Tag: police state

Trump Reverses Himself, Joins Obama and Biden in Demanding “Clean” Renewal of NSA Domestic Spying Powers

In August 2013 — in the wake of our Snowden reporting, which revealed the NSA’s mass warrantless domestic spying on Americans — an extraordinary bipartisan bill emerged. Jointly sponsored by one of the most liberal House members (Michigan Democrat John Conyers) and one of his most libertarian-conservative counterparts (Michigan Republican Justin Amash), the bill would have reined in the NSA’s domestic spying powers by imposing serious limits on how such powers can be exercised when aimed at American citizens.

When the Conyers-Amash bill was first introduced, “Official Washington” did not take it seriously. But the Snowden revelations were causing serious public anger about NSA spying, and many members of Congress shared that anger because they were not told that the NSA had implemented a system of mass warrantless surveillance aimed, in part, at Americans. As a result, support for the bill quickly picked up bipartisan steam, seemingly heading toward certain passage — until Barack Obama called Nancy Pelosi.

Despite running for President as a constitutional law professor who vowed to end the civil liberties abuses of the War on Terror, Obama had become an enthusiastic supporter — and user — of the NSA’s domestic spying system. He thus instructed then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to whip enough Democratic House votes to kill the bill. She did as she was told, and the bill — which initially appeared on its way to approval — was defeated 205-217 (94 Republicans and 111 Democrats voted for the reform bill; 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats voted against it). Official Washington heralded Pelosi as the heroine who saved NSA warrantless spying on Americans.

It is hard to overstate how significant the passage of this bill would have been. It would have been the first time in two decades that the U.S. Congress limited rather than increased the domestic powers of the U.S. security state. The era of the Patriot Act would finally have been confronted, or at least diluted. But Obama and Pelosi joined hands with the likes of GOP pro-spying members such as Peter King, Michelle Bachmann, and Kristi Noem to block any limits on the NSA’s power to spy on Americans without warrants.

Now, Donald Trump is on the verge of doing what Obama and Pelosi did back then. Despite running in 2024 by vowing to “KILL FISA,” based on his (quite valid) claim that spying powers had been abused against him for political ends in the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump on Monday demanded that FISA be fully renewed: yet again, with no reforms, safeguards, or limits of any kind.

Congress this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday, will vote on a renewal of Section 702 of FISA, which grants the NSA the power to spy on certain communications of American citizens without a warrant. Although it appeared that there was bipartisan support for finally imposing some limits and safeguards in the wake of years of documented abuses, Trump’s demand on Tuesday — that all House Republicans unite to renew the spying powers with no limits — raises serious doubts about whether any reform is now possible.

Keep reading

Treasury Secretary Says Order on Citizenship Proof for Banking Is ‘in Process’

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday confirmed that an executive order mandating banks to collect citizenship information on customers is underway.

“It’s in process. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable, because, why don’t we have information on who’s in our banking system?” he told Semafor in an April 13 interview, responding to whether the Trump administration was working on the banking order.

“I have a place in the UK; they want to know who lives in every apartment—and how do we know that it’s not part of a foreign terrorist organization?” he added.

At least one Republican lawmaker has asked the Trump administration to implement such an order, and The Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous sources, that banks could be tasked with requiring people to submit passports under the policy.

In a post issued on X in October 2025, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) included a letter he sent to Bessent urging the secretary to carry out a “comprehensive review of current rules that allow illegal aliens to obtain financial services and access to the U.S. banking system.”

“Access to the American banking system is a privilege that should be reserved for those who respect our laws and sovereignty,” Cotton wrote in the letter. “When individuals are allowed to open accounts without verifying legal status, we are permitting illegal aliens to establish financial roots and integrate economically, all while bypassing the legal channels that millions use properly.”

Keep reading

Appeals court upholds West Virginia vaccine mandate, denies religious exemption

A federal appeals court ruled that West Virginia can enforce its school vaccine mandate without offering religious exemptions, overturning a lower court decision that had allowed an unvaccinated student to remain enrolled in an online public school.

In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found the state’s vaccination requirement does not violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

The case was brought by Anthony and Krystle Perry on behalf of their daughter, who was enrolled in West Virginia Virtual Academy but was later disenrolled after officials determined she was not fully vaccinated. The parents argued vaccination conflicted with their Christian beliefs and sought a religious exemption, which state law does not provide.

