At first glance, President Donald Trump’s latest financial disclosures look like a major scandal.

CBS News recently released an interactive dashboard analyzing what it called Trump’s “unprecedented” volume of investment activity during the first quarter of 2026: 1,296 sales and 2,346 purchases worth somewhere between $212 million and $695 million.

Calling it ‘potential insider trading’ is easy. Proving it requires something more than trades that sometimes came before favorable news.

The report emphasized that much of the activity involved individual stocks rather than index funds and noted that some purchases “preceded policy moves” or public statements by Trump that could affect the companies involved.

“The concern is he is in a position to make all kinds of decisions that can affect stock prices,” one government ethics expert told CBS.

“In the meantime, he could have bought or sold stocks that are affected by these decisions.”

It certainly sounds suspicious. That is exactly what Democrats are counting on. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has already demanded an investigation into “potential insider trading” as her party tries to cast Trump as an out-of-touch oligarch before the midterms.

But the scandal starts to look much thinner once you move past the insinuation and examine what actually happened.

For one thing, Trump is not personally making these trades. CBS News included a statement from the Trump Organization saying that “independent third-party investment managers” handle the president’s stock transactions without direction from Trump or his family.

Vice President JD Vance put it more colorfully: Trump “doesn’t sit at the Oval Office on his computer on his, like, Robinhood account, buying and selling stocks. That’s absurd.”

Fine. But what about the timing? Doesn’t that suggest some coordination between Trump and his money managers?

Not much, judging from CBS News’ own charts. If Trump is insider trading, he is doing a remarkably bad job of it.

Take Nvidia. CBS noted that Trump’s financial managers bought between $500,001 and $1 million of Nvidia stock on January 6. The following week, the administration relaxed export controls on some of Nvidia’s AI chips, allowing sales to China.

RELATED: Trump has media and left panicking over election national emergency threat

Jim WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

That sounds explosive until you look at the stock price. Nvidia closed at $187.24 on Jan. 6. After the policy change, it closed the following week at $186.23.

The next two purchases shown by CBS came after — not before — brief but significant drops in Nvidia’s share price. Trump’s disclosure also shows sales totaling between $1.8 million and $3.6 million in Nvidia stock during March. The stock then climbed sharply the next month.

That is not what a clean insider-trading narrative looks like.

It looks much more like ordinary portfolio management: buying dips, trimming positions, missing upside, and generally doing what professional money managers do every day — often while charging clients handsomely for the privilege.

Palantir and Eli Lilly transactions cited in the report show a similarly messy pattern rather than some obvious sequence of privileged information followed by perfectly timed trades.

One investment professional quoted by CBS even speculated that Trump’s managers may have been realizing losses for tax purposes. Maybe. If not, Trump might want to ask what exactly he is paying them for.

Either way, that theory does not establish insider trading. And neither does the mere fact that a trade happened before a policy announcement affecting the same company.

To make the case, you need evidence that Trump possessed material nonpublic information, that he communicated it to the people managing his portfolio, and that they traded on it. The disclosures and timing highlighted by CBS do not establish that.

The simplest explanation remains the least cinematic one: Trump pursues policies he believes are good for the country while outside money managers invest his fortune without his input.

If you want to understand what genuinely suspicious political trading can look like, consider the Pelosi family.

In 2024, Paul Pelosi sold roughly $500,000 in Visa stock. The following month, the Justice Department sued Visa on antitrust grounds, and the stock fell.

That timing naturally attracted scrutiny. But timing alone is not proof there, either. We do not know that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tipped off her husband, and the public evidence does not establish insider trading.

RELATED: Nancy Pelosi’s post-Congress plan: A ‘nonpartisan’ $50 million institute at Berkeley

Jim Vondruska/Getty Images

What it does show is why these stories require more than a suggestive chart. A suspicious-looking sequence is a reason to ask questions, not a substitute for evidence.

That standard should apply to Trump too.

Democrats need voters to believe Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself, his family, and his friends. That is why every financial disclosure becomes an invitation to imply corruption before proving it.

Maybe investigators will eventually uncover evidence that Trump directed trades around government policy. If they do, investigate it.

