Forty percent of American voters believe AI will make achieving the American Dream even harder to reach. That is more than double the 16% of voters who see AI as helpful. And this isn’t abstract technophobia. This is a window into the profound anxiety many feel about economic security in an era when the traditional pathways to prosperity already seem increasingly out of reach.
A recent Rainey Center <a href="https://www.raineycenter.org/news/new-poll-voters-overwhelmingly-support-domestic-energy-independence-and-data-security">national poll of 2,011</a> likely voters reveals a pervasive pessimism about artificial intelligence (AI), along with deeper concerns about a rigged system. 
When asked about the future, 39% of respondents said AI makes them more pessimistic, compared to 20% who said it makes them more optimistic.
Remarkably, this fear is bipartisan.
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all worry that technological disruption will compound rather than solve the challenges facing American families.
Yet, there’s reason for hope. One in five Americans sees AI’s potential to improve their economic prospects, and nearly a quarter believe it will make no difference to achieving the American Dream. These voters recognize what policymakers must internalize: AI could dramatically increase productivity, create new industries, improve healthcare outcomes, and free workers from dangerous or repetitive tasks.
The technology itself, however, isn’t the enemy. The question is whether we’ll ensure its benefits are broadly shared rather than narrowly concentrated. History shows that technological revolutions can lift entire societies when paired with smart policy. The challenge is making that happen deliberately rather than hoping it occurs by accident.
This AI anxiety doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It sits atop a foundation of economic stress and fading opportunity, particularly for younger generations. While 77% of the Silent Generation and 51% of Baby Boomers feel their lives are or were better than their parents’, only 31% of Millennials and 35% of Gen Z share this optimism. When we asked directly whether the American Dream has become more or less attainable over the past decade, an overwhelming 64% said less attainable, with one-third calling it “much less attainable.”
<div id="attachment_984319" style="width: 586px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-984319" class="size-large wp-image-984319" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-576x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy" width="576" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-576x576.jpg 576w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-300x300.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-150x150.jpg 150w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-768x768.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-1536x1536.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-10-Oct-2025-11-46-AM-3234-2048x2048.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 576px) 100vw, 576px" />Credit: Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy</div>
The fear isn’t that AI will create a different future — voters fear that AI will accelerate trends already making life harder. Young Americans today face a housing market disconnected from wage growth, with 21% of Gen Z citing housing as a top national challenge compared to just 6% of Boomers. They’re burdened by education debt that earlier generations never faced. And now they’re being told that automation and AI may disrupt the very jobs they’re counting on to build their economic security.
The American Dream itself remains remarkably consistent: financial stability and homeownership top the list across all demographics. But the gap between aspiration and reality has never been wider. Only 22% of voters believe they’ve achieved the American Dream, while 36% feel it’s completely out of reach. Among Millennials, 40% believe the dream is unattainable for them.
This crisis of faith in American opportunity has political consequences. While voters give Republicans a slight edge over Democrats (39% to 33%) on supporting the American Dream, a striking 28% believe neither party is aligned with this goal. When nearly one in three Americans see no champion for their economic aspirations, we face a dangerous void in our politics.
The economy (34%) and inflation (29%) dominate voter concerns, bread-and-butter issues that AI anxiety amplifies rather than replaces. People aren’t worried about robot overlords; they’re worried about paying the mortgage, affording healthcare, and whether their children will have opportunities they did not.
Technology has always disrupted labor markets, but past disruptions occurred when basic economic mobility still functioned for most Americans. Today, AI arrives at a moment when millions already doubt that the system works for them. That timing matters enormously.
We need policies that will address both immediate economic pressures and longer-term technological change. Housing affordability, education access, and ensuring that economic growth translates into broadly shared prosperity aren’t separate from the AI question. They’re the foundation that determines whether technological change lifts us up or leaves us behind.
The American Dream isn’t dead, but it’s under siege from multiple directions. The question is whether we’ll recognize the urgency before another generation loses faith entirely.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
* * *
Sarah E. Hunt is President of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, a think tank and leadership community based in Washington, D.C.
Amelia Powers Gardner is a Utah County Commissioner and National Chair of the Leadership Alliance for a More Perfect Union (LAMP), a national program cultivating the next generation of conservative leaders.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>

Cinematic Shot of a Father Holding His Small Daughter of His Shoulders, Helping Her to Raise the United States of America Flag to Celebrate a National Fourth of July Holiday at Their House.

