Public interest in the Jeffrey Epstein case has exploded since the last document drop by the Department of Justice, and new data shows President Donald Trump's ties to the late sex offender are now "more relevant than ever."The DOJ released millions more documents on Jan. 30 from its investigation i...

The DOJ’s voting section has been fundamentally reshaped by a series of hires tied to post-2020 election denial.

Text SIGN PPQWBD to 50409 — Across multiple federal and state agencies, powerful new technology systems are being deployed in ways that directly affect Americans’ constitutional rights — yet without consistent national standards for accuracy, transparency, or accountability. Recent reporting has revealed that the Department of Homeland Security dramatically expanded its SAVE database to flag potential noncitizens on voter rolls. The system was rolled out on an accelerated timetable, and local officials in multiple states reported significant error rates — including naturalized citizens wrongly identified and temporarily barred from voting. In some states, flagged voters were referred for possible investigation before verification was complete. Voting is a fundamental constitutional right. Tools that affect eligibility must meet the highest reliability standards before they are used at scale. At the same time, law enforcement agencies have begun piloting AI tools such as GeoSpy, which claims it can geolocate images within one to five meters by analyzing environmental and architectural clues. Even internal communications describe these systems as still in testing phases and prone to false positives. When AI-generated leads are used in criminal investigations, there must be clear safeguards to prevent sole reliance on unverified outputs for probable cause. Meanwhile, in ongoing litigation over conditions at an ICE detention facility, the federal government has acknowledged losing hard drives provided to store court-ordered surveillance footage and failing to produce complete camera feeds. Courts depend on reliable evidence preservation. If agencies cannot maintain data integrity in discovery, confidence in broader technology governance is further undermined. These cases are not isolated. Civil liberties organizations, research institutions, and oversight bodies have repeatedly warned that predictive policing systems, facial recognition technologies, and large-scale data-matching tools often lack independent audits, clear error reporting, and meaningful public oversight. The FBI’s documented compliance failures involving surveillance databases underscore how powerful data systems can drift beyond constitutional guardrails when oversight lags behind capability. Technology can support legitimate public safety and administrative goals. But constitutional rights must not become beta tests. Congress should establish clear federal standards before further expansion occurs. At minimum, this should include: • Independent third-party accuracy audits before deployment. • Public reporting of error rates and system limitations. • A prohibition on sole reliance on automated systems for voter removal or probable cause. • Judicial warrant requirements for advanced geolocation tools. • Strict evidence preservation and data integrity requirements. • Robust whistleblower protections for reporting misuse. Americans deserve technology that strengthens democracy — not systems that risk disenfranchisement, wrongful suspicion, or lost evidence. Guardrails must come first.

Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, accused the Department of Justice of misleading a judge to obtain a search warrant last month for 2020 election ballots.Local officials accused President Donald Trump's DOJ of making “serious” omissions in the application filed by the FBI that fails to allege pro...

Documents recently released by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency show employees are aware its practices against members of the public are problematic. Chioma Chukwu, the executive director of American Oversight, confirmed the group had received fresh documents from ICE following a Freed...

A 9-year-old shares her story of being held at the nation’s only operating detention center for immigrant families in Dilley, Texas.

Congressman Andy Barr (R-KY), who is running to replace Mitch McConnell in the United States Senate, released his first television ad earlier this month.