West Virginia is one of a small number of states that do not allow religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements.

A lower court had previously sided with the family and issued an injunction allowing the child to continue attending school while the case proceeded. The appeals court reversed that decision, ruling the parents are unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claim.

Legal experts cited in the case said the ruling does not reflect what they describe as a shifting legal landscape around religious exemptions. They pointed to recent Supreme Court decisions that they say require courts to apply a higher standard, known as “strict scrutiny,” when evaluating such claims.

Keep reading

Zelensky Signs Law Against Antisemitism in Ukraine: Up to 8 Years in Prison

Ukraine has moved into a new phase in its legal response to antisemitism. On April 14, 2026, President Volodymyr Zelensky signed Law No. 2037-IX, introducing criminal liability for antisemitic acts and creating a graduated scale of punishment, from fines and restrictions on liberty to prison terms of up to eight years.

For Israeli readers, this is not merely a technical legal development. It is a moral and political signal. At a time when antisemitism is again rising in many parts of the world and Jewish communities are living with renewed anxiety, Ukraine is trying to draw a firmer legal boundary. Antisemitism is no longer being addressed only through public condemnation or symbolic declarations. It is now being tied more directly to criminal responsibility.

From legal definition to criminal punishment

This law did not appear out of nowhere. In September 2021, Ukraine’s parliament adopted the foundational law “On Preventing and Combating Antisemitism in Ukraine.” That earlier legislation gave a legal definition of antisemitism, listed its manifestations, and established the principle that such acts must carry responsibility. Zelensky signed that law the following month.

But definition alone was never enough. The next step was Bill No. 5110, designed to place antisemitism within the logic of criminal prosecution by amending Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Parliament approved the bill in February 2022, and Zelensky’s signature has now given that framework full legal force.

What the new law changes

Under the new system, incitement to hatred, discrimination, restriction of rights, or other public acts motivated by antisemitism can be punished by fines, restraint of liberty, or imprisonment for up to three years. The law also allows for disqualification from holding certain positions or engaging in certain professional activities.

If such acts are accompanied by violence, threats, deception, or are committed by an official, the punishment becomes harsher and can rise to five years in prison.

If the offense is committed by an organized group or leads to grave consequences, the sentence may range from five to eight years. That upper threshold is what gives this law particular resonance far beyond Ukraine itself.

Keep reading

Law now bans Ohioans from using Michigan’s cheaper cannabis

Despite changes to Ohio and Michigan’s cannabis laws, it is still cheaper for Ohioans to drive from Columbus to a Michigan dispensary than to buy marijuana in-state.

Ohio’s cannabis market was subject to legislative changes in the past month as Senate Bill 56 went into effect. The bill banned intoxicating hemp products like THC drinks and increased penalties and restrictions for adult-use cannabis. Data shows central Ohioans would save about $76.63 by driving to Michigan to purchase cannabis, but S.B. 56 now makes possessing cannabis purchased out of state illegal. See previous coverage of S.B. 56 in the video player above.

Because cannabis is federally illegal and state borders are federal jurisdiction, it has always been illegal to cross state lines with cannabis. Previously, the law prevented Ohioans from bringing cannabis from Michigan into Ohio, but not from using cannabis purchased in Michigan within the Buckeye state.

S.B. 56 changes the legality of consuming or possessing cannabis purchased out of state. Under S.B. 56, legal cannabis only extends to legal home-grown marijuana or cannabis purchased at a licensed Ohio dispensary. The law means any cannabis purchased out of state is illegal possession.

Although Ohioans have been able to legally purchase and use recreational cannabis since August 2024, some Ohioans still crossed the border to purchase marijuana more cheaply. Four months into legalization, an ounce of marijuana flower cost more than $200 in Ohio and around $91 in Michigan. At the time, Ohioans would save over $100 on average by driving to Michigan.

Over a year later, Ohioans still save if they purchase in Michigan. NBC4 averaged sales data for one ounce of flower for each month of 2026 in both Michigan and Ohio. The closest Michigan dispensary to Columbus is around 174 miles away, so the average vehicle could make a round trip using about one tank of gas. Gas costs were calculated using the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s average gas pricing data for each month.

Keep reading

Virginia Governor Wants Amendments To Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill, Including Delayed Market Launch

Virginia’s governor is requesting that legislators make amendments to a bill to legalize recreational marijuana sales that they sent to her desk last month.

