility onto everyone else before itself. To fix the problem, we need corporations to improve their internal security standards, cyber security firms to offer assistance against AI attacks, the government to provide defensive resources to local institutions and utilities, and lastly, frontier developers to provide early access and support for their models that will inevitably break things. All of these solutions, of course, will require a lot of time, money, and possibly even more government regulation or intervention.

Blaze Media reached out to Jon Stokes, creator of symbolic.ai, for comment. He said:

I do think they should make their best models, both internal and external, available to government agencies and maybe a select few private groups (vetted, probably with clearances) to harden infra on an ongoing basis. They should at the very least do this at cost, but probably they should be on the hook for significant support of these efforts via subsidized inference.

Plenty of questions remain: Are any of these Big AI companies on the hook for creating platforms that can hack into websites without human supervision? Are there any grounds for class action lawsuits that hold them accountable for breaking the internet as we knew it?

With state and federal lawmakers scrambling in a contentious free-for-all, we may find out a lot more very soon.

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

​Artificial intelligence, Openai, Anthropic, Microsoft, Chatgpt, Claude, Big tech, Tech 

Democrat lawmakers recently demanded that the Department of Veterans Affairs restore dedicated LGBTQ+ veteran care coordinators and identity-based programs, putting the fight over gender policy at the VA back in the spotlight. The VA has instead redesignated those positions simply as “care coordinators” serving all veterans and restricted the use of VA resources to promote gender ideology.

As the VA moves away from identity-based programs, the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization has taken a different path.

The VFW’s principles are broad enough to unite veterans across the political spectrum. Abortion and gender ideology do not.

A veterans’ organization should support every veteran. That does not require endorsing every political or ideological position associated with a veteran’s identity. Yet this summer, the VFW again declared “Happy Pride Month” and celebrated veterans specifically on the basis of sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

The VFW has a long and distinguished history. It traces its roots to veterans of the Spanish-American War and helped shape the modern federal veterans system. But in recent years, the organization has also embraced positions on abortion and gender policy that go well beyond its core mission.

The VFW claims it has honored LGBTQ+ veterans during Pride Month since President Bill Clinton’s first proclamation in 1999. In 2019, then-National Commander B.J. Lawrence supported additional VA resources for LGBTQ+ veterans in congressional testimony.

The shift is also visible on abortion. In 2020, the VFW argued that the VA should provide certain abortion-related care. In 2022, it testified in support of H.R. 345, legislation that would have required the VA to provide information and counseling about abortion to veterans facing unwanted pregnancies.

On gender policy, the VFW has continued publishing Pride Month statements. One VFW leader learned how contentious that issue had become after criticizing Pride Month publicly.

The organization’s advocacy deserves scrutiny because policy requests framed simply as “health care” can include deeply contested medical interventions. In past testimony, the VFW demanded expanded resources for transgender veterans. The debate over those treatments has intensified as critics point to the risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgical interventions.

RELATED: The VFW’s political stunt backfired

Robert Alexander/Getty Images

Detransitioners have also brought malpractice claims, including one case that reportedly ended in a $3.5 million settlement. Whatever one thinks of the broader policy debate, these developments make it harder to treat every disputed intervention as politically neutral veterans’ care.

The VFW’s advocacy also now conflicts with the direction of federal policy. The VA has reinstated a ban on abortion and abortion counseling in its medical benefits package, while the Trump administration has issued executive orders directing federal agencies and the military to recognize biological sex.

That does not mean the VFW should exclude gay or transgender veterans, or deny that they served honorably. It means the organization should distinguish between serving veterans and endorsing contested ideological programs in their name.

The VFW’s own mission is to “advocate on behalf of all veterans.” Its core values include honoring military service, caring for veterans and their families, and respecting “the diversity of veteran opinions.” Those principles are broad enough to unite veterans across the political spectrum.

Abortion and gender ideology do not. When the VFW takes sides in some of the country’s most divisive moral and political disputes, it risks alienating veterans it is supposed to represent.

