On June 2, 2026, the White House released an executive order on artificial intelligence called “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” The administration was at pains to explain what the order was not. It was not a burden or the Biden administration’s “top-down regulatory approach.” It was not, the official fact sheet insisted, mandatory licensing or pre-clearance or permitting of any kind. The document spent considerable energy describing its own absence.

This is a familiar American style of governance: The regulation that will not say its name.

How much technical judgment should a republic outsource to its security bureaucracy?

However, the order’s responsibility is actually rather specific. Within 30 days of signing, it directs federal agencies to prioritize the cyber defense of their information systems and requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue binding operational directives expanding AI-enabled defensive tools to federal agencies, state and local governments, rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities. Within 60 days, it creates a classified benchmarking process, run by the Treasury Department and the NSA, to determine when an AI model’s capabilities have crossed a threshold and become what the order calls a “covered frontier model.” Developers may then voluntarily submit their model for government assessment. The government then gets 30 days to work with it before the developer shares it with anyone else.

The order is best understood as the third movement in a policy sequence that began with the first Trump administration. In 2019, the president signed an executive order framing American AI leadership as essential to both economic and national security but also emphasizing public trust, civil liberties, and privacy. In 2023, the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14110 described AI as holding both “promise and peril” and attempted something like a comprehensive social contract with the technology: safety and security, but also workers’ rights, civil rights, bias mitigation, and fraud prevention. On January 20, 2025, the new Trump administration rescinded that order. The declared rationale was ideological contamination. The Biden approach was “burdensome” and encoded “engineered social agendas.” The new policy would instead pursue American AI dominance, free from such considerations.

Government by bottleneck

What has been constructed is a security compact between the federal government and a small number of frontier-model developers. The developer will give the government access to a model, and the government will evaluate it. Together, they will decide who the “trusted partners” are who receive it next. The criteria for that evaluation are classified. The benchmarks are classified. The threshold for “covered” status is classified. Google and Sam Altman expressed support. The Business Software Alliance praised the order’s “voluntary and phased approach,” as though a process administered by the NSA with nondisclosure expectations was simply an industry working group.

RELATED: How to make DuckDuckGo your search bar go-to

herstockart/Getty Images

The order names its intended beneficiaries as “rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.” These institutions do not have cleared staff, government relationships, or the organizational bandwidth to absorb classified defensive intelligence. They are institutions named in the fact sheet because they are sympathetic. The institutions that will in fact operate inside the order’s core architecture are frontier developers and their vetted, trusted partners. Everyone else waits for whatever the clearinghouse sees fit to distribute, assuming they have the expertise to use it.

This is a recognizable form of 21st-century American governance: highly centralized technical judgment, thin public transparency, and broad downstream dependence. The polity is told that the infrastructure will be hardened. The decisive knowledge about how, by whom, and according to what criteria is held somewhere else.

The order speaks fluently about attack surfaces and remediation and covered models and patch distribution. In this language, every institution becomes a node. Hospitals, banks, utilities, and federal agencies are all nodes. They are surfaces of cyber vulnerability awaiting protection. The world is rendered as a network diagram, and the only question is whether the correct agencies have been directed to harden it.

What the order cannot conceal beneath its operational specificity is that this is a theory of governance as much as technology. The Atlantic Council, in criticizing the order, noted that classified criteria and delegated executive discretion create a serious accountability gap. That gap is the design.

Red tape on steroids

The order presents itself as the rejection of bureaucracy, yet is an elaborate bureaucratic instrument with deadlines and interagency consultations, directives, classifications, threshold determinations, and enforcement priorities. It relocates the machinery of governance away from NIST’s open and collaborative risk-management culture and toward the executive security apparatus: the NSA, the Treasury, the national cyber director. These institutions will now pass judgment about which AI systems are of concern.

One can stipulate that these institutions are serious, technically capable, and acting in good faith. One can stipulate that the cyber threats are real; the frontier labs’ own safety documentation already makes clear that the most capable models can automate sophisticated intrusions against hardened targets, discovering exploits and chaining vulnerabilities at a pace no human team can match. The question is how much technical judgment a republic should outsource to its security bureaucracy.

Administration officials’ bet is that urgency, expertise, and the specter of Chinese technological rivalry will supply sufficient legitimacy. They may be right. Urgency has carried American policy unquestioned a long way before. The order calls itself the enemy of regulation. It is instead regulation’s more exclusive cousin, with all the power, a fraction of the accountability, and a much shorter guest list.

​Tech 

Justin Gaethje put on the performance of a lifetime at the landmark UFC 250 event outside the White House Sunday night, finally capturing the undisputed, lightweight UFC championship belt.