But the material CBS News has presented so far does not get us there.

Calling it “potential insider trading” is easy. Proving it requires something more than trades that sometimes came before favorable news, sometimes after price declines, and sometimes before the portfolio missed a rally altogether.

For now, there is plenty of insinuation and remarkably little proof.

​Cbs news, Democrats, Donald trump, Eli lilly, Insider trading, Investigation, Jd vance, Justice department, Nancy pelosi, Opinion & analysis, Palantir, Corruption, Stocks, Disclosure 

A Texas teacher has gone viral for breaking down emotionally during a social media post because several of his senior students struggle to read and write.

In a video that has gone viral online, Darius Williams says he assigned high school senior students to read two paragraphs and write a sentence on the second day of school.

‘Something is broken somewhere. It has to be. To see this level of engagement with students who simply don’t have literacy skills is completely disheartening.’

He stated in the viral video, “I literally broke down in the middle of class.”

An emotional Williams continued, “I gave them the scenario, we annotated together, I gave them the answers before we even had the problem, and they couldn’t do it.”

“I basically completed the sentence for them in the model,” Williams said. “These are 17- and 18-year-old kids, and they couldn’t fill in four words. Four words!”

The tearful teacher added, “I don’t know. I simply don’t know where the problem is. This is only day two, and I have seniors who simply cannot read and seniors who cannot write. They cannot write.”

Williams remarked, “They can reason, they have the ability to defend their reasoning if it’s talking to their homeboy, but applying that to a written text, two paragraphs, they couldn’t do it. Our young black men, our young brown men, our young black girls, and our young brown girls. Oh, God.”

Williams wrote in the caption accompanying the Instagram video:

I thought long and hard about posting this. But we have got to do something. Something is broken somewhere. It has to be. To see this level of engagement with students who simply don’t have literacy skills is completely disheartening. Whew. Y’all did not prepare me for this. Whew.

The viral video notched more than 144,000 views on Instagram.

Darius Williams is listed in the Wheatley High School staff directory as a New Education System and Career and Technical Education teacher in a non-foundational program of study.

KRIV-TV reported, “The Texas Education Agency says a ‘non-foundational’ teacher teaches elective, specialized, or enrichment subjects instead of core academic courses.”

“The district describes CTE as a collection of courses designed to prepare students for further education and careers in current or emerging professions,” KPRC-TV reported. “The district says its CTE programs prepare students for industry certifications, while some programs also offer dual-credit opportunities that allow students to earn college credit while still in high school.”

RELATED: Texas pastor issues two challenges for men today: ‘Putting it into action bears fruit’

While the Houston Independent School District did not directly address Williams’ claims in his viral video, it said it was “proud of the progress students are making.”

“The first days of the school year are an important time for teachers to get to know their students’ academic abilities, assess their individual needs, and determine the support each student may require,” the district said, according to the Houston Chronicle.

“We see students with a range of academic needs every day,” the statement read. “As teachers and instructional leaders, it is our responsibility to identify those needs and our commitment to close the gaps.”

The HISD conceded that there are some “students who need additional academic support.”

Wheatley High School has faced academic challenges in recent years.

The Houston Chronicle reported that approximately 130 schools in the Houston Independent School District, including Wheatley High School, were taken over by the state of Texas in 2023 following seven consecutive years of failing evaluations within the state accountability framework.

Wheatley High School currently has an overall C rating and a student STAAR performance rating of 69 out of 100.

The Texas Education Agency defines STAAR Performance as standards-related “levels of test performance to the expectations defined in the state curriculum standards known as the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills.”

The school has a graduation/completion rate of 55 out of 100.

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

​High school, News, Politics, Texas, Viral video 

Jason Arday, the serial fabulist who resigned last week from Cambridge University, released his memoir “Great and Unfortunate Things” on Tuesday. As of this writing, the book had a 4.18 average from 103 ratings on Goodreads. Fully 48% give Arday five stars. Another 37% give him four. Two stars or below? A mere 7%.

The Goodreads jury, apparently, has reached its verdict: The story of a nonverbal autistic boy who could not read until 18 and then rocketed all the way to becoming Cambridge’s youngest black professor is sacred.