The better course is simpler: Fight for veterans’ benefits, health, dignity, and families. Leave woke social causes to the organizations created to fight those battles.

Veterans need a VFW that puts veterans first.

​Biological sex, Culture war, Democrats, Department of veterans affairs, Gender identity, Military service, Pride month, Puberty blockers, Sexual orientation, Abortion, Transgender, Veterans, Opinion & analysis 

A pattern has emerged on the left that’s become impossible to ignore: Criminals are increasingly portrayed as victims of circumstance, while the innocent people they harm are forgotten.

“We saw it with Luigi Mangione. We saw it with Charlie Kirk. We see this thing where they constantly paint killers, just like cold-blooded killers, as being either victims or heroes,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says.

And one recent case is extra disturbing.

“This obviously deranged woman, Pamela Cisneros, went on a stabbing spree in Times Square. She killed one person and injured another,” Gonzales says.

In footage of the incident, Cisneros is holding the knives she used to stab innocent passersby, before charging at police officers with the knives out. The police initially attempted to taze her, but when that didn’t work, they shot and killed her.

“They did their best. Now remember, I just said she had already killed someone and injured another. So she had already taken someone’s life. They knew that she meant business, and they showed remarkable restraint,” Gonzales comments.

However, the left is now claiming the police went too far by shooting her.

“I just don’t understand the world that I’m living in right now. What do you mean you didn’t have to shoot her?” Gonzales asks.

And Cisneros’ mother has also chimed in, asking why the cops couldn’t “grab her” instead of shooting her.

“I guess insanity runs in the family,” Gonzales says. “Maybe that’s what it is.”

“And of course, because this woman’s last name happened to be Cisneros, and she has more melanin in her skin, and she was shot and killed by the police,” she continues, “the media want to pounce on her and figure out … why would such a good person, a wonderful member, contributing member of society do something like this?”

One “puff piece” by the Gothamist even dives into her “long mental health struggle.”

“It’s so strange,” Gonzales says, “that I didn’t actually see a write-up from this very same outlet about the victim who was stabbed by this person.”

Instead, Gonzales is seeing hate-filled comments directed at the woman, Erin Piacenti, murdered by Cisneros.

“She is now the villain in the story,” she says, reading a post on X that says, “’You’re not going to get me to feel bad for the vice president of Bank of America lmao.’”

“Never mind she’s a class hero,” another post read.

“The fact that anyone would even remotely glorify the killing of an innocent woman who was just going home to her newborn child because of what her occupation was and where she worked is just beyond disturbing,” Gonzales says.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Stabbing spree, Times square, Police officers, Pamela cisneros, Erin piacenti, Murder, Leftism, Blazetv show 

Cities and states are moving quickly in response to concerns about governments’ expanding use of public surveillance cameras, automated license plate readers, audio detection devices, and similar tools. That is healthy. The country needs a serious debate over when crime prevention becomes pervasive surveillance.

Flock Safety says its AI-assisted network includes more than 120,000 cameras in 49 states and processes some 20 billion license plates each month, along with other vehicle characteristics. Public resistance has grown just as quickly.

The debate is overdue. Voters should decide how much surveillance they are willing to tolerate before the cameras decide for them.

On Monday, the Douglas, Massachusetts, Police Department announced it was discontinuing Flock cameras and immediately deactivated its monitoring accounts, citing a “divisive atmosphere” around the technology, Boston 25 News reported.

Other communities have restricted, suspended, or removed the cameras in Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. Similar fights are under way in Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York.

Congress has joined the fight. “Flock cameras are emerging as a rare area of bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill,” Axios reports. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and two other House Republicans introduced a bill last month to bar the federal government from buying Flock cameras or similar technology.

Flock emphasizes that its customers own the data, control access, and choose whom to share it with. Those customers are governments. That places responsibility where it belongs: on public officials who deploy the systems, and ultimately on voters who elect them.

