Blog

“Shred And Burn All Documents”: USAID Staff Ordered To Destroy Evidence On Tuesday

A senior USAID official on Tuesday ordered the agency’s remaining staff to report to their now-former headquarters in Washington DC for an “all day” group effort to destroy documents, many of which contain sensitive information, Politico reports.

The materials marked for destruction include “classified safes and personnel documents” at the Ronald Reagan Building, according to an email sent by USAID’s acting executive director, Erica Carr.

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” read the email instructing staff to label the burn bags with “SECRET” and “USAID/B/IO” (which stands for “bureau or independent office”) in dark sharpie.

According to the report, the email did not provide any reasoning for the document destruction, however the building is currently being emptied out after mass layoffs, which may have disrupted the routine destruction of materials. 

Keep reading

US Resumes Military Aid, Intelligence Sharing for Ukraine

The Trump administration has lifted its pause on military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine following talks between US and Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

US officials said the move came after Ukraine signaled it was open to a 30-day ceasefire if Russia agreed.

“Ukraine expressed readiness to accept the US proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation,” the US and Ukraine said in a joint statement.

“The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace. The United States will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine,” the statement added.

The joint statement also said that “both countries’ presidents agreed to conclude as soon as possible a comprehensive agreement for developing Ukraine’s critical mineral resources to expand Ukraine’s economy and guarantee Ukraine’s long-term prosperity and security.”

So far, there’s been no reaction from Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously rejected the idea of a temporary ceasefire, saying in January that he wouldn’t accept “some kind of respite for regrouping forces and rearmament with the aim of subsequently continuing the conflict” and that he wanted a “long-term peace based on respect for the legitimate interests of all people, all nations living in this region.”

Moscow also has the momentum on the battlefield on its side as its forces continue to make gains in eastern Ukraine and are pushing Ukrainian troops out of Russia’s Kursk Oblast.

Keep reading

Outrage as The View guest suggests Trump voters have under-formed brains

A top Democrat has declared Americans only voted for Trump because the US is going through its ‘angry teenage years’ – and that their brains hadn’t been ‘fully formed’ enough to vote for Kamala Harris.

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin made the remarks on The View Tuesday, during talks surrounding her party’s response to the president’s agenda.

She insulted some 77,284,118 citizens in the process – days after delivering the Democratic response to Trump’s speech to Congress last week.

Slotkin, 48, did so just two months into her tenure in the US Senate, after beating Republican Mike Rogers in a heated race.

Flanked by hosts Whoopi Goldberg, Sara Haines, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, and Alyssa Farrah Griffin, the progressive started off by saying people in her state voted for both Trump and her – before speaking on behalf of the entire county.

‘But I don’t think there’s anyone who feels like what’s going on right now is normal,’ she said, on a morning when the economy was still reeling from Trump’s tariffs.

‘Even if you voted for Trump – right?’ she went on, as the panelists nodded in approval.

She went on to offer her patronizing prognosis, eight weeks into Trump’s presidency.

Keep reading

The Push to End Debanking

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, who chairs the US Senate Banking Committee, is spearheading an effort to eliminate regulatory oversight of customer reputational risks in banking.

Scott has introduced a bill designed to put an end to debanking, a controversial practice that has been used to deny financial services to certain businesses and individuals based on subjective risk assessments.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Debanking allows banks to cut off clients deemed to pose “reputational risks.” The Federal Reserve defines this term as “the potential that negative publicity regarding an institution’s business practices, whether true or not, will cause a decline in the customer base, costly litigation, or revenue reductions.”

The broad and vague nature of this definition has led to concerns that financial institutions wield too much discretionary power over who can access essential banking services.

Scott’s legislative push has garnered significant Republican backing, with at least 11 GOP lawmakers co-sponsoring the measure. Major banking industry groups are also lining up in support, including the Bank Policy Institute, which represents many of the country’s largest financial institutions.

“As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I have made addressing debanking a top priority.

“This discriminatory and un-American practice should concern everyone, which is why I’ve led my colleagues in working to find tangible solutions. It’s clear that federal regulators have abused reputational risk by carrying out a political agenda against federally legal businesses. This legislation, which eliminates all references to reputational risk in regulatory supervision, is the first step in ending debanking once and for all,” said Senator Scott.

Keep reading

RFK Jr. Seeks To End Rule Allowing Food Companies To Bypass FDA Ingredient Approval

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on March 10 that it is seeking to terminate a rule allowing food manufacturers to use additives without formal regulatory approval.

The Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) rule allows companies to self-approve the inclusion of additives in food items without requiring a review and the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The rule enables manufacturers to add an ingredient even if the FDA has not determined its safety.

On Monday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the acting FDA commissioner to explore the possibility of eliminating the “self-affirmed GRAS pathway” available to companies, the department said in a statement.

