Tag: police state

Congressman targeted by Biden TSA wants law to end ‘weaponization’ against conservatives

Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., said the Biden administration abused federal security agencies to politically target him during his campaign, revealing in a new interview that he was flagged by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) during his 2022 campaign for Arizona Attorney General while involved in an ongoing election-related lawsuit.

Hamadeh told the Just the News Not Noise television program that he was notified by Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul’s office earlier this week that he had been placed on a federal air travel watchlist in late 2022, which he believes was politically motivated. 

Hamadeh: “This wasn’t just a bureaucratic fluke”

Hamadeh said he and two other Republicans were singled out by the “Biden TSA” as part of a broader pattern of surveillance and targeting of conservative figures.“This wasn’t just a bureaucratic fluke,” Hamadeh said. “This was a deliberate abuse of federal power — placing candidates on watchlists, monitoring their travel, treating them like national security threats — all for daring to challenge the administration’s narrative.”

Hamadeh, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, said the timing of the “terrifying” TSA monitoring came weeks after a contested election in which he was actively involved in legal challenges. He added that media and Democratic leaders were describing him at the time as a “threat to democracy.”

The Arizona lawmaker said the situation is evidence of the “weaponization” of federal agencies during the Biden administration, naming other examples such as the alleged FBI surveillance of parents at school board meetings, Catholics attending mass, and individuals opposing pandemic-era mask mandates.

Hamadeh, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, lauded Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for terminating the TSA’s “Quiet Skies” monitoring program, calling it a necessary step in restoring public trust. He credited Sen. Paul for making light of the program and said that Congress would take further action to make sure the same situation never occurs again.

Keep reading

X Urges EU to Reject “Chat Control 2.0” Surveillance Law Threatening End-to-End Encryption

X is urging European governments to reject a major surveillance proposal that the company warns would strip EU citizens of core privacy rights.

In a public statement ahead of a key Council vote scheduled for October 14, the platform called on member states to “vigorously oppose measures to normalize surveillance of its citizens,” condemning the proposed regulation as a direct threat to end-to-end encryption and private communication.

The draft legislation, widely referred to as “Chat Control 2.0,” would require providers of messaging and cloud services to scan users’ content, including messages, photos, and links, for signs of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Central to the proposal is “client-side scanning” (CSS), a method that inspects content directly on a user’s device before it is encrypted.

X stated plainly that it cannot support any policy that would force the creation of “de facto backdoors for government snooping,” even as it reaffirmed its longstanding commitment to fighting child exploitation.

The company has invested heavily in detection and removal systems, but draws a clear line at measures that dismantle secure encryption for everyone.

Privacy experts, researchers, and technologists across Europe have echoed these warnings.

By mandating that scans occur before encryption is applied, the regulation would effectively neutralize end-to-end encryption, opening private conversations to potential access not only by providers but also by governments and malicious third parties.

The implications reach far beyond targeted investigations. Once CSS is implemented, any digital platform subject to the regulation would be forced to scrutinize every message and file sent by its users.

This approach could also override legal protections enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically Articles 7 and 8, which safeguard privacy and the protection of personal data.

A coalition of scientists issued a public letter warning that detection tools of this kind are technically flawed and unreliable at scale.

High error rates could lead to false accusations against innocent users, while actual abuse material could evade detection.

Keep reading

Who Will Protect Us From the Protectors?

In the same week in which President Donald Trump announced that he was federalizing 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers and dispatching them to the streets of Portland, he quietly signed a Presidential National Security Memorandum that purports to federalize policing. The Memorandum, just like the federalization of troops in Oregon, completely disregards constitutional safeguards against such practices.

Here is the backstory.

When James Madison and his colleagues crafted the Constitution and shortly thereafter the Bill of Rights, they intentionally created a limited federal government. They confined the federal government to the 16 discrete powers granted to Congress. Those powers identify areas of governance uniquely federal.

Conspicuously and intentionally absent is public safety. To clarify this, the 10th Amendment articulates the reservation by the states of powers not granted to the feds. This relationship is called federalism.

Constitutional scholars often refer to the powers retained by the states as the police power. The use of the word “police” here doesn’t mean police officers on the streets. It means the inherent and never-delegated-away powers of the states to govern for the health, safety, welfare and morality of all persons in those states.