Critics are right to worry that mass license-plate collection can become a surveillance system for people who have not been accused of any crime. AI dramatically expands what authorities can infer from otherwise ordinary observations by making huge quantities of location data searchable, sortable, and easy to combine.

Promises about retention limits deserve skepticism. Americans have already seen the National Security Agency spy on the American people under programs justified in the name of national security. The problem is not that every surveillance tool will be abused. It is that centralized databases make abuse much easier when safeguards fail.

RELATED: Cities are kicking out Flock. The surveillance might be here to stay.

Scharfsinn86/Getty Images

Recent cases give the public reason to be wary. Officers or other government personnel have faced allegations or charges involving misuse of camera systems in Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky. Some cases involved thousands of searches for personal purposes. The Institute for Justice has found 170 cases involving alleged misuse of automated license plate reader data and related systems.

The legal question is not simple. In principle, a camera that records a license plate visible on a public road resembles an officer observing the same plate while walking a beat. Police plainly may watch public places. Courts have long held that people generally have less privacy in public than at home, although the Supreme Court has recognized some limits when technology allows government to reconstruct a person’s movements in extraordinary detail.

That distinction is crucial. The constitutional permission to observe something in public does not automatically justify collecting every observation, storing it, cross-referencing it, and making years of movement searchable at the touch of a button. Scale can change the character of a government power.

Nor does constitutionality settle whether a policy is wise. States and local communities are entitled to decide that the risks outweigh the benefits. Voters should force officials to say clearly what information will be collected, how long it will be kept, who may search it, and for what purpose.

RELATED: When did we agree to be watched?

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

My preference is stricter: Government personnel should not be able to search historical surveillance data without a warrant signed by a judge and tied to a specific suspected crime. Ideally, access would be limited to serious crimes rather than routine traffic enforcement. These systems should not become automated revenue machines.

That approach would preserve a useful investigative tool while protecting the ordinary citizen’s ability to travel public roads without creating a government dossier of his movements.

The backlash against Flock cameras is not irrational fear of technology. It is citizens recognizing that a power capable of helping police catch criminals is also capable of tracking the innocent.

That debate is overdue. Voters should decide how much surveillance they are willing to tolerate before the cameras decide for them.

​Crime prevention, Federal government, Flock cameras, License plates, Surveillance technology, Ai, Congress, Public safety, Data, Privacy, Technology, Opinion & analysis 

Democrats in the toughest midterm races can’t put enough distance between themselves and former Vice President Kamala Harris.

A string of Democratic candidates campaigning in red states have rejected Harris’ support both before and after it was offered. From Alaska to Kansas, Harris’ king-making ability appears nonexistent.

‘Having someone from California come in and try to tell Kansans who they should vote for is a pretty bad idea.’

“It’s all good,” Harris spokesman Eduardo Negron told Politico. “Vice President Harris will continue to raise money and travel on behalf of candidates in races where she can help make a difference.”

Harris might not be doing much traveling.

Alaska’s Mary Peltola went out of her way to snub a fundraising assistance offer from Harris in August.

“Mary isn’t seeking endorsements from anyone from the Lower 48 — her focus is and always will be Alaska,” a Peltola spokesperson told local outlet KTUU.

The former congresswoman also refused to endorse Harris in 2024, though she clarified in a social media post at the time that she wasn’t voting for President Donald Trump.

RELATED: Is the DSA about to scalp another establishment Democrat?

Rep. Mary Peltola (D). Ellen Schmidt/Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

“Mary Peltola stood by as Kamala Harris restricted Alaska’s energy production, including ANWR, and she’d shutter Alaskan energy and jeopardize jobs once again if elected,” National Republican Senate Committee press secretary Bernadette Breslin told Blaze News when asked about Peltola’s move.

Harris isn’t finding takers across the Midwest either.

“I received 9,000 more votes than Harris in 2024,” Democrat candidate for Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District Rebecca Cooke said in a statement to Politico. “I don’t need anyone to come and campaign with me in my district. I do the work of building relationships — including across the aisle — on my own.”

