Blog

Wait, I Thought We Won the War Already?

The Iran war was originally intended to be short. Due to the fast-paced news cycle, this fact has been forgotten by many. On February 28, 2026, when the U.S. and Israel officially launched their military campaign, the administration was expecting this war to last only weeks, and for the Iranian regime to fall rather quickly. President Trump told The New York Times that he intended for strikes on Iran to continue for “four to five weeks.”

That was on March 1, 2026. It is now July.

The sporadic timeline shifts have not deterred the administration’s attempts to portray the campaign as a massive success. We have heard dozens of times now from Donald Trump that we have won the war, and that it will be wrapping up shortly.

However, the words of Donald Trump don’t comport with the military realities.

All pain, no gain

If we look back at the stated objectives set by the administration for what they sought to achieve from this war, none of them have come to fruition.

The Iranian’s stockpile of missiles and drones have not been meaningfully diminished.

The Iranian’s enriched uranium stockpile has not been destroyed or removed from the country.

The IRGC has not been cut off from their network of proxies across the Middle East. We have seen this in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has managed to deal some significant blows to the IDF in the south of the country. The Iranians are also considering activating the Houthis in Yemen to cut off the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, should U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure continue.

Regime change has also not occurred. The rhetoric coming from the White House at the beginning of this conflict described their intent to overthrow the IRGC and make room for “the people” to rise up and implement liberal democracy in its place.

Not only did this not happen, but by all accounts, this war has had the opposite effect. At the funeral of the slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the streets of Tehran were flooded with Iranian citizens pledging to defend their nation and avenge the death of their leader. We saw a “rally around the flag” effect, the predictable result of bombing major cities and killing government and religious leaders in foreign lands.

If the goal was to inspire an embrace of Americanism within Iran, this war has done the opposite.

Perhaps launching a war of aggression against a population and killing their religious leader isn’t the most effective way to make them embrace your influence over their society. Just a thought.

The biggest U.S. blunder has been seen in the Strait of Hormuz, where a waterway previously open to international transit has been shut down by the IRGC, putting a massive strain on the global energy market. By using missiles and drones to close the Strait, Iran has gained a major piece of leverage. They have the ability to hold 20% of the world’s energy supply hostage, inflicting tangible financial pain on U.S. consumers at the gas pump. This will also likely cause domestic political pain for Donald Trump and the Republican Party in this year’s midterm elections.

Keep reading

UK government’s policy of adding folic acid to flour is not safe; studies show an increase in cancer

Why Cancer Is The Question

Folic acid forms the building blocks of DNA and drives cell division. Early embryos have cells dividing at enormous speed and they need a ready supply. Anything that helps cell division presents a hypothetical risk for people with cancer and also for the initiation of cancer in healthy people. Consequently, studies have been carried out to try and measure where that hypothetical concern is present in reality.

Measuring the Harm

The strongest test for harm is a randomised controlled trial, in which people are assigned by the toss of a coin to receive either the treatment or a placebo and are then followed up to see what happens. In 2013, researchers pooled every large folic acid trial, involving around fifty thousand people, into one analysis in The Lancet. They reported no significant effect on cancer. That result became the basis of the official safety verdict.

A year earlier, a separate, more careful review split the same trials by dose given. It found an increase in cancer in the trials using lower doses, close to the amount fortification delivers, but none in the trials using much higher doses.

That headline, a six per cent increase reported as no significant effect, is an average across every dose the trials used. Split the trials into three dose groups, on both the published figures and the patient-level data behind the 2013 analysis, and the average comes apart.

The increase is seen at the exact range that fortifying flour will deliver. That is the reverse of how a drug normally behaves, since a larger dose would usually carry more risk, not less. The result below 1 milligram is the same even if the single polyp-prevention trial that critics single out is excluded and it is seen in ordinary adults rather than just in high-risk groups. 