In his famous Bank Speech, in which Madison argued brilliantly but unsuccessfully for a textualist understanding of the Constitution – he was opposing the creation of the First National Bank of the United States essentially because it was not authorized by the Constitution – he laid out the principles of limited government. He reminded those in Congress who had just sent the proposed Bill of Rights to the states for ratification that they did not constitute a general legislature that can right any wrong or regulate any behavior or intrude upon any relationship. Rather, their powers were limited to federal matters.

Merely because an area of governance is reflected nationally does not make the area federal. Chief among these is the police power.

The wall between state and federal law enforcement was generally recognized until 9/11. Prior to that, the FBI and other federal police agencies, none of which is authorized by the Constitution, generally devoted their efforts to enforcing federal law. After 9/11, the Bush administration – perhaps to divert public attention from its having slept on that fateful day – began a federal/state collaboration to fight “terrorism.”

Just as the war on drugs in the 1970s and ’80s weakened the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment, the war on terror in the 2000s weakened the constitutional fabric of federalism. With a public still shell-shocked over the attacks, and a Congress pliant to the presidency and the intelligence community, Congress enacted the Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to write their own search warrants, and the states fell subject to federal domination over their policing. Slowly, the feds began to intrude and dominate into areas of law enforcement with the false claim that nearly all crimes affected national security.

To garner public support for this, the feds engaged in ostentatious sting operations in which they lured disaffected young Muslim men into traps that were ostensibly criminal but were totally controlled. They then took credit for solving “crimes” that they had created. None of this was constitutional, yet few but the victims of the stings complained. Even the courts went along.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, when people fear for their safety, they will allow the government to curtail their liberty. Of course, this is all illusory, as history teaches that sacrificing liberty for safety enhances neither.

Keep reading

New York Imposes Law Forcing Social Media to Justify Speech Policies to State Authorities

Social media companies operating in New York are now under fresh legal obligations as the state enforces the so-called “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” a new compelled speech law that forces platforms with annual revenues exceeding $100 million to hand over detailed reports on how they handle various forms of speech, including speech that is legally protected under the First Amendment.

The legislation went into effect on October 1 and has already triggered a constitutional showdown in court.

The law, officially Senate Bill S895B, demands biannual disclosures to the state Attorney General’s office.

These reports must outline how platforms define terms such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” “harassment,” “disinformation,” and “extremism.”

Companies are also required to explain what moderation practices they apply to those categories and to provide specifics about actions taken against users and content.

Platforms that fail to comply face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, per day. Injunctive action can also be taken against non-compliant entities.

Attorney General Letitia James declared that the law is about transparency and oversight.

“With violence and polarization on the rise, social media companies must ensure that their platforms don’t fuel hateful rhetoric and disinformation,” she said in a public statement, reinforcing her view that private companies should be accountable to the state for how they manage user expression.

“The Stop Hiding Hate Act requires social media companies to share their content moderation policies publicly and with my office to ensure that these companies are more transparent about how they are addressing harmful content on their platforms.”

Governor Kathy Hochul voiced similar sentiments, saying the legislation “builds on our efforts to improve safety online and marks an important step to increase transparency and accountability.”

Keep reading

UK Government Dismisses Public Outcry, Pushes Ahead with Controversial Digital ID Plan

A UK government plan to introduce a nationwide digital identification system is moving ahead, despite a public backlash that saw more than 2.7 million people sign a petition urging its cancellation.

The proposal, first announced by Labour in September, would provide a digital ID to every UK citizen and legal resident aged 16 and above.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed the new system would help strengthen border enforcement and reduce illegal employment, describing the ID, dubbed the “Brit Card,” as a tool to “make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.”

The public response was overwhelmingly opposed. Warnings about centralized data collection, privacy intrusions, and increased state surveillance flooded public discourse.

Descriptions of the proposal ranged from a “dystopian nightmare” to fears of a gateway to “digital control.”

Not long after Labour’s announcement, a petition was created on the official UK Government and Petitions website.