Before the fight, Gaethje and his undefeated opponent, Ilia Topuria, both walked out to the UFC Octagon in epic fashion, starting in the Oval Office before making their way to the cage on the White House lawn.

‘I’m from America. Two hundred fifty years ago, we were way bigger than six-to-one dogs.’

A dark and cloudy sky served as the backdrop for the main event — which did not start until well after 12:30 a.m. ET — but once it started, there were only fireworks.

Gaethje overcame two significant near-defeat moments during the fight: first during the second round when devastating body shots from Topuria dropped him to the ground, and then a surprise takedown from the champion had Gaethje on the bottom and in trouble in the fourth round as well.

However, a mangled Topuria was unable to continue into the fifth, forcing the referee to stop the fight after he had already convinced ringside doctors to allow Topuria to keep fighting after the third round.

After the fight, announcer Joe Rogan asked Gaethje: “You have been waiting for this moment your entire career and to win it in such a spectacular fashion in a fight where you were at some points [a] six-to-one underdog. How good does this feel?”

“Hey, I’m from America. Two hundred fifty years ago, we were way bigger than six-to-one dogs, and look at us thriving now,” Gaethje patriotically replied.

The Safford, Arizona, native then immediately thanked all “current, former, and future military service members” for their service before revealing his true motivation for the fight.

“All glory to God. I prayed so much for this opportunity to do something legendary. And I know that was absolutely legendary ’cause I cannot even believe it,” Gaethje remarked.

RELATED: ‘I had the right papers’: Somali World Cup referee booted from US gets an answer from the White House

The 37-year-old then praised his mother’s “Mexican warrior spirit” and his father’s “German, hard-a** thick bones” for giving him the pedigree that saw him overcome abysmal odds. In fact, Gaethje was the only underdog to win a fight on the White House lawn on Sunday night.

Gaethje told Rogan that he used an unorthodox approach to get the best out of himself.

“I told myself I was going to get embarrassed so that I can go to my most primal place and dig deep. And I had to. That guy had me in trouble,” the fighter explained. “He rocked my chin, smoked my liver, and I stuck in it. And look at my face,” Gaethje laughed, suggesting the lack of damage showed that his skin needs to be studied by scientists.

Coming into the fight as only the interim lightweight champion, Gaethje is now undisputed, handing his Georgian opponent his first loss ever.

RELATED: Texas AG Ken Paxton threatens Big 12 over possible Texas Tech boycott

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As reported by MMA Fighting, Gaethje was given two fight bonuses for his performance, which were heavily inflated sums due to sponsorships for the unique event.

With a Fight of the Night bonus of $400,000 and a Performance of the Night bonus of $425,000, Gaethje took home $825,000 in extra cash.

Heavyweight Ciryl Gane won the other Performance of the Night bonus for his second-round knockout of Alex Pereira to earn $425,000.

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

​Fearless, Ufc 250, White house, Justin gaethje, Mma, Sports 

A decade after starring in “Inception,” lesbian actress Ellen Page committed to her most challenging role yet: living her real life as an effeminate, short-haired transvestite named “Elliot Page.”

Page had her healthy beasts surgically removed, then announced in a Dec. 1, 2020, social media post, “I am trans, my pronouns are he/they and my name is Elliot.”

‘Sure sounds a lot like femininity.’

Having now played the role of Elliot for over five years, the biological female — who divorced her “wife” and leaned into her LGBT activism following the “transition” — now apparently feels sufficiently qualified to define what constitutes “healthy masculinity.”

As part of a broader media tour for her new LGBT propaganda film, “Second Nature,” Page recently sat down with the eponymous host of “It’s Open with Illana Glazer” for a heart-to-heart.

After claiming that the “gender binary … just doesn’t exist” and alluding to testosterone’s transformative impact on her baseline aggression, Page stated that healthy masculinity is “leaning away from whenever there is some sort of impulse or expectation you’ve put on yourself to, like, shut down or conform in a way that usually feels like this — like I am closing off.”

Page cited the reluctance among some men to smile in photos as typical of such emotional closure.

“To me, healthy masculinity would be, well, you know what — healthiness for anyone to just, you know, love themselves; be able to care for themselves; ideally get rest when they can, you know, like, just the practical basic — drink water, like, eat a banana. You know?” said Page.

RELATED: ‘Why don’t men go to therapy?’ It all comes down to one very good reason

The actress formerly known as Ellen Page, 2017. Jason LaVeris/FilmMagic/Getty Images

Page, 39, added in her rambling definition that healthy masculinity is “also just, you know, doing what you can to be intentionally and mindfully not letting yourself get, like, swayed or twisted by the rules that I feel like end up, like, leading to so many of the problems that we see that are, you know, do get inflicted by toxic masculinity, violence and abuse, just general cruelty.”