Though Cooke is distancing herself from Harris now, she was an outspoken supporter during the 2024 presidential election.

Cooke previously and unsuccessfully ran for the same congressional seat in 2022 and 2024.

Iowa Democratic Senate nominee Josh Turek gave a flat “no” when asked if he wanted the former vice president’s help on the campaign trail. Rob Sand, the Democrat running for governor of Iowa, provided Politico a similarly unenthusiastic response.

“Nope,” Sand said. “Let’s move on.”

Kansas Democrat Adam Hamilton, who is also running for the U.S. Senate, shooed the former vice president away from his race a bit more diplomatically.

“Having somebody from California come in and try to tell Kansans who they should vote for is a pretty bad idea,” the Methodist pastor told Politico.

Hamilton’s campaign is widely considered a long shot. Kansas hasn’t sent a Democrat to the Senate since 1932, and he’s lagging several points behind Sen. Roger Marshall (R), even in Democrat-leaning polls.

Though Hamilton may be trying to draw a line between Harris’ West Coast wokeness and his Midwest moderation, his track record suggests there isn’t much daylight between the two. The Methodist pastor admonished his congregation and called on them to scrutinize their white privilege in 2020.

Hamilton’s Resurrection church also touts extensive LGBTQ+ programming, and he has repeatedly landed in hot water for his unorthodox theological views.

Though she’s striking out in the heartland, Harris is finding some purchase with Southern Democrats.

Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, now running for Senate, accepted a Harris endorsement in October 2025 and previously called the former vice president as “my friend Kamala.”

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff is also quietly embracing Harris as he tries to win another term. The pair held a closed-door “Women for Ossoff” tele-rally in August, which was quickly slammed by his Republican challenger, Rep. Mike Collins.

Harris faces uneven terrain looking ahead to a 2028 run. Many in her own party would like her to just go away already, but a few stalwart supporters could make it to the Senate this November.

Either way, Democrats’ tumultuous rebrand isn’t over yet.

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

​California, Democrats, Endorsements, Kamala harris, Midterms, Politics 

For two decades, California treated the physical world like an irritating inconvenience, confident that America would forever run on ad clicks and overpriced software. That bet paid off handsomely, until the servers running those digital empires required more power than the local electric utility could deliver without accidentally starting a forest fire.

Now the ground is moving. Silicon Valley didn’t get outsmarted, but it did get outpowered. Corporate headquarters, engineering talent, and investment capital are heading for the Gulf South, a heavy-duty industrial coastline running from Texas through Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama over to Florida. This regional migration is a much bigger story than the search for lower taxes. It marks a fundamental shift in how the nation generates real economic value.

The Silicon Valley aristocracy spent years viewing the Gulf Coast as beneath them.

Since the early 2000s, investors have poured billions into abstract code. Softbank threw massive fortunes at apps that delivered cold coffee to apartments, operating on the theory that physical assets were something of a nuisance. The Gulf South boom is the physical world taking its revenge.

Call it a blue-collar tech realignment. In places like Houston, Mobile, and Pensacola, state regulators, chemical plants, and shipbuilders work together. They prioritize tangible output over corporate mission statements. Silicon Valley created digital tools that let consumers distract themselves on smartphones. The Gulf South, on the other hand, concerns itself with the steel, fuel, micro-turbines, and continuous high-voltage power required to keep a modern nation operating day in and day out.

One big reality check

Geopolitics forced this shift into high gear. Silicon Valley looked west across the Pacific, tying itself to shaky Asian supply chains. The Gulf South sits at a completely different strategic crossroads. Take Corpus Christi, Texas, for example, where massive deepwater terminals pump millions of tons of liquefied natural gas directly to European cities facing energy crises. Or look at Mobile, Alabama, where industrial shipyards like Austal USA are expanding, busy building the next generation of U.S. Navy warships and submarine modules. Moving high-tech operations to the Gulf Coast isn’t just about finding cheaper land for factory floors. We are witnessing the emergence of a dense defense and energy corridor that links American tech capacity directly to global security needs. When international conflict erupts, mere code can’t defend trade routes. Wars still run on steel, ammunition, and fuel.