“This will enhance the FDA’s oversight of ingredients considered to be GRAS and bring transparency to American consumers,” HHS said.

As of now, manufacturers submit notices through the FDA’s GRAS notification program, which is not a mandatory process. The agency assesses 75 such submitted notices on average each year.

By eliminating the self-affirm pathway, companies would be required to publicly notify the FDA before introducing new ingredients to food items. The notification must include details such as underlying safety data and the intended use of the ingredients

A 2022 analysis conducted by the activist organization Environmental Working Group found that “nearly 99 percent of all food chemicals introduced since 2000 were greenlighted for use by the food and chemical industry” through the GRAS rule, without requiring FDA approval.

Out of the 766 new chemicals added to the food supply since 2000, only 10 involved companies petitioning the FDA to approve the ingredient.

Nine out of the 10 FDA petitions were filed before 2010. The only petition filed post-2010 was in 2018, EWG said.

Keep reading

USDA cancels $1B in local food purchasing for schools, food banks

The Agriculture Department has axed two programs that gave schools and food banks money to buy food from local farms and ranchers, halting more than $1 billion in federal spending.

Roughly $660 million that schools and child care facilities were counting on to purchase food from nearby farms through the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program in 2025 has been canceled, according to the School Nutrition Association.

State officials were notified Friday of USDA’s decision to end the LFS program for this year. More than 40 states had signed agreements to participate in previous years, according to SNA and several state agencies.

The Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, which supports food banks and other feeding organizations, has also been cut. USDA notified states that it was unfreezing funds for existing LFPA agreements but did not plan to carry out a second round of funding for fiscal year 2025.

In a statement, a USDA spokesperson confirmed that funding, previously announced last October, “is no longer available and those agreements will be terminated following 60-day notification.”

The spokesperson added: “These programs, created under the former Administration via Executive authority, no longer effectuate the goals of the agency. LFPA and LFPA Plus agreements that were in place prior to LFPA 25, which still have substantial financial resources remaining, will continue to be in effect for the remainder of the period of performance.”

The Biden administration expanded the spending for both programs to build a more resilient food supply chain that didn’t just rely on major food companies. Last year, USDA announced more than $1 billion in additional funding for the programs through the Commodity Credit Corporation, a New Deal-era USDA fund for buying agricultural commodities.

The Trump administration’s move to halt the programs comes as school nutrition officials are becoming increasingly anxious about affording healthy food with the current federal reimbursement rate for meals. As food costs have risen in the last few years, more people are turning to food banks and other feeding organizations to supplement their increased grocery bills.

Keep reading

Austin police say InfoWars writer Jamie White possibly killed by car burglars

The InfoWars writer who Alex Jones, the founder of the conspiracy website, said was “brutally murdered” late Sunday was possibly killed by people burglarizing his vehicle, according to the Austin Police Department.

Police said in a statement Tuesday that Jamie White, 36, was found lying on the ground in the parking lot of the apartment complex where he lived, with trauma to his body. He was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead at 12:19 a.m. Monday, the department said.

“The initial investigation shows that White was shot and killed in the parking lot of the apartment complex in which he lived,” the statement said. “The suspects then fled the scene. Detectives believe the suspects were possibly burglarizing White’s vehicle, when he interrupted them.”

White’s body is in the possession of the the Travis County medical examiner’s office, county spokesman Hector Nieto confirmed.

The Police Department is asking that anyone in the area who may have had their vehicle burglarized Sunday or Monday, to come forward. Photos, videos, or potential evidence, can be submitted online.

In a statement released on social media Monday evening, Jones said White had been a “reporter” for the far-right site. White’s most recent article was published a day before his death.

“We pledge that Jamie’s tragic death will not be in vain, and those responsible for this senseless violence will be brought to justice,” Jones said in a statement that blamed White’s death “in part” on the policies of Travis County District Attorney José Garza, a Democrat.

Garza dismissed Jones’ claim in a statement provided to the American-Statesman.

Keep reading

Police Departments Launching Drone Programs Across The United States

 Police across the U.S. are putting eyes in the sky, as the adoption of drones for law enforcement emerges as a trend. Forces deploying drones – also called Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – for surveillance and public safety have promised not to use the flying robots for discriminatory policing.

So far the notion of facial recognition drones remains speculative. But the number of police departments adding drones to their technology arsenal – happening in parallel with a surge in AI-assisted fraud and the development of powerful facial recognition algorithms – makes the prospect of mobile biometric surveillance a plausible possibility.

Rules governing police drone deployments differ across jurisdictions

A host of recent reports shows just how many U.S. police forces use drones. A release from police in New Orleans describes a recent incident in which the use of drones for officer support led to the arrests of two 16-year-olds. The release cites a rule allowing the use of UAS to search for suspects using thermography.