The actress, whose memoir details her history of depression and self-mutilation, padded her tortured definition by adding, “Healthy masculinity could just mean a really good cry.”

Critics relentlessly have mocked Page’s definition, which went viral on social media over the weekend.

Chris Elston, the anti-gender-ideology activist better known as Billboard Chris, quipped, “This is the most female conversation ever.”

Not the Bee, the non-satirical news companion to the Babylon Bee, wrote, “Wow, the healthy masculinity she’s talking about sure sounds a lot like femininity.”

“It’s so interesting that she embodies every female stereotype while trying to do her best impression of a man,” tweeted author and homeschooling advocate Rachel Wilson.

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

​Transgender, Lgbt, Leftism, Feminist, Masculinity, Man, Woman, Mental illness, Politics 

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday evening the finalization of an agreement that will tentatively bring an end to America’s 15-week war with Iran.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” Trump noted in a Truth Social post. “I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”

‘I couldn’t believe it.’

In a subsequent post, the president said that this “Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region.”

The memorandum of understanding was confirmed by Iranian officials as well as by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who has been acting as a mediator.

“Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” Sharif posted to X a few minutes before Trump’s Truth Social announcement. “The official signing ceremony will be on Friday, 19 June in Switzerland. We would like to thank the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran for their commitment to finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict.”‘

The news was welcomed by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun — who expressed hope that “these understandings being transformed into practical steps” may “put a definitive end to the cycle of violence” — and by other leaders around the globe.

Iran hawks, particularly in Israel, are not similarly keen over the prospect of ending the conflict in this fashion.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, for instance, rushed to condemn the deal, claiming it was “bad for Israel and for the entire free world. Period.”

Smotrich noted further that Israel “will have to continue the campaign to topple the regime ourselves and in creative ways.”

RELATED: Trump boxes Netanyahu’s ears over Lebanon offensive, calls him ‘f**king crazy’: Report

Destroyed building in Nabatieh, Lebanon. Abbas FAKIH/AFP/Getty Images

Israel’s national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, also advocated for keeping the conflict alive, stating:

We are not partners to this agreement that does not ensure our security, and it does not bind us in any way. We must not compromise on anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah, we must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have captured and cleared of terror infrastructure, we must not return to a situation where thousands of terrorists sit on the fences of northern settlements, and certainly we must not remain silent for a moment in the face of fire directed at the State of Israel.

Alleged attacks on Hezbollah — such as those championed by Ben-Gvir — nearly blew up the peace deal over the weekend, just as escalations in Israel’s offensive in Lebanon critically strained negotiations earlier this month.

Trump told Axios that the deadly Israeli airstrike in the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday “shook it up. It delayed the signing by a few hours. It was supposed to be now. Now it is scheduled for a few hours from now.”

The American president — who reportedly raced to save the deal as Iranians were threatening retaliation — said that he had been shocked to learn of the attack from his advisers.

“It is so bad — I couldn’t believe it. An hour before we are supposed to sign the deal,” said Trump.

Trump figured the attack — which took place after Hezbollah launched a drone attack on Northern Israel that reportedly caused neither injuries nor damage — was disproportionate. Weeks after calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “f**king crazy,” Trump once again blasted the foreign leader.

“Why did Bibi have to do a f**king attack? I was so pissed off,” said Trump. “I let him know. He has no f**king judgment. I let him know that.”

Trump expressed frustration with Netanyahu in another interview on Sunday, telling the New York Times that the Israeli prime minister, whose criminal trial is ongoing, is “a very difficult guy.”

“And to be honest with you,” continued Trump, “he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn’t be around for two hours.”

Netanyahu’s former communications adviser, Aviv Bushinsky, emphasized that the Israeli prime minister “needs Trump” and that “evangelicals and many members of the Republican Party” will prevent his relationship with Trump from falling apart.

While Netanyahu has yet to publicly address the deal, Israeli officials told Ynet News that Netanyahu made clear to Trump that Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon.

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

​Israel, Donald trump, Benjamin netanyahu, War, Iran, Lebanon, Strait of hormuz, Blockade, Politics 

After ballots showed up overnight for Nithya Raman to secure her unlikely win over Spencer Pratt in the Los Angeles mayoral election, the integrity of the California voting system is once again being questioned.

And senior counsel for the Article III Project, Will Chamberlain, has a solution.