On Monday, Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) returned the measure with suggested changes—including pushing back the launch date for sales to begin by six months, from January 1, 2027 to July 1, 2027.

The move will “allow for additional time to implement a legal market safely and curb the illicit market,” a press release from the governor’s office says.

“Five years ago, the Commonwealth took the first steps to legalize marijuana—and for five years, the work sat unfinished,” Spanberger said. “We are working to set up a marketplace that is controlled, regulated, and responsible—because legal markets only succeed when there are clear guardrails and enforcement to back it up.”

“To keep our next generation safe, we must also ensure real consequences for vape shops that have spent years targeting Virginia’s kids,” she said. “We need to rein in these shady businesses and make sure a legal marijuana market does not make the problem worse.”

Under current law, adults over 21 can legally possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis. The bill as approved by lawmakers would have increased that to 2.5 ounces, but Spanberger wants lawmakers to change that to 2 ounces.

The governor’s proposal will also “strengthen the enforcement provisions” in concert with a related bill lawmakers sent her on the issue “to put a greater focus on consumer and product safety,” her office’s press release said.

Spanberger is additionally proposing that the cannabis excise tax in the bill increase from 6 percent to 8 percent after July 1, 2029, and that regulators be allowed to license only up to 200 retail marijuana dispensaries prior to 2029 instead of the 350 included in the initial wave in the bill as passed by lawmakers.

The legislature is set to reconvene to address the governor’s proposal on April 22.

Meanwhile, Spanberger signed several other cannabis bills on Monday—including measures to protect the parental rights of consumers and allow patients to access medical marijuana in hospitals. She also proposed amendments to legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with past convictions and to change rules for marijuana delivery services.

Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but former Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis.

The marijuana sales bills that Spanberger wants amendments to are SB 542 from Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D) and HB 642 from Del. Paul Krizek (D).

Keep reading

Rep. Lauren Boebert Demands Answers for ‘Deeply Troubling Abuse of Power’ by NSA Analysts

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) on Monday wrote to National Security Agency (NSA) Director Joshua Rudd about multiple instances of “deeply troubling abuses of power” by NSA analysts who have misused Section 702 of FISA to search private communications, including a person met through a dating service and a potential tenant.

“I write to demand answers about a deeply troubling abuse of power by a National Security Agency analyst who exploited one of our nation’s most sensitive surveillance authorities to spy on Americans met through an online dating service,” Boebert wrote to the NSA.

She recounted an incident that was disclosed by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight (PCOAB)’s September 2023 report that “represents exactly the kind of government overreach that erodes the trust of the American people in their intelligence community.”

“As a Member of Congress who takes both national security and the constitutional rights of every American seriously, I find it unacceptable that nearly three years after this abuse was disclosed, the public has received no accounting of what consequences, if any, were imposed on the individuals responsible,” she added.

Keep reading

Nicaragua Bans Several Christian Groups As Persecution Worsens

The government of Nicaragua banned at least 18 Christian groups from operating within the country as persecution from the Latin American nation’s regime worsens.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide said in a report published last month that they were able to identify 15 Protestant groups and 3 Roman Catholic groups stripped of legal status in 2025.

“Affected institutions were schools, religious radio and television outlets, and faith-based charities, including Lutheran World Relief and Food for the Hungry,” the group said.

The Independent Fundamentalist Baptists were also stripped of their legal status.

After revoking legal status, the government has in some cases taken their property.

One religiously affiliated school was allowed to operate for nine months after having its status revoked, with leadership told it would eventually be turned into a state school.

But the premises were instead used as a police station.

Keep reading

Report: 60% of Australian Teens Are Evading Social Media Ban

The Molly Rose Foundation (MRF), a British-based group that generally favors online safety measures for children, published research on Monday that found about 60% of Australian teenagers are evading their country’s landmark ban on social media accounts for children under 16.

MRF’s report was entitled “Australia’s Social Media Ban – Is It Working?” The report concluded it wasn’t, not really, although the ban has significantly impacted the online activity of Australian youth.

“There are significant questions about the effectiveness of Australia’s social media ban. Three fifths (61%) of 12–15 year-olds who previously held accounts on restricted platforms continue to have access to one or more active accounts,” the report noted.

MRF found that over half of the 12 to 15-year-olds who used the most perilous of the social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, were still able to access those services. 