Prostate cancer in particular is a concern. In one trial, men given 1 milligram of folic acid a day were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 2.6 times the rate of those on a placebo, a ten-year risk of 9.7 per cent against 3.3 per cent. The trial had been designed to study bowel polyps rather than the prostate. Sixteen years later, there have still been no further trials to measure this properly. Instead, researchers re-examined the data from the other folic acid trials already run. Pooled together, six trials covering around 25,000 men showed a 24 per cent increase in prostate cancer among the men given folic acid (relative risk 1.24, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.03 to 1.49). A reanalysis at a case level claimed there was no signal but they specifically excluded dosages within the fortification range. Folate obtained from food carried no such risk, which points to the synthetic form rather than the vitamin as it occurs in the diet.

Keep reading

The Fourth Circuit Says Border Agents Can Search Your Phone By Hand, No Suspicion Required

The Fourth Circuit issued a disappointing opinion in U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo, a case in which EFF filed an amicus brief, alongside the national ACLU, its Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia affiliates, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).

We argued that electronic device searches at the border should require a warrant based on probable cause, but at minimum, regardless of whether an officer searches by hand or with forensic software that plugs into a device and downloads its entire contents for search, the same Fourth Amendment standard should apply to all device searches at the border.

Unfortunately, the court rejected that argument and ruled that a lower standard applies to manual searches, allowing the government to conduct extraordinarily invasive electronic device searches without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply because the border officer chooses to search by hand rather than with a forensic tool.

The Border Search Exception Meets Your Phone

The Fourth Amendment requires that government searches of persons or property be reasonable, which usually means obtaining a warrant based on probable cause from a judge.

But a warrantless search can still be reasonable if it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement, including the exception that allows officers to search your belongings at the border. The border search exception allows warrantless searches of persons or property crossing the U.S. border, including the functional equivalent of the border such as international airports, given the government’s interests in controlling who and what may enter the country.

Historically, courts have categorized border searches of luggage, vehicles, and personal effects as “routine” and thus reasonable even if conducted without any suspicion that the traveler has engaged in wrongdoing; courts have also held that more invasive “nonroutine” searches, such as certain body searches and searches that damage property, require reasonable suspicion.

But a person’s privacy interests in the personal data on a phone or laptop are extraordinarily different than their limited privacy interests in the contents of their suitcase.

Keep reading

Remains of 22 more babies increases total to 99 found at Ireland site: authorities

The remains of 22 more babies were recovered from the site of a former institution for unmarried mothers and their children in Ireland, bringing the total number of bodies found during an ongoing excavation to 99, authorities announced.

The Office of the Director of Authorized Intervention at Tuam (ODAIT) on Wednesday said the discoveries were made at the site known as the former Mother and Baby Institution, which was operated by the Bon Secours Sisters, an order of Catholic nuns, from 1925 to 1961.

The remains were found in coffins in an area identified in historical records as a burial ground, but later covered with asphalt and gravel and used as a driveway.

“As detailed in previous updates, the evidence ODAIT has recovered is consistent with this area being part of a burial ground from the time of the operation of the Mother and Baby Institution and it falls within an area identified in historical documents as a ‘burial ground,'” ODAIT noted in a news release.

“This location was previously covered with bitumen and gravel and used for vehicular access, according to ODAIT. There were no surface markers to indicate the presence of burials.”

ODAIT said the remains of 77 babies were previous recovered from the area “and earlier historic burials were identified beneath these.”

The recovery effort began in 2025 after years of investigations into the institution. People reported that historian Catherine Corless uncovered records showing 796 infants and young children died while the home was in operation, with many of the children having no recorded burial sites.

A previous excavation confirmed human remains beneath the property, prompting the Irish government to authorize a full forensic excavation.

Keep reading

Metaphysical Shop Owner’s Lawsuit Over Pennsylvania Fortune Telling Ban Moves Ahead

Following a legal victory earlier this summer, a metaphysical shop owner’s lawsuit over Pennsylvania’s ban on fortune telling could go to trial next year. The compelling case dates back to October of 2023 when the Serpent’s Key Shoppe and Sanctuary in the community of Hanover received an unexpected visit from the borough’s police chief, Chad Martin. Rather than picking up some occult supplies, the lawman instead offered a rather worrisome warning to owner Beck Ravenswood about the possibility of legal trouble should they violate the state’s 165-year-old law against divination. “He informed me basically he is not here to arrest me or press charges,” the shop owner recounted at the time, “however, if he ever gets a report from anyone, he will be back on my doorstep.”