New Poll: Voters Fear AI Will Make The American Dream Even Harder To Reach

Artificial Intelligence

Big Tech

Economy

Gen X

Gen Z

Housing

Millennials

Poll

Student Loans

In the wake of the horrific and historic assassination of the brilliant young conservative Charlie Kirk, there has understandably been increased focus on the rhetoric that preceded and followed the event. The overwhelming majority of Americans <a href="https://s3.us-west-1.wasabisys.com/media.deseret.com/media/misc/pdf/kirk-sky-national.pdf">(86%)</a> express concern over political violence, with <a href="https://statesunited.org/resources/political-violence-survey/">78%</a> believing it has escalated in recent years, and 57% saying it is a major problem — the highest response to that question in the last two years. 
When it comes to assessing blame, Americans are unsurprisingly <a href="https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2025/09/15/political-violence-america-charlie-kirk-shooting-morning-consult-poll/">split along partisan lines</a> on culpability, with the plurality of respondents believing the Left and Right bear equal responsibility. However, they find agreement in blaming politicians on both sides as being the key instigators.
Republicans point to examples of Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters “deplorables;” Biden telling us that it’s time to “put a bulls-eye on Trump;” Maxine Waters telling supporters to “create a crowd and … push back” and during the 2021 unrest in Minneapolis “to get more confrontational;” Schumer telling Supreme Court Justices “… you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you;” Dan Goldman telling an MSNBC interviewer that Trump “has to be eliminated;” Vice President Harris telling everyone that Trump and MAGA supporters were “a threat to democracy;” and of course, the countless references to Trump and MAGA supporters being Hitler, Nazis, fascists, and Gestapo.
Democrats counter with references to Steve Bannon referring to the political opposition as “criminals, vermin,” and “enemies of the republic;” Trump telling supporters to “fight like hell” and claiming he called white supremacists “very fine people;” Marjorie Taylor Greene suggesting a “peaceful national divorce” between red and blue states; Trump calling Democrats “scum, garbage” and “enemies of the people;” and Musk posting that “The Left is the party of murder.”
It is much more emotionally engaging to discuss the implications and injustices of rhetorical content, but regardless of which side has been more vitriolic, there is a far larger, more influential factor that supersedes all of it: Who controls the dominant media platforms — and specifically, the digital platforms. And that dominance overwhelmingly belongs to the Left. The result is that the Left’s messages and hyperbole are broadcast to dramatically more people, dramatically more frequently, and on dramatically more channels. Further, competing or contradictory messaging is far more likely to be absent or censored on the Left’s channels, so their audience is fed a much more homogenous diet of narratives.
Consider three important media domains: 
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Legacy Media, with centralized and professionally produced content, including television, radio, and newspapers (CNN, Reuters, Fox News, The New York Times, NPR, BBC, etc.)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Social media — with user-generated content, no editorial oversight, and algorithm-generated visibility (Facebook, X—formerly Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, etc.)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Search (Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc.)</li>
</ul>
The waning, but still significant, mainstream media are <a href="https://www.mrc.org/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal-american-public-and-public-knows-it">dominantly Left-leaning and becoming more so</a>. Research has shown that members of the media are <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_Democrats">overwhelmingly liberal</a>, with the vast majority of them supporting Democratic candidates. In 2016, 96% of journalists’ donations went to the Hillary Clinton campaign. <a href="https://www.mrc.org/node/90399">Media Research Center found</a> that 92% of Trump coverage during the 2020 presidential campaign was negative – even more so than the relentless, hostile coverage he received in 2017. When examining bias in mainstream/traditional media, <a href="https://www.biasly.com/media-bias-chart/us-main/?">studies</a> have concluded that upwards of 60% of these outlets are left-leaning. But that doesn’t tell the whole story because that percentage is based on the number of outlets, regardless of the audience size for that outlet. When considering the total audience size and the percentage of it that receives information with a left-leaning bias, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/06/pj_2025-06-10_news-media-sources_report.pdf">bias number climbs closer to 75%</a>. The percentage of Americans viewing a liberal bias in the mainstream media has doubled since 1985.
However, traditional media are quickly being pushed aside by social media, where the leftist bias is even more pronounced. The top social media companies are all Left-leaning (See <a href="https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-did-ai-get-so-biased-favor-left">here</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rigged-Media-Democrats-Seized-Elections/dp/168451259X/">here</a>, <a href="https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/social-media-trump-conservative-bias/">here</a>, and <a href="https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/the-censorship-industrial-complex">here</a>). Meta, the undisputed king of social media, owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, reaching approximately <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/">4 billion users</a> and controlling 75-80% of the social media market worldwide. Alphabet Inc., a smaller behemoth that owns Google and YouTube, has just surpassed $3 trillion in market cap and reaches some <a href="https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-sub-section-top-social-platforms?">2.2 billion users</a>. A collection of companies, including those owning TikTok, Douyin, WeChat, QQ, and Snapchat, reaches an additional <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/?">3.5 billion users</a> combined. Musk’s little X is much further down the list with a mere 500 million users.
I previously described social media as the <a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/the_federal_government_colluded_with_social_media_to_control_content_so_what.html">800-pound gorilla in a rapidly shrinking cage</a>, noting that usage has skyrocketed from 5% in 2005 to over 70% today. Some estimates indicate that as much as 38% of all internet time today is spent on social media. Considering Facebook alone, the vast majority (nearly 70%) of <a href="https://www.demandsage.com/facebook-statistics/?">Facebook’s nearly 3 billion users</a> visit the site daily, and more than half of them visit it several times per day. 
The younger generations are particularly fond of social media, with a strong plurality — some <a href="https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/news-consumption-social-video/?">44% of Americans aged 18 to 24 and 34% of those aged 25 to 34 </a>— reporting that they now obtain their news and information from social media and video formats, rather than traditional media. This trend is accelerating worldwide, raising concerns about misinformation, algorithmic bias, and the blurring of entertainment and news.
What about when audiences go searching for information on their own? Most commonly today, this means using a computer, and in this world, Google controls a whopping <a href="https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share?">90% of the search market</a>, processing some <a href="https://sqmagazine.co.uk/google-search-statistics/?">8.9 billion search requests</a> per day, amounting to over 5 trillion annually. Over 70% of all clicks go to the top 5 search results (hence the industry joke that the best place to bury a dead body is on the second page of results for a Google search — because nobody ever looks there). They control a significantly larger share (<a href="https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/google-statistics/?">95%</a>) of the global mobile search market.
Just prior to the 2022 midterm elections, <a href="https://www.allsides.com/blog/google-news-shows-strong-political-bias-allsides-analysis">researchers found that the plurality of articles returned</a> for a Google search under the term “election” were from the New York Times and CNN (44%), with 0% from center or Right-leaning outlets. In 2023, <a href="https://www.allsides.com/blog/google-news-shows-strong-political-bias-allsides-analysis?copilot_analytics_metadata=eyJldmVudEluZm9fbWVzc2FnZUlkIjoiMXB5eDR2NGs1WnJkVDYxR3RWcXA4IiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NvbnZlcnNhdGlvbklkIjoiOURMZ3dnaG5tdFlhWHpzc0xiZGVzIiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NsaWNrU291cmNlIjoiY2l0YXRpb25MaW5rIiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NsaWNrRGVzdGluYXRpb24iOiJodHRwczpcL1wvd3d3LmFsbHNpZGVzLmNvbVwvYmxvZ1wvZ29vZ2xlLW5ld3Mtc2hvd3Mtc3Ryb25nLXBvbGl0aWNhbC1iaWFzLWFsbHNpZGVzLWFuYWx5c2lzIn0=">the same research firm found</a> that 61% of the articles posted on the Google News homepage came from Left-rated sources, with only 3% coming from Right-rated sources. Repeated samplings produced very similar results.
<a href="https://www.gotchseo.com/google-biased/?">Another research firm</a> used 50 politically charged search terms with Google and found that the results were demonstrably left-leaning. Consider their results for the following:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">“Black Lives Matter” — 9 out of 10 results from Left-leaning outlets.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">“Border wall” – 7 of 10 results Left-leaning.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">“Dreamers” – 6 of 10 results Left-leaning.</li>
</ul>
Conversely, searches for “immigration policy” or “gun control facts” would surface snippets from CNN, NYT, or Vox, while conservative sources were buried or absent. Notably, the researchers attribute some of the results to the dominance of left-leaning outlets in Search Engine Optimization, rather than to algorithmic intent. Regardless, the result in the output is the same.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>
In his 2019 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Dr. Robert Epstein, a self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat, argued that Google posed a threat not only to democracy but also to human autonomy. He has focused particularly on ephemeral search results — the auto-complete function that Google and others provide, which offers suggestions for alternative or additional phrasing. As but one example, he found that typing “Hillary Clinton is…” yielded suggestions like “winning,” “awesome,” and “qualified,” while “Donald Trump is…” produced “dangerous,” “racist,” and “a liar.” He <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%2520Testimony.pdf">concludes</a>: 
<blockquote>We are all aware that Google deletes or blocks access to videos on YouTube, which it owns, but few people are aware that Google blocks access to millions of websites. By the way, it is not just conservative content that gets censored . . . The problem with Google is not that it censors conservatives; the problem is that it has the power to determine what content billions of people worldwide will or will not see. No single entity – especially a private company that is not accountable to the public – should have such power.</blockquote>
It is clear that all three domains — the legacy media, social media, and search — are all heavily Left-leaning. Consider what this dominance means for the sheer volume of leftist information and rhetoric being broadcast and received. Put aside for the moment the questions of whether Democrats are using more pernicious or violent language than republicans. That issue pales in comparison to the question of how frequently their message is being broadcast — how many videos, shorts, stories, op-eds, posts — the sheer volume of minutes that will be devoted to the Left&#8217;s position versus the Right&#8217;s and whether any counter to it will be available.
The Left has a massive, pervasive, powerful, and sophisticated digital network, which I previously analogized to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/as-democrat-warplane-takes-flak-audacity-remains-intact?author=Greg+Salsbury&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=6&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=As+Democrat+Warplane+Takes+Flak,+Audacity+Remains+Intact">stealth fighter</a>. Comparatively, conservatives have a Sopwith Camel. It is why on any number of issues, from Russiagate to Charlottesville misquotes, to Trump’s comments about COVID and bleach, to Charlie Kirk’s killer being right-wing, a shockingly high percentage of Americans still believe the lies that were broadcast ad nauseam despite their thorough debunking. Until conservatives can deal with the massive differential in scale, reach, and volume, “turning down the rhetoric” will remain a far lower priority issue.
* * *
Greg Salsbury, Ph.D. is former president of Western Colorado University and Board of Advisors member for <a href="https://starrs.us">STARRS.US</a>. He earned his Ph.D. in Communication from the University of Southern California and an M.A. from the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at USC.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Top Social Media Platforms