AI has delivered a similar reality check. For all the talk of a digital future, AI ultimately depends on a very physical world. California’s temperamental power grid, hamstrung by strict regulations and a total rejection of nuclear power, can’t supply the constant voltage these massive installations need. Data center developers face years of bureaucratic delays and environmental lawsuits before they can pull a single watt from the grid.

The Gulf South operates under a different set of economic priorities altogether.

RELATED: Regulators just slapped these top companies with an invasive new ultimatum

Jean-Christophe VERHAEGEN/AFP/Getty Images

Consider Richland Parish, Louisiana, a rural community now home to a multibillion-dollar Meta AI data center campus. Texas and Louisiana possess massive natural gas reserves, functional nuclear plants, and heavy industrial electrical grids built to run chemical refineries 24 hours a day without interruption. Tech companies are setting up massive compute hubs in the region because the high-capacity energy infrastructure already exists on the ground, ready to burn. Even the silicon itself has migrated. Samsung’s massive $17 billion semiconductor facility in Taylor, Texas, proves that even the physical chips powering the digital revolution rely on the Gulf’s natural resources and industrial capacity.

An American revolution

The way technology was financed had to change, too. Traditional Sand Hill Road venture capital was structured around quick five-year exit strategies for software apps. A small team of engineers could build an app in a rented office. They could scale online and cash out before anyone asked whether the business actually turned a profit.

Building defense hardware, aerospace infrastructure, rocket engines, and liquid gas export terminals requires a completely different financial model. Hardware demands patient capital, acres of cheap industrial land, heavy machinery, and long-term state partnerships. Industrial private equity, federal defense grants, and serious manufacturing capital are replacing short-term venture bets.

The Silicon Valley aristocracy spent years viewing the Gulf Coast as beneath them, little more than a flat expanse of hurricane zones, chemical plants, and oil refineries. That arrogance blinded them: Software might optimize a supply chain well enough, but it can’t build a ship or even power an AI supercomputer. Code might write the rules of the new economy, but physical infrastructure determines who actually gets to build it.

That’s why the economic center of gravity has shifted, and it’s locking into place far away from the Bay Area. Workers are following the factories. Capital is following the power lines, and national security planners are following the industrial capacity. Silicon Valley gets to keep the trendy social apps and the questionable marketing campaigns. But the Gulf South takes the large-scale machinery and the energy grid. Most importantly, it wrests control of the real power back to America’s heartland.

​Tech, Silicon valley 

Employees of the Chase bank in Cedar Hill, Texas, are likely thankful that a customer decided to carry his gun after another man tried to rob them with a knife.

Officers were called to the bank on North U.S. Highway 67 Service Road at about 9 a.m. Monday morning after a report of a robbery in progress, according to Cedar Hill Police.

‘No significant injuries to bank employees, customers, witnesses, or officers have been reported.’

When police arrived at the parking lot of the bank, they found a man with an apparent gunshot wound.

Despite police applying lifesaving measures, the man was later declared dead after being transported to a hospital.

The man had walked into the bank and threatened employees with a knife to give him money, according to investigators.

The armed customer intervened and shot the attempted burglar.

The injured man ran out of the bank and was located by the arriving police.

“No shots were fired by police officers,” read the police statement. “No significant injuries to bank employees, customers, witnesses, or officers have been reported at this time.”

Police said the investigation is ongoing and detectives with the Criminal Investigations Unit are questioning witnesses and reviewing security video.

RELATED: Calif. man finds intruder allegedly firing shotgun at his wife — and ends threat permanently

It is unclear whether the customer will be charged, but police said he was cooperating with the investigation.

Cedar Hill is a suburb of Dallas that includes about 49,000 residents.