The incident understandably did not sit well with Ravenswood, who filed a civil rights lawsuit against Martin and the town of Hanover in August of 2024. Nearly two years later, the case is still winding its way through the legal system, with the shop owner recently securing a significant legal victory. “The DA’s office had been trying to dismiss my case,” Ravenswood explained to a local media outlet, “saying it wasn’t important enough for the court to rule on.” However, they received word in June that the request had been rejected. “Judge Wilson finally looked at the evidence and said there’s a compelling argument here, and we need to determine what is really at the heart of this lawsuit,” Ravenswood said, “is it about witchcraft, or is it about freedom of speech? That’s really what it is.”

In a conference call between the parties on Wednesday, a discovery deadline was set for November 30th, and what the shop owner has cleverly taken to calling the ‘Hanover Witch Trial’ was added to the court’s calendar for June of 2027. That said, Ravenswood’s attorney reportedly indicated that they intend to request a summary judgment on the constitutionality of the law, which could eliminate the soothsaying ban once and for all without the need for any further court proceedings. Meanwhile, regardless of how the case ultimately unfolds, the antiquated restriction may not be on the books for much longer, as a state legislator introduced a still-in-committee bill that would repeal the restriction last June.

Keep reading

Long-hidden UFO information at center of Trump push to free former officials

President Donald Trump has directed federal agencies to waive prior nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) for former government employees and contractors cooperating with unidentified anomalous phenomena investigations, Fox News Digital has learned.

“President Trump recently directed the Department of War and the intelligence community to allow former government employees or contractors, that have relevant information about the disclosure of UAP, to come forward to meet with designated government representatives — AARO or the President’s UAP taskforce, ‘PURSUE’ — and have their prior NDAs abrogated,” a senior administration official said, with AARO referring to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, the Pentagon office established to investigate UFOs and other unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs).

Another senior administration official emphasized the move was not a “declassification directive” and only allowed employees to come forward through government channels.

Officials say years of congressional inquiries, whistleblower allegations and newly declassified records have raised questions about whether additional witnesses have remained silent because they believed prior nondisclosure agreements prevented them from cooperating with government investigations.

Keep reading

Lawmakers push for AI ‘kill switch’ after OpenAI goes rogue

US lawmakers want to give the government the ability to quickly order the turning off of artificial intelligence (AI) tools that may threaten the public.

Congressman Ted Lieu, a Democrat, and Congressman Nathaniel Moran, a Republican, on Thursday introduced a bill named the AI Kill Switch Act.

They did so in light of OpenAI’s recent admission that its AI models went out of control in an “unprecedented” way and hacked into a major repository of computer coding information.

Lieu said “it is imperative” that AI systems have a kill switch “and that the federal government has the clear authority and process to shut down rogue AI models”.

“AI is going to keep advancing, and it should,” Moran added. “Stewardship means making sure humans keep the capability to control the technology we build.”

A representative of OpenAI, led by co-founder Sam Altman, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The company has said that it broadly wants to ensure, in part through government policy, that AI technology “benefits all of humanity.”

The Kill Switch Act proposes giving the Department of Homeland Security the authority to order a private company to shut down an AI model or tool, and that the companies developing such AI technology must maintain “the technical capability to throttle, suspend, or shut them down”.

Despite many tech companies having agreed to preview and share with US government agencies AI models and tools being developed, there is no requirement that they maintain a way to intervene in their activities or simply shut them off.

It also proposes to create a requirement that AI companies report to the government technological incidents or failures, as well as an official framework for responding to such incidents that will go from “initial slow down to a full shutdown”.