It’s Not Just The Rhetoric, It’s Who Controls The Mic

Conservatives

Elections

Google

Leftists

Legacy Media

Silicon Valley

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at ensuring TikTok becomes “American-operated all the way,” he said.
After months of delaying the enforcement of a law banning TikTok, Trump announced a new framework facilitated by his executive order, which would transfer ownership of the social media platform from China to a group of American investors. Congress passed a law in 2024 to either ban the Chinese-owned TikTok or force its sale due to national security and privacy concerns.
“This is going to be American-operated all the way,” Trump said as he signed the executive order. “I have great respect for President Xi, and I very much appreciate that he approved the deal, because to get it done properly, we really needed the support of China and the approval of China.”
Trump thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping for agreeing to the deal. He said some of the investors in the project included Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, entrepreneur Michael Dell, and Rupert Murdoch.
Vice President JD Vance played a key role in negotiating the framework. He said that the deal would allow Americans to use TikTok “with more confidence than they had in the past because their data is going to be secure, and it’s not going to be used as a propaganda weapon against our fellow citizens.”
Vance said that TikTok was valued at around $14 billion and that more details about the specific investors would be revealed in the coming days.
According to the text of the executive order, the framework resolves the national security concerns by removing “the TikTok application and certain other applications from the ‘control’ of a foreign adversary and precludes any ‘operational relationship’ between a formerly affiliated entity controlled by a foreign adversary and the new joint venture.”
It also “prohibits the storage of sensitive United States user data in a manner that would place such data under the control of a foreign adversary and requires such data to be stored in a cloud environment run by an American company.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld the law banning TikTok, ruling that it did not violate the First Amendment for Congress to prohibit the application due to national security concerns.

President Trump Signs Order On TikTok’s US Operations

Trump Says TikTok Will Be ‘American-Operated All The Way’ Under New Deal

China

Donald Trump

Global Politics

JD Vance

National Security

TikTok

World

Xi Jinping

Google Bay Bridge

We Just Got Proof Of A Huge Attack On Free Speech, And It Has Nothing To Do With Jimmy Kimmel