When the demand for underrepresented heroes outstrips the supply, fabulists and frauds have an opening. More important, they have an ecosystem.

The reviews are replete with the language of wonder. One called the book “the improbable-but-true story” and awarded five stars “for the basic premise alone,” adding: “You make this stuff up (sic).” Truer words!

Another declared that Arday becoming a college graduate a mere five years after becoming fully literate was “nothing short of amazing.” Others called his accomplishments “truly unbelievable,” his memoir “incredibly moving” and “incredibly inspirational.”

Incredible. Amazing. Unbelievable. The reviewers keep reaching for exactly the right words without quite noticing what those words might mean.

Never mind that Arday stepped down August 5 after Cambridge opened an investigation into his academic qualifications and honorary appointments. Never mind the detailed allegations of extensive textual overlap in his doctoral thesis. Forget the questions surrounding his athletic feats, fundraising claims, and résumé. Pay no attention to the rather awkward question raised by the tale of a man who supposedly learned to read at 18 and graduated from a prestigious institution five years later.

The Goodreads crowd had already rendered its rapturous verdict.

Among the first two dozen or so reviews visible on the site, nearly all awarded four or five stars. Almost nobody stopped to wonder whether the “unbelievable” story might, in fact, be unbelievable.

Why would they? The story delivers everything the contemporary literary class has been trained to admire: a black autistic man overcoming a racist and ableist system; a fierce immigrant mother redeeming her son; grit and determination carrying him into the heights of the ivory tower. It is less a memoir than a perfect machine for producing approved emotions.

RELATED: How to play liberals for suckers

Blaze Media Illustration

Even reviewers who finished the book after the scandal broke offered only careful, almost apologetic caveats. One finished the memoir, Googled Arday, discovered the plagiarism reports and resignation “only hours” earlier — and still found the book “well written” and “fascinating.”

Several reviewers thanked 37INK, a Simon & Schuster imprint devoted to publishing black authors, for providing advance review copies through NetGalley. NetGalley collects volunteer reviewers whose preferences are already known. Publishers naturally use such networks to build early attention and enthusiasm around books they hope to sell.

Nothing sinister is required here. That’s practically the point.

The machinery works because everyone already knows the story he is supposed to like. The publisher finds the audience. The audience recognizes the moral cues. The reviewers supply the adjectives. By publication day, a book whose author is already engulfed in questions about his biography can arrive wrapped in a halo of “incredible,” “amazing,” and “inspirational.”

Amazon, where reviews could not be posted until the book was actually released, appears much less enchanted. Even 37INK, perhaps wisely, does not feature the book on its home page.

When the demand for underrepresented heroes outstrips the supply, fabulists and frauds have an opening. More important, they have an ecosystem.

The university hires. The publisher packages. The advance readers applaud. And by the time anyone asks whether the inspirational story is true, the five stars are already in.

​Cambridge university, Jason arday, Opinion & analysis, Memoir, Diversity equity inclusion, Fabulist, Goodreads, Amazon, Fraud 

While smearing law-abiding conservatives in recent years as “extremists,” the Southern Poverty Law Center was seemingly getting into bed with bona fide Nazis — in one alleged case, perhaps quite literally.

Heidi Beirich, the former director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project who was indicted and arrested on Wednesday, is accused not only of getting romantically involved, cohabitating, and sharing bank accounts with a neo-Nazi informant whose work she oversaw, but also allegedly committing fraud along the way.

‘The charity that supposedly fought Neo-Nazis actually funded Neo-Nazis.’

The second superseding indictment in the SPLC’s criminal fraud case announced by the Justice Department on Wednesday sheds light on Beirich’s various alleged improprieties as well as on the SPLC-linked activities of her alleged skinhead lover.

Quick background

The Alabama-headquartered smear- and fearmongering outfit was federally charged on April 21 with six counts of wire fraud, four counts of making false statements to a federally insured bank, and one count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

The SPLC — which has been credibly accused of bankrolling leaders and organizers in the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, the American Front, United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America, and the National Alliance with millions of dollars in donor funds through fictitious accounts — pleaded not guilty in May to all counts.