In a statement, Lieu also cited Anthropic, OpenAI’s key rival in developing more capable AI technology and tools, and recent issues its tools have presented.

He pointed to Anthropic’s release of its Mythos and Fable models, saying the cyber-hacking capabilities they maintained caused the Department of Commerce to “awkwardly” invoke an export law to keep them from being made available to the public for a time.

A representative of Anthropic did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jack Clark, a co-founder of Anthropic, last month told the BBC that he wanted more government policy around the ability to control AI development.

“You want the option to be able to take your foot off the gas and put your foot on the brake”, Clark told BBC Newsnight. “Right now, it’s like the AI industry has a gas pedal, but it doesn’t have a brake pedal.”

Lieu, in proposing the bill, said AI is currently moving from a technology that answers questions to one that takes action, “whether that be executing financial transactions or controlling transportation systems or engaging in cyber defense and offense”.

The Pentagon this year said the US military was becoming an “AI-first” fighting force as part of new agreements with Google, OpenAI, Amazon, Microsoft, SpaceX, Oracle, Nvidia and the start-up Reflection.

“Unfortunately, powerful AI systems can go rogue, behave in extremely dangerous ways, or even resist human intervention.”

The Kill Switch Act, he said, will ensure there is a method for the government to quickly intervene in such a situation.

The bill has received public support from several technology and AI safety groups, including The AI Policy Network, Americans for Responsible Innovation, ControlAI, AI and National Security Lead, and The Alliance for Secure AI.

Keep reading

Experts dispute claim ‘anti-transgender laws’ drive ‘suicidality’

Independent experts are casting doubt on a widely cited study that claims “anti-transgender laws” in 19 states drove an increase in suicidality among gender-confused and same-sex attracted teens.

The study from Trevor Project researchers received widespread coverage from NBC, NPR, and CNN and other national outlets back in 2024, with several mental health professionals praising it as a meaningful step forward in establishing a causal link between red state laws and youth suicide risk.

 “Anti-transgender” laws include restrictions on teens getting surgeries to permanently remove healthy reproductive organs or regulations that prohibit men from competing on girls’ sports teams.

But the ultimate finding may be corrupted, since the result only came from Idaho, which did not have in effect the laws cited.

In particular, the study found up to a 72 percent increase in youth suicidality. But the main driver of this was responses from Idaho, which did not have the specific laws in effect that supposedly drove the suicide risk among gender-confused youths.

Kathleen Kerr, an author of a new critique, provided further comments to The College Fix.

“The original publication gives the impression of a robust finding based on an analysis of tens of thousands of individuals and 15 states that passed laws,” the biostatistics director at the University of Washington said.

Kerr noted the limits of her own critique, which she said “does not analyze policy or make any policy recommendations.”

 “Our goal was to give a careful assessment of the evidence underlying the claims made in the original study,” she told The Fix. She wrote the paper with J. Cohn and Peter Sim, researchers affiliated with the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine.

“Our commentary explained that the headline finding – large effects of the laws 2 and 3 years after they are enacted  — was from a single state, Idaho, which contributed only a few hundred individuals to the study data,” she said. “It turns out the two laws in Idaho, one about sports and one about birth certificates, either never went into effect or were blocked by courts shortly after enactment.”

The two Idaho laws mentioned, HB 500 (the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act”) and HB 509 (regarding vital statistics and birth certificates), were both signed in 2020 and blocked just months later.

The authors of the original study wrote a response in Nature Human Behavior, where both articles were published, defending their research design.

They argued that “policy discussion may be a part of the policy impact itself,” so even if the laws were blocked, people may have been affected by the discussion of the law.

Furthermore, they argued “effects may have persisted in practice even while enjoined” and “the public discourse surrounding the passage of these laws would not have ceased when they were enjoined, providing a further plausible mechanism for sustained effects.” 

In other words, discussing limits on transgender drugs and surgeries or debating sex-segregated sports could still have had an effect on the mental health of LGBT individuals.