Free Speech

Jake Tapper

Jimmy Kimmel

Matt Walsh

Social Media Censorship

Twitter

YouTube

A new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas in the United States that goes into effect on Sunday will be levied per petition and will not be applied to existing holders of valid visas re-entering the country, the White House said on Saturday.
&#8220;This is NOT an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition,&#8221; White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X on Saturday.
Leavitt also said that current H-1B visa holders who are currently outside of the country right now will not be charged $100,000 to re-enter the United States.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Friday said the fee would be paid annually, but added that details were &#8220;still being considered.&#8221;
Some companies including Microsoft, JPMorgan, and Amazon, had responded to the Friday announcement by advising employees holding H-1B visas to remain in the United States, according to internal emails reviewed by Reuters. A Goldman Sachs internal memo seen by Reuters on Saturday urged employees with such visas to exercise caution on international travel.
Leavitt said on X that H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country to the same extent as they normally would and that the new fee would only apply in the next H-1B lottery round and not to current visa holders or renewals.
The White House said the fee was being imposed to level the playing field for American workers which it said are being &#8220;replaced with lower-paid foreign labor.&#8221;
The executive order imposing the new fee on H-1B visa applications, which was signed by President Donald Trump on Friday night, could disrupt the global operations of Indian technology services companies that deploy skilled professionals to the United States, Indian IT industry body Nasscom said early on Saturday.
In a fact sheet distributed on Saturday, the White House said it would allow an H-1B visa application without the $100,000 fee on a case-by-case basis &#8220;if in the national interest.&#8221;
The fact sheet said that the share of IT workers with H-1B visas has risen from 32% in FY 2003 to over 65% in recent years.
It also requires the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security to issue joint guidance for verification, enforcement, audits, and penalties and directs the Labor Secretary to start a rulemaking to &#8220;revise the prevailing wage levels for the H-1B program&#8221; and &#8220;to prioritize high-skilled, high-paid H-1B workers.&#8221;
Friday&#8217;s announcement sparked concerns among employees across swaths of corporate America.
On the popular Chinese social media app Rednote, many H-1B holders shared stories of rushing back to the U.S. — some just hours after landing abroad — fearing they would be subject to the new $100,000 fee.
(Reporting by Jeff Mason in Washington; Additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici in Washington and Rajveer Singh Pardesi in Bengaluru; Editing by Leslie Adler, Marguerita Choy and Andrea Ricci)

American visa

New U.S. H-1B Visa Fee Will Not Apply To Existing Holders, White House Says

India

Politics

Visa

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping&#8217;s progress on a TikTok deal this week could help bolster talks to allow parent ByteDance to divest the U.S. assets of the short video app, experts said.
The move forward, albeit a small one, comes eight months after a legal deadline passed for Chinese ownership of TikTok in the United States to end, and follows lengthy discussions about a sale.
Trump said on Truth Social on Friday that he appreciated &#8220;the approval of the TikTok Deal&#8221; from Xi, after a call between the leaders of the world&#8217;s two biggest economies.
Xi&#8217;s statement did not mention an approval. It said &#8220;the Chinese government respects the will of firms and welcomes companies to conduct business negotiations on the basis of market rules to reach a solution consistent with Chinese laws and regulations while balancing interests,&#8221; according to the meeting summary in Xinhua state media.
China blocked a similar agreement on the app used by 170 million Americans in April during a trade dispute.
&#8220;Readouts from Washington and Beijing suggest the call between Trump and Xi went well, with words like &#8216;positive&#8217; and &#8216;constructive&#8217; being used by both sides to characterize the important bilateral conversation,&#8221; said Wendy Cutler, senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute. &#8220;While the leaders apparently blessed the TikTok deal, important details surrounding such matters as who would own and control the algorithm remain unclear.&#8221;
Either way, months of work, at the very least, lie ahead. Trump this week extended the deadline to complete the divestiture to December 19. And lawmakers have raised concerns about reported details on the preliminary framework agreement reached earlier in the week in Madrid.
Congress had ordered the app shut down for U.S. users by January 2025 if its U.S. assets were not sold by Chinese owner ByteDance.
Trump has declined to enforce the law while his administration looks for a new owner, which Democrats say is illegal. He has said he is worried a ban on the app would anger TikTok&#8217;s huge user base and disrupt political communications. He has largely downplayed national security concerns that motivated Congress to demand a Chinese divestiture.
&#8220;I like TikTok; it helped get me elected,&#8221; Trump said during a press conference on Thursday. &#8220;TikTok has tremendous value. The United States has that value in its hand because we&#8217;re the ones that have to approve it.&#8221;
Scott Kennedy, head of the Chinese Business and Economics program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, &#8220;the contours of the conversation today and over the last few months better align with China&#8217;s interests than U.S. interests.&#8221;
He added, &#8220;we&#8217;re talking about individual business deals. We&#8217;re not talking about Chinese structural reforms.&#8221;
Key questions about the deal remain. The precise ownership structure of the company is unclear, as is the amount of control China will retain, or whether Congress will approve.
The deal would transfer TikTok&#8217;s U.S. assets to U.S. owners from ByteDance, Reuters has reported. Sources familiar with the deal said U.S. TikTok would still make use of ByteDance&#8217;s algorithm.
That arrangement worries lawmakers concerned that Beijing could spy on Americans or conduct influence operations through the app. China has said there is no evidence of a national security threat posed by the app.
(Reporting by Chris Sanders, David Shepardson and David Brunnstrom in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