Keep reading

TDF secures legal victory for Amish client in Quarantine Act challenge

The Democracy Fund has achieved another significant win in its ongoing efforts to defend members of the Amish community facing convictions under the Quarantine Act. The convictions arose from tickets received by the Amish upon crossing the border during the COVID-19 pandemic: Crown prosecutors alleged that the Amish failed to provide information required by the ArriveCan app.

On September 25, 2025, the Niagara Provincial Court issued a suspended sentence with no fine ($0) for an Amish client whose conviction was previously overturned and reopened by TDF lawyers. The outcome ensures that a member of the Amish community is spared undue hardship caused by financial penalties and credit problems.

As previously announced, TDF filed reopening applications in Niagara Provincial Court on behalf of two Amish clients. The court granted the application for one client, overturning their conviction and scheduling a new trial, while denying the second application.

The clients, originally from an Ontario Amish community and now residing in the United States following marriage, were charged with non-compliance with COVID-19 regulations and failure to complete the ArriveCan app. These requirements posed significant challenges for the Amish, whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of modern technology. Many of TDF’s Amish clients face substantial fines and property liens, threatening their farms and traditional way of life. TDF remains unwavering in its commitment to safeguarding their homes and livelihoods.

TDF Senior Litigation Counsel, Adam Blake-Gallipeau, stated: “Obviously, the Amish have limited access to modern technology and live a Biblically-based lifestyle: this outcome upholds their religious freedoms. We’re pleased with the result since it ensures that our client is no longer threatened with the destruction of his credit rating and financial penalties.”

TDF proudly represents over 30 Amish clients across Ontario, advocating tirelessly for fair treatment under the law for these peaceful communities.

Keep reading

‘A big freaking mistake’: Feds confirm investigation into arrest of reporter Nick Sortor at Portland ICE protest

Nicholas Sortor, an independent, on-the-street reporter who has become famous for his documentation of anti-government actions across America, has announced that the Department of Justice has assured him of an investigation into his arrest by Portland police late Thursday.

The Washington Examiner said the conservative influencer was arrested late Thursday, then released several hours later, early Friday.

He was accused by local police of “second-degree disorderly conduct” while he was documenting violent protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Oregon’s largest city.

Other reports from the scene at the time said Sortor was defending himself from a woman who attacked him.

“Sortor, a 27-year-old resident of Washington, D.C., was arrested alongside two Oregon residents, according to a press release from the city’s police department. All three people were booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center on the same misdemeanor charge,” the Examiner reported.

But later Sortor confirmed the review of his “wrongful arrest” will be conducted by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon.

He said Attorney General Pam Bondi called him personally with the news.

“The Trump DOJ WILL NOT allow Portland Police to continue to do the bidding of Antifa,” he wrote on X, telling Portland police to “f*** around and find out.”

The report said he explained he was recording footage of federal agents macing protesters when he was surrounded and assaulted, forced to defend himself.

“Nick says he swung back and missed, then disengaged and walked over to a group of Portland PD. He says he was then shocked to be arrested by them, and he sat in the back of a police cruiser while officers figured out what to charge him with,” a witness reportd.

Protests in Portland were triggered by the deployment of National Guard troops to crack down on rampant crime there.

The Gateway Pundit commented, “The woman who attacked him was not arrested.”

Keep reading

UK Expands Live Facial Recognition as First Legal Challenge Targets Met Police Misidentification

Police forces across England are preparing to expand their use of live facial recognition (LFR) surveillance as the government moves forward with a national policy to guide deployments.

Policing minister Sarah Jones confirmed during the Labour Party conference that formal guidance is in development to instruct officers on when and where the technology should be used.

Funding from the Home Office has already been allocated to support LFR operations in seven additional regions: Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley, and Hampshire.

Government officials have pointed to early deployments in London and Cardiff as successful, citing arrests.

Reflecting on those results, Jones stated:

“What we’ve seen in Croydon is that it has worked. We just need to make sure it’s clear what the technology is going to be useful for going forward. If we are going to use it more, if we do want to roll it out across the country, what are the parameters? Live facial recognition is a really good tool that has led to arrests that wouldn’t have come otherwise, and it’s very, very valuable.”

The software links live camera feeds to a watchlist of people wanted by police. When someone passes a camera, facial measurements are analyzed and compared against the database. If a match is found, officers are alerted to intervene.