Police in Washington, D.C. also launched a drone program in June. A notice on their website specifies that drones are used only in searches for missing persons, major traffic crash reconstruction, crowd management for large gatherings, and “situational and tactical purposes (such as a barricade).” It also lists things drones cannot be used for: namely, to record a particular person or group based solely on race, skin color, gender, personal appearance, and other identifiable traits.

West Hollywood is launching a one-year pilot program to deploy UAVs within a three mile radius of the city. WeHo Online reports that the drones will operate at altitudes of 300 to 400 feet, and integrate with the city’s new real-time watch center. Drone footage is retained for 30 days, “subject to policy updates and community feedback.” The force says it will not be used for surveillance, but rather as support for first responders to 911 calls.

In San Francisco, a March vote passed Proposition E, which lets law enforcement deploy surveillance cameras and drones. In this case, facial recognition is allowed; Prop E states that “drones and public surveillance cameras installed under these rules could include facial recognition technology and would not require Board approval.”

In Minnesota, an annual report released by the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) says police are buying and launching more drones than ever before. A post on the website for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group, reports that “Minnesotan law enforcement flew their drones without a warrant 4,326 times in 2023, racking up a state-wide expense of over $1 million. The data show that more was spent on drones last year than in the previous two years combined.”

Keep reading

There’s Plenty Of Evidence Medical Marijuana Can Treat Female Orgasm Difficulty, So Why Are Some States Saying No?

While numerous studies have consistently shown that cannabis can treat female orgasm difficulty/disorder, also known as FOD, so far only a few states have recognized it as a qualifying condition for medical marijuana. Others appear to be holding it to a higher standard than other conditions, revealing a potential bias against women.

This bias may be the result of misinformation or lack of education about FOD, a serious public health condition that affects the health of up to 41 percent of women worldwide. The bias may also reflect an unwillingness to acknowledge FOD, despite testimony from women who successfully treated the condition with cannabis, letters of support from doctors who recommend cannabis for it, evidence of its serious health impacts and scientific studies showing cannabis can treat it.

In 2024, advocates—myself included—petitioned 11 U.S. states to add FOD as a qualifying condition. While some petitions are still pending, so far two states have officially approved the requests: Connecticut and Illinois.

Illinois Director of Public Health Dr. Sameer Vodra stated the following in his order approving FOD as a qualifying condition:

“After fully considering the matters raised in the petition, as well as reviewing research pertinent to the condition termed Female Orgasmic Disorder, a condition where a (natal) female has difficulty reaching orgasm. There are multiple types and causes,) there is sufficient evidence to confidently evaluate the effect of cannabis as a treatment for Female Orgasmic Disorder. Literature review and survey data support that cannabis can offer benefits to women who have “female orgasm difficulties or dysfunction.”

In New Mexico, the state’s Medical Cannabis Advisory Board approved adding FOD as a qualifying condition last fall, with the reform set to take effect upon official approval from the secretary of health.

The states of Colorado, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, meanwhile, have acknowledged receipt of the petitions to add FOD as a qualifying condition, and public hearing dates are now pending.

Yet despite scientific evidence and approvals in some jurisdictions, five states denied adding FOD as a qualifying condition with medical cannabis: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio and Oregon.

Keep reading

Human Rights Commission stands up against COVID abuses … Five years late!

The Australian Human Rights Commission’s much-anticipated report on the COVID-19 disaster has finally arrived — five years after the fact — and it’s a real eye-opener. Apparently, the commission’s big takeaway is that our governments trampled on human rights during the pandemic. Big surprise.

The report, titled Collateral Damage, lays out the fallout from the government’s lockdowns, vaccine mandates, border closures and quarantine measures. It states the obvious — Disadvantaged Aussies, not the inner-city elite, bore the brunt of these policies — all left to suffer as governments made decisions with no regard for basic freedoms.

Meanwhile, the ‘laptop class’ sipped lattes in their home offices, blissfully unaware of how lockdowns were crushing the livelihoods of hardworking Aussies who couldn’t just ride out the pandemic from the comfort of their loungerooms.

But here’s the kicker: this report comes out in 2025, long after the worst of the damage has been done. Where was the Human Rights Commission when we were crying out for help in 2020?

They were nowhere to be seen when it was crystal clear what was happening. While we were forced to crowdsource legal funds to defend our rights, the so-called watchdogs were asleep at the wheel.

Now, the commission wants us to believe they’ve had a change of heart, with seven recommendations on human rights protections. Sure, it’s a little too late, but at least they’re finally saying what was obvious from the start: the way we responded to the pandemic should never happen again.

If anything, this report just highlights how out of touch these bureaucrats were when we needed them most. They picked a side only after the war was over — and even then, it’s a half-hearted attempt to save face.

Keep reading