TikTok Logo With US Flag

Sale Of TikTok’s U.S. Assets May Get Boost After Recent Trump-Xi Call

Communist China

Social Media

Charlie Kirk was an alt-right extremist.
Certainly, that’s what many in the so-called mainstream conclude from the collection of carefully culled remarks we are being fed by algorithms designed to maximally outrage us. These preternaturally powerful algos are fueled by bot armies, bad faith domestic players, sociopathic social media business practices, and hostile foreign regimes that seek to divide America.
How many hours of original Charlie Kirk footage do the algos have from which to select? An AI breakdown of Mr. Kirk’s content between podcasts, radio shows, YouTube videos, speeches, debates, and interviews estimates the total time somewhere between 5,000 and 8,000 hours.
If we put this in the context of a job, assuming an eight-hour workday with no breaks, that translates to 625 to 1,000 consecutive work days.
At the upper end, that is two years and nine months of talking.
How many moments of this man’s life have people watched before making up their minds that his assassination must be qualified or even celebrated?
Suppose deep machine learning cast its all-powerful eye on the last 8,000 hours that any of us spoke to find out-of-context moments to maximally denigrate, vilify, and dehumanize us. Do we really believe our character couldn’t be assassinated just as readily?
Do we really believe anyone’s reputation could survive that level of scrutiny and cherry picking?
Yours? Mine? Our family members? Classmates and colleagues? The leaders we support? The athletes and musicians we admire?
Of course not.
But this is the world that we’ve built and allowed. And now it is clearer than ever: Ours is a radicalized culture.
A culture that reduces people to their mistakes, jokes, stupid remarks, contradictions, hypocrisies, blind spots, and contentious assertions is a culture that allows zero tolerance for being human.
A culture that views legitimate political disagreement as an us-versus-them battle with existential stakes, that demonizes the opposition and views them not as factions and individuals but as a monolith.
Why is it radical? Because it remains ossified and immovable, allowing neither nuance nor learning.
A quick online spin shows us the ways that Charlie Kirk, a complex and good man, imperfect like every last one of us, has been hammered flat and dehumanized.
He’s racist… despite running a Young Black Leadership Summit for years, despite his avowed and articulate admiration of black luminaries like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Thomas Sowell, despite his mentoring of many young black activists and leaders, and despite his voter mobilization efforts for the black community.
He’s anti-gay… despite welcoming gays into the conservative movement with love and grace, despite his taking fire from actual homophobes and arguing to persuade them, despite his deep friendships with many gay people.
He’s transphobic… despite his multiple kind and respectful discussions with trans students in which he welcomed them and encouraged them toward health and meaning.
He’s a misogynist… despite the fact that he ran a Young Women’s Leadership Summit, elevated women on his podcasts and events, encouraged women to engage politically, uplifted female chapter leaders and ambassadors, and spoke to podcast audiences, which at times skewed 60-65% female.
He’s a violent extremist… despite his countless denunciations of violence and coercion, despite his refusal to fight when challenged, despite his exemplification of debate and discourse.
He’s alt-right… despite the fact that his opinions are not far from average Catholic and Christian views from a single generation ago, despite the fact that he was a bulwark against extremism on his own side, despite the reality that he was hated by Groypers, Nazis, terrorists, and white supremacists.
There seems to be a genuine belief among many that everything Charlie Kirk did was for power, manipulation, and control. A belief that his movement is all grift and corruption. A belief that for him and everyone in his orbit — and what an orbit it was — there was no wisdom, no grace, no care for people or the nation. Nothing genuine, only Machiavellian plans for an evil takeover.
How does this happen?
Our radicalizing media, social and otherwise, has strangled our curiosity, forbidding exploration of opposing notions, ideas, and thinkers. It tells us that we cannot risk contamination with information that might provide nuance and context. It tells us that anyone seeking to offer a different perspective is captured, brainwashed, not to be trusted. It tells us that if we modify our position, we will be outcast as a traitor, despised, one of “them.”
We all know the feeling. A stubborn ping in the chest, a compulsion at the back of our lizard brain that whispers: I’m on the right side of this issue, I just know it. I’m on the right side of history, I just know it. He’s a bad guy, I just know it. I don’t need to see or hear anything else that might disprove or alter my opinion, I just know it.
I just know it. And won’t be told otherwise.
That is what radicalization sounds like.
Terrifying to see in the mirror. Terrifying and shameful.
And it prevents many from gazing with open eyes and an open heart on a tableau that can only be described as biblical. A husband and father shot before his wife and young children at a free speech event on a college campus beneath a sign that says, Prove Me Wrong, in front of 3,000 kids, live-streamed to tens of thousands more. Terrified by the gunshot, his three-year-old daughter ran to him, crying, “Daddy.”
What would have been our overwhelming national reaction to this moment in a time before social media and cable news?
Not moral confusion, equivocation, political expediency — certainly not gleeful malice.
The difference between then and now is our widespread radicalization from being fed selective information 24-7.
This is what it looks like.
It looks like us.
And it will destroy America if we don’t stop it.
Because when we are blinded by radicalization, we are also blind to who our real enemies are.
Our foreign adversaries are feeding this division. Profiteering social media companies with teams of addiction specialists are laser-focused on exploiting our kids. Nihilists who wish only chaos, pain, and destruction.
There are alt-right extremists. Charlie Kirk was not one of them. 

He was the embodiment of how you teach conservative young men and women not to become alt-right extremists.
When challenged to fight by a grown man in front of 2,000 kids, Mr. Kirk said, “The only thing that is preventing us in this country from going to civil war is debate and dialogue… In fact, a mark of civilization is that we don’t have to go to blows and bullets, that we can have discourse and debate… We are going to remain peaceful.”
Again and again this week, I have been told:
Charlie was part of the problem. 
He was a peddler of hate.
He said some horrendous things.
Do you really want to defend him?
That is not a good hill for you to die on.
Is it?
For a man I never met?
For a thinker I considered to be, on many topics, a beneficial adversary?
For the principles he evinced — debate not fists, discussion not bullets, gratitude not grievance, love not hate?
Yes.
It is.
This is a hill for us to die on.
Just like he did.
* * *
Gregg Hurwitz is the New York Times #1 internationally bestselling author of 26 thrillers including the Orphan X series. His novels have won numerous literary awards and have been published in 33 languages. Gregg currently serves as the Co-President of International Thriller Writers (ITW). Additionally, he’s written screenplays and television scripts for many of the major studios and networks, and is an award-winning documentary producer. Gregg also wrote comics for AWA (including the critically acclaimed anthology NewThink), DC, and Marvel, and poetry. Currently, Gregg is working against polarization in politics and culture. To that end, he&#8217;s penned dozens of Op/Eds and pieces for The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Bulwark, Salon, and others, and pieces of creative content which have won numerous industry awards and achieved several hundred million views on digital TV platforms. He also helped write the opening ceremony of the 2022 World Cup.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Digital silhouette iot technology pixel glitch man

‘Do You Really Want To Defend Him?’ Algorithms, Outrage, And The Death Of Charlie Kirk

algorithm

assassination

Charlie Kirk

Conservatism

Democrats

Racism

Monopolies have been rigging the system for decades. They cozy up to Washington, throw cash around, hire armies of lobbyists, and manipulate rules so that everyday Americans always lose.
Thankfully, President Trump isn’t playing by their rules. He’s standing up for Main Street, not corporate boardrooms.
We first saw this with Big Tech. Mark Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/technology/mark-zuckerberg-trump-meta-antitrust.html">thought</a> he could cut a favorable deal to get Facebook off the hook, possibly even counting on Trump to back him. Instead, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/facebook-privacy-practices-focus-8-billion-trial-targeting-zuckerberg-2025-07-16/">allowed</a> the case to go to trial, and Zuckerberg found himself sweating it out on the witness stand. 
Google attempted a similar stunt, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/21/google-argues-doj-breakup-could-hurt-us-economy-in-battle-with-china.html">claiming</a> national security would be at risk if it faced a breakup. Trump’s DOJ wasn’t buying it. 
 