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

​Bank robbery, Shooting, Second amendment, Texas, Crime 

As the saying goes, “if you’re catching flak, you’re over the target.” That line has followed President Trump for years, and it now fits Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Before joining the administration, Blanche spent years as one of Trump’s defense attorneys as the former president faced civil suits and criminal prosecutions brought by deranged accusers, state officials, and the federal government itself.

Blanche will be judged by whether he stays within the law. He should be. But he should not be expected to govern as though the election never happened.

Blanche then served as deputy attorney general for more than a year. After Pam Bondi’s dismissal in April, he became acting attorney general and was confirmed by the Senate on August 8, 50-49, with two Republicans voting against him.

He had already made himself a target.

In June 2025, following a Trump executive order, Blanche issued guidance narrowing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and directing prosecutors to focus on cases tied to U.S. interests and national security, including competition with China.

He has also pushed for prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey over his infamous “8647” Instagram post, prioritized the arrest of illegal immigrants with criminal records, and defended aggressive federal enforcement during Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota.

Once Blanche became attorney general, reporters pressed him to promise “independence” from the president. He refused to perform the ritual.

RELATED: Enough with the Justice Department ‘independence’ myth

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

That refusal triggered the familiar argument that Republican attorneys general must prove their distance from Republican presidents before they can be treated as legitimate. Democrat attorneys general rarely face the same presumption.

The pattern has continued. Blanche’s support for allowing certain nonviolent felons to petition for restoration of gun rights brought the label “Trump goon” from the left. His refusal to embrace the media’s preferred definition of “independence” led to accusations that he was attacking the department itself. ABC’s coverage of his handling of Epstein-related questions turned moral compromise by association into another dishonest line of attack.

The common thread is not that every Blanche decision is beyond criticism. It is that vigorous service to Trump is itself somehow disqualifying.

That standard reflects the old arrangement Republicans were expected to accept: Democrats and the media set the norms, Republicans prove their respectability by obeying them, and any serious use of lawful power is presumed corrupt unless the left approves.

Blanche does not appear interested in that arrangement.

In his time at the Justice Department, Blanche has shown a willingness to use the department’s lawful authority in pursuit of the administration’s agenda without apologizing for the fact that the president won an election and appointed him to do exactly that.

RELATED: The Justice Department finally has a grown-up in charge

Alex Wong/Getty Images

That’s why the attacks will only intensify.

Other Trump officials draw plenty of criticism, but Blanche is increasingly being treated like Vice President JD Vance, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, or Trump himself: not merely as an opponent, but as someone whose refusal to play by the old rules is seen as a threat.

The left insists it fears politicized justice. What it appears to fear more is a Republican attorney general who will not accept a one-way definition of restraint.

Blanche will be judged by whether he stays within the law. He should be. But he should not be expected to govern as though the election never happened.

That is the real fight: whether a Republican administration is allowed to use lawful power without first asking permission from the people who opposed it.

​Federal government, Justice department, Media coverage, Pam bondi, President trump, Vice president jd vance, Illegal immigrants, Todd blanche, Fbi, James comey, Opinion & analysis 

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is trying to remain the darling of the Democratic Party while keeping one foot in the socialist movement that made her famous. If the rumors of a 2028 presidential run are real, that balancing act is about to get much harder.

The Democratic Socialists of America draw the fault line. The word “socialism” still repels plenty of mainstream voters, and recent candidates have discovered how quickly old radical rhetoric can become a liability. Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong lost after her old “Cancel Thanksgiving” post resurfaced. In Minneapolis, Omar Fateh’s mayoral campaign took heat over a video in which he appeared to pledge loyalty to Somalia.

For years, Ocasio-Cortez made socialism look glamorous to young progressives. Now the socialists are asking whether she is still socialist enough.

The DSA’s celebrity ecosystem is not helping. Hasan Piker, the radical-left streamer, went viral again for saying “America deserved 9/11” and calling himself a “terrorist supporter.” Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, once friendly with Piker, has since tried to downplay that relationship.

AOC is trying to hold onto the movement without letting it dictate the terms of a national campaign. That is becoming difficult because the DSA itself keeps moving left.