Seventy percent of children who responded to the survey, which was conducted in partnership with Australia’s largest online youth panel YouthInsight, said it was “easy” to avoid the social media ban. Fifty-one percent of respondents said the ban made no difference to their online safety, and 14% said they felt less safe after the ban was imposed. 

“This may reflect a range of factors, including their displacement to smaller or more poorly moderated platforms, their experiences on sites not covered by the ban, or a perception that online platforms have pivoted from safety towards prioritizing access restrictions,” the report’s authors ventured.

The ban does seem to have reduced the amount of time children spend online overall, which will likely be taken as a positive development by child safety advocates.

MRF suggested some of the blame for the questionable effectiveness of the ban lies with social media companies, which do not appear to making very aggressive efforts to detect or deactivate accounts created by under-16 users, after headlines were made by a large number of account deactivations in the early months of the ban.

On the other hand, about 5% of the children who evaded the ban were using virtual private networks (VPNs), a tool that has been successfully employed around the world to mask user identities and evade digital censorship. VPNs are a very effective tool for masking user identity, which is why censorious governments are looking for ways to ban them.

MRF noted in passing that one of the earliest government efforts to ban children from online platforms was undertaken by South Korea, which prohibited online gaming for children from midnight to 6:00 a.m., beginning in 2011. The ban “initially resulted in a reduction of time spent online,” but those improvements faded over time, and in fact Internet use by children wound up increasing. The South Korean government eventually discontinued the ban.

MRF felt its report directly contradicted claims by the Australian government that its ban on social media for teens has been “very successful in its early days,” and this could have implications for other countries thinking about bans of their own, including the United Kingdom.

Keep reading

Regulation by hostility: the real legacy of Biden-era crypto policy

Thorn argues that a recent New York Times op-ed rewrites history through omission, glossing over the collateral damage caused by the previous administration.

Former Biden economic advisers Ryan Cummings and Jared Bernstein would have you believe the decline in bitcoin’s price from its 2025 peak somehow vindicates their administration’s approach to cryptocurrency. A masterclass in selective memory, their February 26 New York Times opinion piece omits the most consequential fact about Biden-era crypto policy: it was not a reasoned regulatory framework.

The authors credit the Biden administration with “increasingly aggressive regulatory efforts to curb scams and fraud.” This framing is extraordinary, given what happened on their watch. FTX grew to enormous scale during the Biden administration. Sam Bankman-Fried was a top Democratic donor and met with senior administration officials (including then-Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler) while running what became one of the largest financial frauds in history.

The administration’s strategy of regulation-by-enforcement, rather than establishing clear rules, had a perverse effect: legitimate, compliance-minded companies were driven offshore or out of business, consumers were harmed, and American innovation was stifled. Meanwhile, bad actors like Bankman-Fried (who knew how to play political games) thrived in the confusion. When you refuse to write clear rules, the only people who benefit are those who never intended to follow them.

The authors conveniently ignore one of the most troubling episodes of the Biden era: “Operation Choke Point 2.0.” Under pressure from federal regulators, banks systematically debanked lawful crypto businesses, cutting them off from the financial system without due process, formal rulemaking, or legislative authority. The debanking campaign swept up ordinary individuals and small businesses who had turned to crypto because the traditional banking system had long underserved them. The Biden administration’s approach cut consumers off from tools they were using to participate in the financial system, without putting a single policy through the democratic process of notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The authors dismiss crypto as a “painfully slow and expensive database” with “almost no practical use.” They acknowledge in passing that crypto is used to wire money

internationally, but wave this away as though enabling fast, low-cost cross-border remittances for millions of people is a trivial achievement.

It is not. Global remittance fees average nearly 6.5%, costing migrant workers and their families billions of dollars each year. Stablecoins running on blockchain networks can execute the same transfers in minutes for a fraction of the cost. This is an immediate, material financial improvement for families in developing countries. The Biden economists sat in “dozens of meetings” and apparently came away unimpressed. One wonders whether they spoke to any of the people these tools serve.

Beyond remittances, blockchain technology underpins a rapidly growing ecosystem of financial applications. Fidelity, JPMorgan, BlackRock, BNY Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Visa, Mastercard, Meta, Stripe, Block Inc. and Franklin Templeton are actively building on blockchain infrastructure. The Biden economists’ claim that no “giant tech firms” are using this technology is flatly wrong.

Keep reading