“If I were investigating, I’d start with the prediction markets where … pretty early on election day, well before there was any sort of public indication that the votes were going to start going Nithya Raman’s way so dramatically with late mail-ins, there was a big boost,” Chamberlain tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“She was getting way ahead in her prediction market odds even though she was still down massively in the count at the point. So I think that’s the first place you start,” he says.

Wheeler, disturbed by the results of the election, points out that conservatives have a “moral imperative” to fix this problem for the “survival of our republic.”

And Chamberlain has a solution — which begins with recognizing that “we don’t have the votes” to pass the SAVE America Act.

Instead, he has a better idea.

“My basic idea is Mike Johnson in the House when it comes time to actually seat the representatives from California, any representative who wasn’t ahead on Election Day, you don’t provisionally seat them,” he explains, telling Wheeler that you then refer them to a committee that “evaluates these things.”

“And then you do an individualized process, and they have to show up and prove that they won legitimately. And if they can’t do that, then they don’t get sat and California can go back and do a special election again.”

Wheeler finds Chamberlain’s solution “interesting” because “Congress has the authority to do that.”

“It’s a way of auditing, you could say, the election integrity laws of states,” she says.

“That would be a very interesting way for Congress to say, well, maybe we don’t have authority, but we do have authority,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The liz wheeler show, The blaze, Article iii project, Will chamberlain, Save america act, California, Election, Spencer pratt, Nithya raman, Karen bass 

While some believe that the sentencing of Karmelo Anthony wasn’t harsh enough, others — including rapper Cardi B — are outraged that he got sentenced at all.

“Wow! Just freakin wow! DISGUSTING… This is not justice, this is trying to make an example!!!” Cardi B wrote in a post on X.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is disturbed by the rapper’s response, especially considering that it is shared by many on the left.

“What are you even saying?” Stuckey asks. “Not that I expected Cardi B to understand what due process is or to have this solid moral compass, but also, like, if Nicki Minaj can do it, I feel like you could too, Cardi B.”

“I feel like if you just tried and you turned your thinking cap on for a second, you could see that yeah, murder is bad and you should go to jail for murder,” she continues.

“He’s not getting the death penalty. He’s not getting life in prison. He’s going to get out when he’s in his mid-30s. He could get married. He could have kids. He could probably get a job,” she says, noting that Austin Metcalf will get none of that.

“And yeah, we should make an example out of murderers. That’s part of the reason for the justice system. It is preventative in that way. It is saying, ‘Hey, if you do this, you will also get this punishment, so don’t do it.’ Like, that’s a good thing. We want people who are potential murderers to see the justice system actually working and saying, ‘I’m going to think twice before I kill someone because I’m mad that they threatened to touch my backpack,’” Stuckey says.

“It’s not just rappers like Cardi B. It’s not just these random activists. It’s also representatives. It’s also congresspeople,” she adds, playing a clip of Jasmine Crockett responding to Anthony’s sentence.

“Black women, especially black women who have black male children, live in fear and agony every single day. A fear and agony that, I promise you, the Metcalfs probably never spend a day living that way,” Crockett said.

“Why? Why do they live in fear and agony?” Stuckey asks. “Why do moms of black boys, black men, live in fear and agony? Has nothing to do with Austin Metcalf. Has nothing to do with the police. Has nothing to do with white people.”

“If black mothers fear for their sons’ lives, the fear should be toward other black men, because statistically, black men are the ones killing black men,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Karmelo anthony, Cardi b, Blazetv, Nicki minaj, Jasmine crockett, Austin metcalf, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

I’m in a particularly good mood as I write this. I’m on vacation, you see.

And not just anywhere; this is a very special destination. It’s not particularly luxurious or fashionable; I’m pretty sure most of the beautiful people are in St. Barth’s or the Hamptons. If you want a four-star resort experience, look elsewhere.

Unlike in our country, here it’s only customary to check in on the news once or twice a day. So people tend to focus less on what they can’t control.

But something about being here always puts my heart and soul at ease; when I return to normal life, it’s with a sense of deep contentment.

For one thing, I love the people. In many ways they are poorer than we are; they’re certainly not as technologically advanced. And yet the average person on the street seems to take special pride in his appearance. Good, presentable clothes; careful grooming; even posture is somehow straighter.

Continental breakfast

Welcome to the great nation of “Midcentury America.” They say the past is a foreign country. If so, the United States as it was 50 to 80 years ago is one of my favorite places to visit — if only via old photographs.

I love to explore all of its different regions. The 1960s is a favorite, closely followed by the ’50s. I also enjoy stopping by the ’40s every now and then.