“You know what is dangerous?” Antitrust chief Gail Slater <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/04/30/business/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-testifies-extraordinary-doj-remedies-would-cause-many-unintended-consequences/">asked</a> outside the courthouse. “The threat Google presents to our freedom of speech, to our freedom of thought, to free American digital markets.” That case has now <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2025/08/20/google-will-soon-learn-its-fate-as-judge-prepares-to-reveal-antitrust-remedies/">reached</a> the remedies stage, and for the first time since AT&amp;T in the 1980s, we could see a Big Tech monopoly actually broken apart. That’s how monopolies should be treated.
Now Ticketmaster is running the same playbook. 
Controlling <a href="https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/did-ticketmasters-market-dominance-fuel-the-chaos-for-swifties">80% of the market</a>, the ticket marketplace is infamous for outrageous fees and predatory practices, such as charging junk fees and allowing scalping bots to buy up most of its inventory, leaving regular fans at the mercy of price gougers. Yet now the monopoly wants Trump to think it’s the solution, not the problem. 
Ticketmaster’s owner, Live Nation, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5311464-ric-grenell-live-nation-board-trump-doj-ticketmaster-antitrust/">added</a> a MAGA-friendly face to its board and is now floating “reform” ideas, like capping resale prices. Such caps would <a href="https://www.whiskeyriff.com/2025/07/09/live-nation-asks-the-trump-administration-to-cap-ticket-resale-prices-which-would-conveniently-put-their-competition-out-of-business/">bankrupt</a> almost all of Ticketmaster’s rivals, leaving the company even more dominant while pretending to “fix” the market.
It’s a double scam: they make the mess, then turn around and sell the “solution” as regulation.
It’s like an arsonist showing up with a bucket of water after lighting the fire.
Fortunately, the Trump administration is not paying any attention to Ticketmaster’s desperate attempt to protect itself from the White House’s wrath. It is already <a href="https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2025/03/14/329490.htm">continuing</a> the antitrust suit against Ticketmaster, and a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-will-end-price-gouging-by-middlemen-in-the-entertainment-industry/">ticketing reform plan</a> set to drop in September could put the company’s “business as usual” to an end.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Big Tech and Ticketmaster aren’t alone.
In June, the Trump administration hit Mexican bank CIBanco with the <a href="https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/07/fincen-new-authority-targeting-mexico-based-financial-institutions-cartel/">toughest sanctions possible</a>, accusing it of aiding the fentanyl trade. A few weeks later, CIBanco — never before a client of Washington lobbyists — <a href="https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/ab337cdd-495b-4498-a1f9-4f3b0ec83631/print/">hired</a> the MAGA-connected Rubin, Turnbull &amp; Associates. The sanctions haven’t moved, and Trump has stood firm.
Amazon has also tried its usual political maneuvering on the president. When Trump won the White House, executives <a href="https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/b22dc7d6-7900-40e4-9f3f-985bbbb32579/print/">hired</a> Brian Ballard — Trump’s former lawyer and Florida finance director — to lobby on Amazon’s behalf. They even contributed <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/286/201704180300150286/201704180300150286.pdf">over $50,000</a> to the president’s inauguration. Did it work? No. Trump didn’t blink, and Amazon lost its effort to dodge federal antitrust charges.
Hardworking Americans are tired of being taken advantage of. Insider games, where a board seat or a lobbyist equals immunity, have gone on for too long. Trump sees it, and he’s the one president actually saying “No” loud enough for all of us to hear.
Trump is different from most politicians. He doesn’t feel he owes these corporations anything, and he isn’t inclined to give them a free pass. His administration is pushing back against any monopoly that harms consumers or breaks the law.
The bottom line? Corporate America needs to clean up its act or face the consequences. Because the Trump administration isn’t standing up for special interests, it’s standing up for everyday Americans like you and me.
* * *
Haley Kennington (@LadyKennington) is an investigative journalist and conservative commentator. She served as the Research Director &amp; Story Editor for The Daily Wire’s “2020:The Plot Against the President” and the Research/Archive Editor for “What Is a Woman?“
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

In Trump’s White House, It’s Main Street Over Monopolies

Big Pharma

Corporations

President Trump

Washington D.C.