Text SIGN PPQWBD to 50409 — Across multiple federal and state agencies, powerful new technology systems are being deployed in ways that directly affect Americans’ constitutional rights — yet without consistent national standards for accuracy, transparency, or accountability. Recent reporting has revealed that the Department of Homeland Security dramatically expanded its SAVE database to flag potential noncitizens on voter rolls. The system was rolled out on an accelerated timetable, and local officials in multiple states reported significant error rates — including naturalized citizens wrongly identified and temporarily barred from voting. In some states, flagged voters were referred for possible investigation before verification was complete. Voting is a fundamental constitutional right. Tools that affect eligibility must meet the highest reliability standards before they are used at scale. At the same time, law enforcement agencies have begun piloting AI tools such as GeoSpy, which claims it can geolocate images within one to five meters by analyzing environmental and architectural clues. Even internal communications describe these systems as still in testing phases and prone to false positives. When AI-generated leads are used in criminal investigations, there must be clear safeguards to prevent sole reliance on unverified outputs for probable cause. Meanwhile, in ongoing litigation over conditions at an ICE detention facility, the federal government has acknowledged losing hard drives provided to store court-ordered surveillance footage and failing to produce complete camera feeds. Courts depend on reliable evidence preservation. If agencies cannot maintain data integrity in discovery, confidence in broader technology governance is further undermined. These cases are not isolated. Civil liberties organizations, research institutions, and oversight bodies have repeatedly warned that predictive policing systems, facial recognition technologies, and large-scale data-matching tools often lack independent audits, clear error reporting, and meaningful public oversight. The FBI’s documented compliance failures involving surveillance databases underscore how powerful data systems can drift beyond constitutional guardrails when oversight lags behind capability. Technology can support legitimate public safety and administrative goals. But constitutional rights must not become beta tests. Congress should establish clear federal standards before further expansion occurs. At minimum, this should include: • Independent third-party accuracy audits before deployment. • Public reporting of error rates and system limitations. • A prohibition on sole reliance on automated systems for voter removal or probable cause. • Judicial warrant requirements for advanced geolocation tools. • Strict evidence preservation and data integrity requirements. • Robust whistleblower protections for reporting misuse. Americans deserve technology that strengthens democracy — not systems that risk disenfranchisement, wrongful suspicion, or lost evidence. Guardrails must come first.

Text SIGN PKKHCP to 50409 — I urge you to vote no on any bills with the goal of sunsetting Section 230. This law is vital to maintaining our 1st Amendment Rights in an age of instant connectivity. It gives liability immunity to providers and users of online sites who allow 3rd parties to post on their site or accounts. Note, this does not include criminal behavior of any kind as that would be handled by entirely different measures altogether. We are talking free speech ONLY here. Section 230, for example, merely protects site owners from things like defamation lawsuits due to something a user posted on their site. Sunsetting this legislation will lead to an absolute erosion of our 1st Amendment Rights and will *increase* the levels of extremism in this country. Small websites will no longer be willing to allow people to post. The legal risk will be far too great if they can be held liable as "promoting" any and every little thing a user can possibly post. Big tech media sites, however, would continue to allow posting with extreme and draconian censorship that would sway at the drop of a political hat. Conspiracy theories would run rampant in real space due to this, dramatically worse than they do online and with no outlets. People would feel even more deeply unheard and angry. And unheard, angry people are quick to grab your attention in any way they can. Like with extremism and violence for example. The very issues we are trying to solve. Not only would this deeply impact our Rights and increase extremism, it would inevitably create an environment where only one narrative would be visible on the internet. Easily controlled by the top of the ladder, that narrative will lack consistency and will always forward whatever agenda is momentarily at hand. All discussion deemed off narrative will be squashed and litigated. A terrifying dystopia. Quite literally like something out of this country's high school required reading books. Except it won't be fiction, but a hard reality. The data backs up this potential reality. That's why this legislation has continued to exist despite corporate backed bipartisan attempts to dismantle it for over a decade. It is *that* fundamental to our freedom of speech now. The billionaire class wants to exploit this weak time for our society to yet again enable their own capitalization and to protect themselves from public dissent. The current administration's strategy of distracting from criminal distractions to distract from criminal behavior has created chaos. A chaos the billionaire class is using to try silence us while they think we are too overwhelmed to notice. They are wrong. We will not go further into their dystopia silently. Please vote no on any proposed legislation that would harm section 230 and, by direct extension, our 1st Amendment protections.