RELATED: Klansman allegedly on SPLC payroll was ‘true believer’ white supremacist, not reformed infiltrator

FBI

On June 2, the DOJ filed a superseding indictment against the SPLC detailing some of the ways that field sources allegedly used SPLC donor money, including to grow existing chapters of extremist groups; make donations to extremist group leaders; host extremist rallies; purchase materials for cross burnings as well as for KKK robes and hoods; and publish extremist literature for recruitment purposes.

The June indictment also told the love story about a former Intelligence Project director and a field source referred to only as “F-9.”

The second superseding indictment filed on Tuesday fills in some of the gaps in that love story — including the former director’s name, Heidi Beirich — and paints her in a particularly unflattering light.

The SPLC, Beirich, and Beirich’s attorney did not respond to Blaze News’ requests for comment.

There are three core components to the case against Beirich, who has been personally charged with wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to submit false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

1. Shell companies

Beirich is an anti-Trump liberal who served as director of the Intelligence Project from 2012 until 2019 and now serves as the chief strategy officer at the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. In her latest capacity, she concerned-mongered before Congress in 2020 over the supposed problem of white supremacists in the military.

The indictment alleges that Beirich opened and/or modified a series of bank accounts in the name of numerous shell companies, including the Center Investigative Agency, Fox Photography, Tech Writers Group, and Rare Books Warehouse — and knowingly signed bank documents “containing false statements for the purpose of influencing banks” to open and maintain the accounts.

‘I knew it was that fat, ugly hog Heidi Beirich.’

According to the indictment, the fictitious organizations Beirich allegedly helped stand up were never incorporated, conducted no legitimate business, and had no real employees.

Funds from SPLC donors — who were led to believe they were supporting the fight against extremism — were allegedly funneled through the identified shell companies to so-called informants, including Beirich’s alleged lover, F-9.

2. Thick as thieves

Prosecutors allege that F-9 received millions of dollars in donor funds, primarily through the Tech Writers bank account, while helping the National Alliance “carry out its extremist activities.”

RELATED: Federal judge REJECTS the victim narrative pushed by the criminally charged SPLC

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Beirich allegedly oversaw the SPLC payments to F-9 while engaged “in a romantic relationship” with him, said the indictment.

Beirich is also accused of getting a taste of the action.

“During this relationship, BEIRICH and F-9 shared a house and two bank accounts,” the indictment alleges. “Between 2015 and 2021, approximately $140,000.00 in donors’ money flowed from the SPLC operating account, through the Tech Writers account, and was ultimately deposited into the joint bank accounts held by F-9 and BEIRICH.”

The then-SPLC director allegedly used donors’ money to pay for their shared living expenses, even though she does not appear to have been hard-pressed for cash. After all, when Beirich left the SPLC, she was reportedly earning $190,000 in salary and benefits.

Whether their alleged romantic relationship is ongoing is unclear.

3. Another use for the Nazi informant

According to the allegations, Beirich’s informant broke into the National Alliance’s headquarters in West Virginia in 2014 with her knowledge; stole 25 boxes of documents; transported those documents across state lines; and with Beirich’s help, copied those documents before breaking back into the National Alliance headquarters to return the originals.

Prosecutors alleged that Beirich paid for the copies with donor funds and used the stolen material for a “story to solicit more donations.”

The documents taken in the burglary appear to have served as the basis for Beirich’s lengthy March 2015 “Hatewatch” article titled “Chaos at the Compound,” where she discussed drama and mismanagement behind the scenes at the National Alliance.

Beirich then allegedly “paid approximately $6,000.00 in donors’ money” to a different field source “to falsely take responsibility for the burglary.”

After the June indictment came out and linked the SPLC to the burglary, William White Williams, National Alliance’s 78-year-old chairman, told the New York Post, “I knew it was that fat, ugly hog Heidi Beirich.”

Protest and condemnation

FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement on Thursday, “The charity that supposedly fought the KKK actually funded the KKK. The charity that supposedly fought Neo-Nazis actually funded Neo-Nazis. Heidi Beirich supposedly dedicated her career to fighting neo-Nazis. The indictment alleges she helped FUND them.”