Its new platform calls for abolishing the presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, along with police and prisons. Last month, the organization celebrated Fidel Castro as an “organizer,” a “fighter,” and “a stalwart symbol of anti-imperialist struggle and self-determination.” DSA co-chair Ashik Siddique was unable to offer much of a defense when CNN asked how the Castro tribute would play with Florida voters.

The tension burst into the open after a recent interview in which Ocasio-Cortez emphasized her membership in New York City DSA rather than the national organization and brushed aside questions about why she had not endorsed other DSA candidates such as Hong.

The DSA’s Liberation Caucus, which openly embraces Marxist-Leninist-Maoist politics, fired back. It withdrew support for a hypothetical AOC presidential run, accusing her of a “retreat from socialist politics,” insufficient solidarity with Palestine, and failure to participate in the group’s “Federal Socialists in Office” work. It warned that a presidential campaign would bring “even more capitulations to the imperialists.”

That is AOC’s problem in miniature. The politician most responsible for making democratic socialism fashionable now risks becoming too mainstream for the people who helped build her brand.

RELATED: Sorry, socialists: The internet saved your homework

Sarah Rice/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The DSA has grown quickly. Membership doubled from roughly 50,000 in 2020 to more than 100,000 by 2026 and reached about 120,000 by July. Growth, however, has exposed factions: a national organization, local chapters with different political incentives, and ideological caucuses competing to define what socialism is supposed to mean.

That makes national politics awkward. The DSA wants influence without compromise, but influence in a coalition party requires compromise almost by definition. The more successful one of its politicians becomes, the more likely activists are to accuse that politician of betrayal.

AOC is now caught in the trap she helped build. To become a plausible national Democrat, she must reassure voters who recoil from communism, Castro nostalgia, police abolition, and revolutionary theater. To keep the DSA left happy, she must prove she has not been domesticated by Washington.

For years, Ocasio-Cortez made socialism look glamorous to young progressives. Now the socialists are asking whether she is still socialist enough.

​Democratic party, Democratic socialists of america, Fidel castro, Francesca hong, Omar fateh, Opinion & analysis, Hasan piker, Alexandria ocasio-cortez, 2028 presidential election, Abdul el-sayed, Abolish police, New york 

Athletes pay tribute to their heroes all the time, but BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock doesn’t believe Naomi Osaka’s Allen Iverson-inspired appearance at the U.S. Open was authentic.

“She walked into Arthur Ashe Stadium on Monday night in cornrows, a headband, a shooting sleeve, and an elbow pad. She beat some foreign player in two tie breaks, and the press sold it as an homage,” Whitlock says.

“The night before, she wore Iverson’s face on a shirt and called him a trailblazer,” he adds. Osaka spoke in a press conference following the match.

“Obviously the inspiration is Allen Iverson. I think, you know, for me, he’s a trailblazer. He’s someone that was able to merge culture and sport. And he’s very famous for that. And also I just really appreciate his style,” Osaka said.

“That’s kind of like what I tried to embody, and obviously, I had a lot of fun with that design process and just coming up with the creative for it. So overall it was cool. I think it fit New York really well, and I’m just excited to continue,” she added.

Iverson wrote in a post on Instagram in response, “Wow, what a[n] honor!! BIG FAN can’t wait to meet you.”

“Iverson had never even spoken to her,” Whitlock comments.

“The costume needed a co-signer.”

Whitlock points out that Osaka was “born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother.”

“Alan Iverson is not and has never been her role model. This is a mixed-race superstar using the U.S. Open to buy good credibility she did not grow up in,” he says.

“A 28-year-old woman cosplaying as a black man on the biggest tennis stage in the country. And we pretend the crossdressing is inspiration,” he continues.

“We call it progress and tell young girls and boys this is fashion. This is courage. This is who they should admire,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Jason whitlock, Us open, Crossdressing, Naomi osaka, Allen iverson, Tennis, Nba, Blazetv show