And I have to admit there’s a special place in my heart for the ’70s. Avocado couches? Burnt orange blankets? Deep shag wall-to-wall carpets in Harvest Gold? Bring it on! It’s all part of the charm.

And the cars! Tesla and other marvels of modern automotive design haven’t gotten here yet. But take it from me, you barely miss them. How could you? When you’re on safari, you don’t long for the petting zoo. So many magnificent species of Detroit engineering and design: Lincoln Continentals, Pontiac GTOs, Chevy Impalas. I still remember the awe on my minivan-raised children’s faces the first time they encountered a Ford Country Squire.

RELATED: The one word that can help you use technology — without letting it use you

VCG/Getty Images

Peace and prosperity included

Despite how unusual many of the sights here may seem to visitors, Midcentury America somehow feels like home. No smartphones or flat-screen TVs, but you wouldn’t call it “backward.” Everything is modern, without collapsing into that flat, gray “spaceship” style we’re so fond of in 2026.

It all makes for a certain optimism that is all too rare where we live. And it’s a real, earned optimism; Midcentury’s proximity to two devastating world wars — not to mention a depression — means its citizens have no illusions about the fragility of life. And maybe that’s why they never seem to take what peace and prosperity they have for granted.

Yes, there’s the Cold War and nagging fears about nuclear annihilation. But unlike in our country, here it’s only customary to check in on the news once or twice a day. So people tend to focus less on what they can’t control and more on the people right in front of them.

This is a place where the future is always brighter. No wonder they have so many children!

Bring the kids

The more I visit, the more I’m convinced that the children are the key to it all. Each kid a family has is like a small “buy in” to their society; an unspoken, shared belief that this will all continue as one generation yields to another.

Trips to Midcentury America always seem to end just as you’ve really gotten the hang of the place; that’s the nature of a tourist visa. Leaving is always bittersweet, but the country always leaves its mark. I like to think that each time I return, I bring with me some of their gratitude and indefatigable optimism. Back home, a little of that goes a long way.

​Lifestyle, Travel, America, Nostalgia, Midcentury, Men’s style, The root of the matter 

A group of lawyers were caught red-handed by a judge who said she is tired of the courts being burdened.

What started out as a mundane case of a lawyer claiming he was owed legal fees turned into an embarrassing ordeal for both the municipal government and the lawyer seeking remuneration.

‘A prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp.’

Last October, a court in Aberdeen, Mississippi, awarded lawyer Tom Withers III attorney’s fees and expenses stemming from a previous case he worked on. Legal documents accessed by Blaze News stated that attorneys for the city, rather than the city itself, were held responsible for the payment of the fees.

This meant that those involved in the case included Withers, his attorneys Kathleen M. Wilson and Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway, and the city’s lawyers Kathryn Y. Williams and Mark C. McClinton.

Both parties filed submissions, and within a two-week period the legal process was ready to continue — until a review of the submitted briefs showed that both parties had submitted documents containing nonexistent citations that were hallucinated by AI.

Withers’ lawyers signed off on a filing that contained citations described as “hallucinatory,” while the city lawyers signed off on two filings that contained fake citations on behalf of the jurisdiction.

The court then asked the attorneys from both sides to show why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for their behavior.

RELATED: iPhone’s debut crushed young women’s fertility, new study says

Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images

Both parties eventually admitted that their citations resulted from unverified use of artificial intelligence.

In January, all the attorneys were in attendance for a hearing where they “expressed embarrassment and apologized to the Court,” the filing read.

Lawyer Williams admitted to using an AI tool to do legal research, while Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her filing. Neither verified their work before submitting it.

The other two lawyers, Ridgeway and McClinton, admitted that they did not review the filings before submitting them to the court, but signed off on them electronically anyway.

RELATED: Even if you don’t choose to use AI, you’re probably interacting with it

Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

This all fell on the desk of Judge Sharion Aycock, a senior U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Mississippi, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Aycock wrote that the lawyers essentially had wasted court resources and called out the two local attorneys for their behavior.

“In an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp when acting as local counsel.”

Additionally, Aycock described the “unusual scenario” as one in which “attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct.”

Judge Aycock added, “This Court is yet again ‘burden[ed] [with] addressing AI hallucinations in court filings.’ … While ‘[g]enerative technology can produce words,’ it cannot attach ‘… sincerity, truth, or responsibility to what it writes. That remains the sacred duty of the lawyer who signs the page.'”

On X, lawyer Rob Freund reported that among the sanctions placed on the lawyers, they were handed fines ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 and a disqualification from practicing in the district for two years.

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

​News, Mississippi, Artificial intelligence, Tech, Court