Americans are deeply concerned over the prospect that advances in artificial intelligence could put swaths of the country out of work permanently, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The six-day poll, which concluded on Monday, showed 71% of respondents said they were concerned that AI will be &#8220;putting too many people out of work permanently.&#8221;
The new technology burst into the national conversation in late 2022 when OpenAI&#8217;s ChatGPT chatbot launched and became the fastest-growing application of all time, with tech heavyweights like Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Google owner Alphabet and Microsoft offering their own AI products.
While at present there are few signs of mass unemployment &#8211; the U.S. jobless rate was just 4.2% in July &#8211; artificial intelligence is stirring concerns as it reshapes jobs, industries and day-to-day life.
Some 77% of respondents to the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they worried the technology could be used to stir up political chaos, a sign of unease over the now-common use of AI technology to create realistic videos of imaginary events.
Americans are also leery about military applications for AI, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed. Some 48% of respondents said the government should never use AI to determine the target of a military strike, compared with 24% who said the government should allow that sort of use of the technology. Another 28% said they were not sure.
The general enthusiasm for AI shown by many people and companies has fueled further investments, such as Foxconn and SoftBank&#8217;s planned data center equipment factory in Ohio. It has also upended national security policies as the United States and China vie for AI dominance.
More than half of Americans &#8211; some 61% &#8211; said they were concerned about the amount of electricity needed to power the fast-growing technology.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">End of Summer Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Google said earlier this month it had signed agreements with two U.S. electric utilities to reduce its AI data center power consumption during times of surging demand on the grid, as energy-intensive AI use outpaces power supplies.
The new technology has also come under criticism for applications that have let AI bots hold romantic conversations with children, generate false medical information and help people make racist arguments.
Two-thirds of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they worried that people would ditch relationships with other people in favor of AI companions.
People were split on whether AI technology will improve education. Some 36% of respondents thought it would help, while 40% disagreed and the rest were not sure.
The Reuters/Ipsos survey gathered responses online from 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.

Artificial Intelligence Photo Illustrations

Staggering Number Of Americans Fear AI Will Permanently Displace Workers

Technology

U.S.

Unemployment

YouTube is testing a new system for their United States-based users which would use artificial intelligence (AI) to determine a user’s age and set up restrictions accordingly.
This “age estimation model” was rolled out to a “small set of users” on Wednesday, per reports, and is aimed at protecting children from harmful content. The company said the AI will not rely on the birth date entered on the account, but will use other methods to determine the user’s age, per <a href="https://apnews.com/article/youtube-video-age-verification-system-1ce99a7089b33e88dc76e49945ded186">Associated Press</a>.
YouTube noted that users will have an option to override that estimation if they believe it’s made an error, and people will “have the option to verify your age (through government ID, selfie or a credit card) if you believe our age estimation model is incorrect.”
The system only works for users who are logged in.
James Beser, senior director of product management for YouTube’s youth products, wrote in a <a href="https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/extending-our-built-in-protections-to-more-teens-on-youtube/">blog post</a> that the move was made “so that teens are treated as teens and adults as adults.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">End of Summer Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“This technology will allow us to infer a user’s age and then use that signal, regardless of the birthday in the account, to deliver our age-appropriate product experiences and protection,” Beser wrote, noting that this method has already been used in other countries “for some time” and is working well.
Protections put in place would be similar to when a user inputs a birthday showing them to be minor.
This includes showing only non-personalized ads, enabling “digital wellbeing” tools such as “take a break” and bedtime reminders by default, showing reminders about privacy when uploading a video or commenting publicly, minimizing recommendations of videos with content that could be “problematic if viewed in repetition,” and blocking access to age-restricted video explicitly not recommended for minors.

YouTube Will Test AI-Based Age Verification, Automatically Restrict Content For Minors

Entertainment

minors

Imagine leaving your front door unlocked with a note that reads, “Back in 15. Please don’t steal the silverware.” That, in essence, is what the United States government — yes, including the Pentagon — may have unwittingly done through its long-standing relationship with Microsoft and the tech giant’s disturbingly lax attitude toward cybersecurity oversight.
Microsoft’s China-linked engineers should be setting off DEFCON-level alarms in Washington. Instead, we’ve mostly gotten silence, shrugs, and vague murmurs. According <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-tech-support-government-cybersecurity-china-doj-treasury">to reports</a>, Microsoft gave foreign nationals access to parts of the software that power critical U.S. military infrastructure.
You read that right. Engineers based in China, working for a U.S. tech behemoth under no formal federal contract, had proximity to the digital equivalent of the Pentagon’s control room.
Even worse? Microsoft allegedly failed to tell the Pentagon about it.
This is no small &#8220;oopsie.&#8221; We’re talking about a company that provides essential software infrastructure to every arm of the U.S. government — military included — quietly hiring engineers from a geopolitical rival with a track record of industrial espionage, cyber warfare, and digital sabotage. If you think China wouldn’t exploit this access, you haven’t been paying attention.
Microsoft has since responded to the report from <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/defense-department-pentagon-microsoft-digital-escort-china">ProPublica</a> that exposed the issue. “In response to concerns raised earlier this week about US-supervised foreign engineers, Microsoft has made changes to our support for US Government customers to assure that no China-based engineering teams are providing technical assistance for DoD Government cloud and related services,” stated Frank Shaw, Microsoft’s chief communications officer.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), however, is now asking some <a href="https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-cotton-to-hegseth-current-dod-agreements-and-practices-fail-to-account-for-threat-of-china">very pointed</a> questions, and rightly so. Why was this program not disclosed? Why were Chinese nationals permitted to work on products used by the Department of Defense? And who, exactly, at Microsoft thought this was a good idea?
<div id="attachment_954433" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-954433" class="size-large wp-image-954433" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2193887719-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 14: U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) questions U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during his Senate Armed Services confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on January 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. Hegseth, an Army veteran and the former host of “FOX &amp; Friends Weekend” on FOX News will be the first of the incoming Trump administration’s nominees to face questions from Senators. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2193887719-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2193887719-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2193887719-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2193887719.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</div>
The problem isn&#8217;t just Microsoft&#8217;s apparent blind spot for national security. The deeper issue is how cavalier we&#8217;ve become with <a href="https://www.spyhunter.com/shm/why-is-endpoint-protection-important/">endpoint protection </a>— that last line of defense between a secure network and total compromise. Whether it&#8217;s a government agency or a private company, relying on outdated firewalls and blind trust in tech titans is like wearing a screen door for armor.
This is the same Microsoft, mind you, that in just the last year alone has racked up a staggering number of <a href="https://www.enigmasoftware.com/cve202553770zerodayvulnerability-removal/">Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs)</a>. These aren’t minor bugs; these are gaping holes in the digital fabric — many of which can be exploited with a single click. One CVE alone allowed hackers to access Outlook inboxes without requiring the user to even open an email. Just receiving it was enough. That’s not an email; that’s a digital landmine.
Add in the explosion of <a href="https://www.spywareremove.com/remove-fake-virus.html">tech support scams</a>, the thousands of reported of <a href="https://www.enigmasoftware.com/verificationfailedemailscam-removal/">phishing schemes</a>, and malware attacks that install silently with a <a href="https://www.cyclonis.com/remove-oneclik-malware/">single mistimed click</a>, and we’ve got ourselves a cyber hygiene crisis. Criminals and state-backed hackers alike have figured out that Americans are highly advanced at building systems, but dangerously naive at guarding them.
Want another cherry on this data breach sundae? Microsoft’s move to hire foreign engineers coincided with its transition to a &#8220;cloud-first&#8221; infrastructure. Translation: the very people with questionable loyalties were potentially helping build and maintain systems that store terabytes of sensitive U.S. government data — offsite, off-premises, and off the radar of traditional defense monitoring.
Here’s a scary thought: if you were a Chinese intelligence officer dreaming of getting into Pentagon systems, would you rather recruit a spy, build a malware strain, or just… get hired by Microsoft?
You can’t blame China for trying. The blame lies with Microsoft for leaving the vault open and pretending it’s a broom closet.
The solution isn’t to boycott Microsoft (though the pressure to modernize and secure their systems needs to be immediate and non-negotiable). The real fix lies in overhauling our government’s relationship with Big Tech. We need rigorous vetting of foreign hires working on national security products. We need independent audits of source code, vulnerability testing, and real-time threat modeling. And we absolutely need to build up our domestic cybersecurity talent pool so that we’re not outsourcing our digital sovereignty to countries with conflicting interests.
Most importantly, endpoint security must become as ubiquitous in government as badge scanners and background checks. Every workstation, laptop, mobile device, and cloud node must be locked down with zero-trust architecture, real-time behavioral analytics, and automatic quarantine capabilities. Anything less is an open invitation to espionage.
This isn’t just a Microsoft problem or a Pentagon problem. It’s an American problem. We’re letting convenience and tech monopolies override prudence and national defense. The same way we wouldn’t allow a Chinese company to handle nuclear launch codes, we shouldn’t let their engineers code the operating systems that support those platforms.
Let’s not forget: the Chinese Communist Party plays a long game. They don’t need to hack into Fort Knox if we’re leaving the digital vault open with a &#8220;Welcome&#8221; sign in Mandarin. And Microsoft, by cozying up to foreign nationals while serving American defense clients, has done exactly that.
President Trump built his first administration on the promise of draining the swamp and putting America First. That promise must now extend to cybersecurity. Our digital borders are every bit as vital as our physical ones. It’s time to hold tech giants accountable and ensure our software backbone isn’t quietly being rewritten by our adversaries.
Because when the dragon’s inside the network, it’s already too late to “build” a firewall.
* * *
Julio Rivera is a business and political strategist, cybersecurity researcher, founder of <a href="https://www.itfunk.org/">ItFunk.Org</a>, and a political commentator and columnist. His writing, which is focused on cybersecurity and politics, is regularly published by many of the largest news organizations in the world.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Microsoft  Zizhu Campus In Shanghai