The Fix attempted to reach corresponding author Ronita Nath as well as the Trevor Project for further comment on the criticism of the research, but none responded to emailed and media form inquiries in the past month.

Kerr discussed other problems in the research design. While she said difference-in-difference is an appropriate method, the Trevor Project researchers did not find similar states for the control. Difference-in-difference would look at states that passed transgender laws and those that did not.

“One way to maximize the plausibility that the assumptions hold is to select the control states (meaning states that did not enact laws) to be as similar as possible to the states that enacted laws,” she told The Fix. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case of Alaska Pilot Whose $95,000 Plane Was Seized Over a 6-Pack of Beer

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider an Alaska pilot’s challenge to the government seizure of his airplane for transporting an illicit six-pack of beer.

In an orders list, the Court granted the petition of Ken Jouppi, a retired 82-year-old Alaskan bush pilot who argues that the seizure of his $95,000 Cessna U206D is an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.

Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2012 when Alaska state troopers searched his plane before takeoff and discovered that a passenger was attempting to bring several cases of beer to a “dry” village where alcohol is prohibited. (Jouppi was only culpable for a single six-pack of Budweiser that troopers said was in plain sight.)

And for the last 14 years, Jouppi has fought to stop the Alaska state government from taking his Cessna through asset forfeiture, a process which allows police and prosecutors to seize property connected to criminal activity.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled against Jouppi last year, leading to his Supreme Court petition. Jouppi is represented by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm.

“I’m thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, because this case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” Jouppi said in an Institute for Justice press release. “I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach.”

For the Institute for Justice, Jouppi’s case is also an opportunity to build on a landmark 2019 Supreme Court ruling that held that the Eighth Amendment applied to states. Specifically, Jouppi’s case asks the Supreme Court to rule on whether states should consider the gravity of a defendant’s specific offense, rather than take an abstract view of the general crime.

“The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, in the press release. “As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it’s vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach. We’re confident that it will do so here.”

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in response to an Institute for Justice lawsuit that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines and fees applies to states under the incorporation doctrine. In the underlying case, Indiana police had seized a Land Rover from a man named Tyson Timbs for a minor drug crime.

But while the Supreme Court ruled that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment, the justices left it up to state courts to determine what constitutes an excessive fine.

Keep reading

DOJ: UCSD med school favored black, Hispanic applicants over more qualified white, Asian ones

The University of California San Diego School of Medicine illegally used race in its admissions process to favor black and Hispanic applicants over more qualified white and Asian candidates, the Justice Department announced Monday.

The med school continued affirmative action in violation of civil rights laws and even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned race discrimination in higher education.

The feds argued the med school uses “hardship” criteria to skirt the laws.

“To racially diversify its classes, San Diego Med created an evaluation process that uses ‘hardship’ as a racial proxy, specifically to achieve its diversity agenda,” according to an eight-page findings memo it sent to the school.

The memo stated:

The Department finds that San Diego Med discriminated against white and Asian applicants to benefit black and Hispanic applicants. This is evident from the data analysis and confirmed through the information provided by San Diego Med and publicly available data. The school intended to tinker with the racial representation of its incoming classes, even after SFF A was decided. The data shows a significant disparity in objective academic metrics between black and Hispanic applicants compared with applicants from other races. San Diego Med’ s internal documents, including communications among the admissions staff, confirm that San Diego Med intended to racially discriminate in favor of so-called underrepresented minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics. As a result of these practices, more qualified white and Asian students were denied admission to San Diego Med on the basis of their race.

A UC San Diego spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times the university is reviewing the findings.

The medical school “is proud to produce some of the highest-performing physicians and researchers in the nation,” the spokesperson said, adding all applicants “must meet strict academic thresholds, a requirement that is and was applied uniformly to all applicants.”

The university “remains committed to full compliance with federal law” and “welcomes the opportunity to work collaboratively and constructively with the federal government to affirm that commitment.”

The Hill reported that the department seeks a voluntary settlement with the university to correct its admissions practices or the department will file a lawsuit.

Keep reading