Patel added, “The woman who supposedly fought hate allegedly helped pay the very people spreading it, used their activity to raise more donor money, and personally benefited from the scheme.”

Beirich’s lawyer denies she did anything wrong.

“Dr. Beirich is innocent, and this case is without merit,” Beirich’s attorney, Michael Proctor, said in a statement obtained by CNN. “We believe the charges against her and the SPLC are politically motivated, and Dr. Beirich has been targeted in this case because of the important work she has done to combat hate groups and extremists.”

The SPLC has already tried and failed to get the case dismissed on the basis of the claim that the prosecution is politically motivated.

Judge Emily Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, a Trump appointee, said in an order rejecting the SPLC’s motion on Friday, “The SPLC has failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution.”

Proctor added, “Dr. Beirich won’t be silenced or intimidated by the government’s false and politicized allegations now.”

“The actions taken by the DOJ will not shake our resolve,” the SPLC told CNN. “We remain steadfast in our fight for justice and in our commitment to ensuring the promise of the Civil Rights movement becomes a reality for all. We are confident in our position and look forward to presenting the evidence and making our case in court.”

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

​Southern poverty law center, White supremacists, Nazis, Kash patel, Fbi, Politics 

A woman from Moldova has been stripped of her citizenship after she was discovered to have been involved a business that sexually exploited children.

Tatiana Power gained her U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process but was later convicted of crimes related to a child modeling business.

Power was one of six people who were charged with crimes related to the case, but two of those have died.

Power had been the bookkeeper for Newstar Websites, which recruited children under the guise of modeling, but instead the children were made to engage in sexual conduct for images and videos.

The organization had targeted Moldovan, Ukrainian, and other Eastern European children and then sold the child sex images and videos to customers in more than a hundred countries.

Prosecutors said they produced about 4.6 million videos and images, including children as young as 6 years old.

Some of the children were made to wear transparent underwear, pantyhose and miniskirts, or dress up in cheerleader or police costumes.

Power pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering conspiracy and was sentenced in 2022 to more than 12 years in prison.

On Tuesday, the DOJ said it had also stripped Power of her citizenship.

Power was one of six people who were charged with crimes related to the case, but two of those have died, two others were imprisoned, and one has eluded U.S. custody.

RELATED: Illegal alien allegedly bites 3-year-old’s face in horrifying random attack — DHS blames Biden

The Justice Department said it has filed 123 civil denaturalization complaints, which is the most in U.S. history.

Others who were denaturalized were Narinder Singh of India for identity fraud, Emigdio Sanchez of Mexico for lying about being arrested for domestic abuse, and Yetunde Folake Olaniyi of Nigeria for entering into s sham marriage.

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

​Immigration and customs enforcement, Child sex abuse material, Denaturalization, Immigration, Politics 

Age verification legislation has been a hot topic lately, with many states and even federal lawmakers eyeing restrictions that would force users to turn over their IDs to access their smart devices. In an attempt to beat big government to the punch, Google just announced new age limits coming to Android.

Despite the hype, the measure doesn’t have the protective powers its advocates claim.

On the other hand, Google’s approach could be worse.

The worst news is, it won’t satisfy big government, which will likely push for tighter restrictions still.

This isn’t a complete solution for people hoping their digital rights won’t be arbitrarily locked.

Age verification is coming to Android

In late July, Google announced that it is rolling out a way to provide “age-appropriate experiences” for Android users through the Google Play Age Signals API. The feature empowers app developers to add age-based restrictions to their applications. Then parents can go into their child’s phone and mark their child’s age in the device. If the child is a minor, apps that support the API will enable content restrictions accordingly.

The best part is that this solution doesn’t require an identification or biometric authorization from users. Instead, it relies on parental judgement, putting the power in parents’ hands to decide when to restrict their children’s devices instead of relying on government mandates and overreach. It’s exactly what we asked for back in May when we ripped apart the ironically named Parents Decide Act.

But is it enough to appease lawmakers?