Why Microsoft Must Be Held Responsible For Its Pentagon Security Breach

Cybersecurity

Espionage

Microsoft

Pentagon

Tom Cotton

President Donald Trump is slated to meet with tech and energy executives in Pittsburgh on Tuesday, shortly after Google announced a major investment in American energy.
Executives from Google&#8217;s parent company Alphabet, along with officials from Meta, Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, and other companies, will gather at the Energy and Innovation Summit at Carnegie Mellon University, where Trump is expected to join them for discussions on making the United States the world leader in artificial intelligence, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/trump-joins-tech-energy-executives-amid-ai-push-2025-07-15/">reported</a>. Trump is also expected to announce $90 billion worth of AI and energy investments in Pennsylvania in what Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) is calling &#8220;the next industrial revolution.&#8221;
&#8220;We are really creating something unique here in Pennsylvania today,&#8221; McCormick told CNBC. &#8220;There&#8217;s never been a gathering of the CEOs of energy investing and artificial intelligence coming together to talk about how we win the energy revolution and also [how] we win the AI revolution.&#8221;
&#8220;Today, we&#8217;ve got about 60 CEOs of the biggest companies in the world, we&#8217;ve got commitments of more than $90 billion of investment in data centers, in energy production, in transmission, in distribution, and investing in skilled workers,&#8221; he added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
PA is uniquely positioned to lead— we have abundant energy, an incredible skilled workforce, remarkable technologists and technology, and under President <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>, we have the right leadership to move forward.
Today, we’re securing over $90 billion of investment in PA. <a href="https://t.co/bWn1bxNEvj">pic.twitter.com/bWn1bxNEvj</a>
— Senator Dave McCormick (@SenMcCormickPA) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenMcCormickPA/status/1945110846390063180?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Google announced on Tuesday that it would invest $25 billion in data centers and AI infrastructure in multiple states. The big tech company also announced that it would invest $3 billion in updating two hydropower plants in Pennsylvania to support its growing AI infrastructure, CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/15/google-to-invest-25-billion-in-data-centers-ai-infrastructure-in-pjm.html">reported</a>. Asset management firm Blackstone also announced a $25 billion investment in energy infrastructure in Pennsylvania. The investments come as PJM Interconnection, the largest power grid in the United States, is struggling to keep up with the massive demand from new data centers.
As companies and the government seek a solution to the issue, the Trump administration is considering an executive order to help big tech companies more easily connect to power grids and secure land for their massive AI projects, according to Reuters.
Trump&#8217;s meeting with tech and energy executives also comes as the White House is making progress toward its goal of reducing dependence on China for rare earth minerals, another major economic and national security concern for the administration. Apple <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/apple-agrees-to-500m-deal-to-buy-rare-earths-from-american-company-reduce-china-dependence">announced</a> on Tuesday that it agreed to a $500 million deal with MP Materials to purchase rare earth magnets used in iPhones and other products from the American company.

Trump To Meet With Tech And Energy Giants After Google Announces Huge Investment In U.S.

Menu