However, the use of LFR has expanded sharply. In London, the number of people included on watchlists has more than doubled between 2020 and 2025.

The volume of facial scans during deployments has also grown, with single-day scans now reaching into the tens of thousands.

The Metropolitan Police insists it has safeguards in place and maintains that data from individuals not on a watchlist is deleted immediately.

Keep reading

Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Slams French Investigation, Warns of Global Crackdown on Privacy and Free Speech

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov made no attempt to hide his frustration with French authorities during a wide-ranging conversation on The Lex Fridman Podcast, describing the French government’s investigation into him and his company as “Kafkaesque,” “absurd,” and deeply damaging.

He warned that efforts to undermine digital privacy are accelerating not just in France, but across Europe and beyond, using pretexts like child protection and election integrity to justify surveillance and censorship.

Throughout the interview, Durov painted a grim picture of what he sees as growing authoritarianism disguised as public safety.

“Every dictator in the world justifies taking away your rights with very reasonable-sounding justifications,” he said, warning that citizens often don’t realize the gravity of their loss until it’s too late. “Every message they send is monitored. They can’t assemble. It’s over.”

Durov flatly rejected the idea that any government, including France’s, could force Telegram to grant access to users’ private conversations.

“Nothing,” he responded when asked if there was any scenario in which French intelligence could gain a backdoor.

He emphasized that Telegram does not and will not use personal data to power ad targeting, saying, “We would never use…your personal messaging data or your context data or your metadata or your activity data to target ads.”

Despite facing legal pressure and travel restrictions stemming from the French case, Durov said Telegram remains firm in its refusal to censor political content or violate users’ privacy.

“The more pressure I get, the more resilient and defiant I become,” he said, accusing French authorities of trying to “humiliate” him and millions of Telegram users through coercive tactics.

Durov described encounters with French intelligence officials who allegedly tried to pressure him into shutting down Telegram channels during elections in Romania and Moldova, actions he said would have amounted to “political censorship.”

He recounted being approached while detained in France and asked to disable channels that criticized preferred candidates of Western-aligned governments. “If you think that, because I’m stuck here, you can tell me what to do, you are very wrong,” Durov said he told one official.

He made it clear that Telegram had only taken down content in Moldova that actually violated platform rules, refusing broader demands that lacked justification.

Keep reading

California Ends Kamala Harris’s Truancy Law Punishing Parents

California parents will no longer face arrest if their children miss school following Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Oct. 1 decision to approve legislation repealing Kamala Harris’s truancy law.

The 2011 law that the former vice president sponsored when she served as the state’s attorney general made it a misdemeanor for parents if their children were chronically truant by missing 10 percent or more of school days, starting in kindergarten.

The law punished parents with a fine of up to $2,000 or one year in county jail. At the time, she said the bill was an “effective strategy” to reduce chronic elementary school truancy and a smart approach to crime prevention.

This week, Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 461 to end the criminalization of truancy for parents and remove the 2011 law from the state’s penal code. Newsom did not explain why he signed AB 461 in his press release about legislation decisions on Oct. 1. The bill, one of 105 bills signed into law that day, takes effect on Jan. 1.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Patrick Ahrens, a Silicon Valley Democrat, called the truancy law a “failed policy.”

“Thank you to Gov. Newsom for signing my bill to repeal this failed policy of criminalizing struggling California families for their children missing school,” Ahrens said in a statement. “Fining or imprisoning parents did nothing to get kids the education and support they need.”

While California’s truancy law remained on the books for more than a decade, school districts were becoming less likely to enforce the punitive measures against parents, according to EdSource, a nonprofit educational resource focused on the state’s school systems.

The first arrests under the law were of five parents in Orange County in 2011. The parents were handcuffed and taken to Orange County Jail before being released on their own recognizance for ignoring repeated requests to get their children to school.

While parents have been arrested in California under the truancy law, it was unclear how many cases resulted in criminal charges. Most school districts instead went beyond the law to reach out to parents with emails, letters, and phone calls to resolve truancy problems, according to the California District Attorney’s Association.

The new law was sponsored by End Child Poverty California, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Several justice and parent organizations, including the California State Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), also supported it.

Keep reading