Google’s saving grace won’t be enough for big government

Of course it isn’t, but there are some valid reasons why this isn’t a complete solution for people hoping their digital rights won’t be arbitrarily locked behind their state ID.

Fragmented support: The Google Play Age Signals API is optional for developers to add to their apps. As a result, there will be inevitable fragmentation, where some apps support the API while others do not. Without a consistent age-restricted experience across the entire Android platform, lawmakers will declare it to be insufficient and move forward with legislation.Legal proof: Lawmakers have already expressed that self-declared age verification isn’t enough, as parents would effectively do with Google’s API. They need users to legally show proof of age, and right now, that is only possible through IDs.Too little, too late: Age verification bills are already set in motion, with many of them being debated, refined, and set up for votes. Some have already gone into effect, leaving less wiggle room to pull the plug.

Google’s efforts to stop age verification legislation by giving power back to the people is a noble one, and it is worth commending. Unfortunately, the entire bill process is a bullet train barreling down the tracks with no way to stop.

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

Moor Studio/Getty Images

It is already in motion, and only lawmakers can stand in the way. That’s why it is important to know which bills are on the table in your area and contact your representatives to let them know what you think. If you value online freedom, privacy, and security, the choice is clear. Contrary to what you have been told, age verification bills do not make users safer.

When will the API be available?

The Google Play Age Signals API is currently being tested in Brazil. Next, it will come to Australia and Canada in mid-August. After that, it will roll out globally by the end of the year. Once available, it will appear in the Google Family Link app for Android, where parents can set it once and let the API control the apps that support it.

The Google Family Link app is compatible with devices running Android 7.0 and up, so older Android phones will inevitably be left out. However, since we’re currently on Android 17, all flagship phones, mid-tier handsets, and even low-end models released within the last decade will have access, making Android an easier platform for parents to control what their kids can see online without the need for heavy-handed legislation from the government up top.

​Tech, Technology 

Kansas police met with a gruesome scene after a man called them to confess killing his four children and their mother before killing himself.

The man called 911 at about 8:50 a.m. on Tuesday, according to Winfield Police Chief Robbie DeLong.

Video from a neighbor’s Ring camera showed the man screaming profanities and pacing back and forth just a few days before he killed his family.

About two hours later, police breached the door of the residence in Winfield and found the remains of the five victims and 53-year-old Ronald Williams Sr.

The victims were identified as 44-year-old Kelly George and her four children, 9-year-old Carol Williams, 7-year-old Ronald Williams Jr., 5-year-old Sarah Williams, and 3-year-old Kelly Magee-Williams.

“There was no other indication of any other loss of life, and so standard protocol was to set up a perimeter and start working the incident as a barricade situation,” DeLong said.

Kansas Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Jason Diaz said that Williams Sr. appeared to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

No other people lived at the home and the public was under no threat, according to police.

Investigators are trying to determine the motive for the murder-suicide by interviewing neighbors.

Some indicated that Williams Sr. had been acting erratically in the months before the incident, and police said they had been at the residence to respond to numerous calls.

RELATED: Hawaii father kills his wife and 3 children then kills himself in state’s 2nd-worst mass killing

“I can’t say that anything would have indicated that we would be where we are today,” said DeLong.

KAKE-TV obtained video from a neighbor’s Ring camera showing the man screaming profanities and pacing back and forth just a few days before he killed his family.

He also had an extensive criminal past and was a registered sex offender.

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

​Murder suicide, Family killed, Kansas, Crime 

It wasn’t Washington that made me think about it. It was a quiet drive through Florida.

I had spent several days helping my son unpack after his move to Fishhawk Ranch. Like every mother, I was doing what mothers do: organizing closets, opening boxes, trying to make an unfamiliar place feel like home. From there, I drove north to Brooksville to interview someone for an article.

The most dangerous surveillance system isn’t the one we reject. It’s the one we eventually stop noticing.

Somewhere along that drive, I began noticing them.

Cameras.

One after another. Traffic cameras. Speed-enforcement cameras. License-plate readers mounted on poles. They weren’t hidden. They weren’t pretending not to be there. They stood over the road as casually as streetlights, silently recording the movements of every passing driver.

I caught myself wondering something that should concern every American: When did we decide this was normal?

Not when did governments decide. When did we?

Because I don’t remember anyone asking. I don’t recall a statewide debate. I don’t remember voting to create a society where our daily movements are cataloged, stored, shared, analyzed, and, in many cases, retained long after we’ve gone home.

Somewhere between “it’s just for traffic” and “it’s just for public safety,” America quietly became one of the most surveilled free societies in the world.

And hardly anyone noticed.

The Fourth Amendment wasn’t written because America’s founders feared technology. They feared government.

British authorities used “general warrants” and “writs of assistance,” legal instruments that allowed officials to search broadly without individualized suspicion. Those practices became one of the sparks of the American Revolution.

The Fourth Amendment was a direct rejection of that kind of generalized intrusion. It was not merely about protecting homes. It was about preventing government from searching and tracking people without particularized cause.

Today’s surveillance technology raises a modern version of the same question.

No police department could assign an officer to follow every American every day. A computer can.

RELATED: Flock around and lose your rights

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Across the country, automated license-plate reader systems capture billions of vehicle scans every year. A single observation tells almost nothing. But millions of observations stitched together over months or years can reveal where we worship, whom we visit, what doctors we see, what political meetings we attend, and what causes we support.

One camera watches traffic. A network watches lives.

That distinction matters.

The Supreme Court has already begun recognizing it.

In United States v. Jones (2012), the court ruled that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle’s movements constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Then, in Carpenter v. United States (2018), the court held that police generally need a warrant to obtain historical cell-site location information because prolonged tracking can reveal what Chief Justice John Roberts called the “privacies of life.”

The principle emerging from those cases is straightforward: Technology can change the constitutional analysis. What once would have required hundreds of officers working around the clock can now be accomplished automatically, cheaply, and at enormous scale.

That is why large license plate databases deserve serious scrutiny. Civil liberties groups have challenged warrantless access to them, arguing that mass collection can enable exactly the sort of suspicionless tracking the Fourth Amendment was designed to restrain.

The ACLU has likewise warned that these systems sweep up information about millions of innocent people whose only “crime” is driving to work, church, school, or the grocery store.

Those aren’t fringe lefty concerns.

The issue isn’t the existence of cameras. It is the absence of meaningful limits.

How long is the data kept? Who can search it? Can federal agencies access local databases? Can private companies? Can information collected for one purpose quietly be used for another?

Those questions deserve public answers.

Because history teaches an uncomfortable lesson: Governments rarely surrender surveillance powers voluntarily. They expand them.

RELATED: College student accused of destroying Flock cameras — and the community comes out in droves to defend him

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

That brings me back to Florida.

I recently read proposals to place cameras on municipal garbage trucks to identify possible zoning or code-enforcement violations while they move through neighborhoods.

Supporters see efficiency. Perhaps they are right.

But constitutional government is not built on efficiency alone. It is built on restraint.

Every surveillance tool arrives with a reasonable explanation: traffic safety, crime reduction, code enforcement, public health, national security. Individually, each sounds sensible. Collectively, they can create something the founders would instantly recognize and deeply distrust: a government capable of watching everyone.

Rather than abandon technology, the better answer is to insist that constitutional limits evolve alongside it.

If governments want to deploy large-scale surveillance systems, they should do so through open public debate and legislative approval. They should adopt strict retention limits, require warrants before searching historical movement data except in genuine emergencies, publish regular transparency reports, and impose meaningful penalties for misuse.

Citizens have tools too. Public records laws can reveal contracts with surveillance vendors, data-sharing agreements, retention policies, and audit logs. City council meetings and county commission hearings are often where these systems are approved. State legislatures can require judicial oversight, transparency, and meaningful limits on how surveillance data is collected and used.

Technology should serve a free people. Free people should never quietly become subjects of technology.

The most dangerous surveillance system isn’t the one we reject. It’s the one we eventually stop noticing.

​Opinion & analysis, Flock cameras, Surveillance, Fourth amendment, Civil liberties, Constitution, Supreme court, Transparency, Consent 

The Senate finally voted Saturday to confirm Todd Blanche as President Donald Trump’s new attorney general. Anyone who wants a Justice Department that enforces the law instead of bending it to politics can breathe a little easier.

Blanche is unusually well-suited for the job. He has seen the justice system from both sides — first as a federal prosecutor and assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, then as a defense attorney, including as one of Trump’s lead lawyers during the prosecutions he faced before returning to the White House. Few incoming attorneys general have had a more personal view of what prosecutorial power can become when politics infects the justice system.

Trump’s effort to reform the Justice Department is not complete, but the direction is a stark improvement over what came before.

A new era at the Justice Department has now officially begun, but the turnaround started before Blanche’s confirmation. Speed bumps aside, the direction under Trump’s team is unmistakable: order restored at the southern border, an end to lawfare, and a saner approach to antitrust enforcement. Blanche’s job is not to start that work. It is to finish it.

A timely reminder arrived last week, when the Department of Justice reached a settlement with Paul Vaughn days before Blanche was confirmed.

The Biden Justice Department charged Vaughn, a pro-life father of 11, under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act after he participated in a sit-in at a Tennessee abortion clinic in 2021.

FBI agents staged a predawn raid at his home and arrested him in front of his wife and children. Vaughn ultimately received three years of supervised release and no prison time, but other pro-life defendants were not so lucky.

Lauren Handy was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Jonathan Darnel received 34 months. Seventy-six-year-old Joan Andrews Bell got 27 months, and 75-year-old Paula Harlow received 24 months.

When Harlow’s husband pleaded for leniency because of her age and declining health, the judge replied that she should “make every effort to remain alive” in keeping with “the tenets of your religion.” All four were later pardoned by Trump.

The FACE Act protects access to abortion clinics, but it also protects pregnancy centers and houses of worship. Yet the Biden administration’s aggressive prosecution of pro-life demonstrators contrasted sharply with the much thinner record of prosecutions after extremists firebombed and vandalized pregnancy centers following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland once explained the difficulty by noting that many of the attacks happened at night. Apparently darkness is now a federal jurisdictional problem. Good to know. Garland was almost on the Supreme Court.

RELATED: The Biden tapes blow open the autopen scandal

Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

The pro-life cases were among the most visible abuses of the Garland years, but hardly the only ones. His department drew justified outrage over its treatment of parents protesting school policies; House Republicans later accused the DOJ of having labeled parents as terrorist threats. The FBI also came under fire after an internal memo contemplated cultivating sources in traditionalist Catholic communities — what critics described as a plan to send spies into parishes. And special counsel Jack Smith pursued Trump through the heat of the 2024 campaign.

Even antitrust enforcement became an exercise in questionable priorities. The Justice Department blocked JetBlue from acquiring Spirit Airlines in 2024. Spirit later collapsed, removing a low-fare competitor from an already concentrated airline market. Regulators claimed to be protecting consumers; consumers ended up with one fewer discount carrier.

The Biden administration also moved to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s acquisition of Juniper Networks, a deal the intelligence community reportedly deemed vital to national security. The Trump team ultimately allowed the transaction to proceed, strengthening an American competitor in a market where China’s Huawei remains formidable.

RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-business, and heedless of national-security concerns: We have seen what happens when partisan priorities seep into the Justice Department. Trump’s effort to reform the Justice Department is not complete, but the direction is a stark improvement over what came before.

And the danger of backsliding is obvious. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, expect pressure for an attorney general even more aggressive than Garland. Biden himself reportedly regretted choosing Garland and wished he had listened to advisers who preferred the more partisan Doug Jones. That should tell you something.

Todd Blanche is infinitely preferable. He knows prosecutorial power from both sides of the courtroom, and he has every reason to understand how quickly discretion can become abuse.

The Justice Department does not need revenge. It needs restraint, consistency, and equal treatment under the law. Blanche has the experience — and now the authority — to deliver it.

​Justice department, Opinion & analysis, Todd blanche, Merrick garland, Weaponization, Corruption, Abuse of power, Joe biden, Donald trump, Face act, China