A federal judge slapped down former special counsel Jack Smith from releasing a report on President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office in January 2021. 
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump, wrote in a Monday <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.779.0.pdf">ruling</a> that releasing the report would violate principles of fairness and justice. She said Smith undertook a “brazen” strategy by compiling the document even after she dismissed the classified document charges against Trump. 
Cannon wrote that releasing the report “would cause irreparable damage to former defendants from disclosure of non-public discovery material implicating still-contested grand jury and privilege concerns; and it would contravene basic notions of fairness and justice in the process, where no adjudication of guilt has been reached following initiation of criminal charges.”
Cannon <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-case">dismissed </a>the charges against Trump in July 2024, ruling that Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution&#8217;s Appointments Clause and that his office was not properly authorized. 
Despite her dismissal order, Cannon noted that Smith continued investigating Trump and compiling a report that was intended for release to congressional lawmakers.
Cannon wrote that, instead of seeking a stay or clarification of her order, Smith and his team “chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond.” 
“The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order,” she added.
Cannon said releasing the report would deny Trump and his co-defendants a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations. Smith, however, has <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-appointee-aileen-cannon-blocks-release-jack-smiths-report-classi-rcna260237">claimed</a> that he obtained “powerful evidence that showed Trump willfully retained highly classified documents” after leaving office in January 2021. 
Cannon wrote that the court &#8220;strains to find a situation in which a former special counsel has released a report after initiating criminal charges that did not result in a finding of guilt,&#8221; particularly where &#8220;the defendants contested the charges from the outset and still proclaim their innocence.&#8221;
Last month, Smith faced questions from lawmakers about his investigations into Trump. He also brought charges against Trump related to the January 6 Capitol riot, which were later dismissed after Trump&#8217;s election and before he returned to office in January 2025.

Former US Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee

Judge Rips Jack Smith’s ‘Brazen’ Attempt To Release Report On Trump Docs

classified documents

Courts

Donald Trump

Executive

federal judge

Jack Smith

Politics

President Donald Trump ripped into the Supreme Court again on Monday over its decision to strike down most of his “Liberation Day” tariffs, saying he would continue to use other tools to implement his economic agenda. 
“The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling,” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116119857222583140">wrote</a> on Truth Social. 
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 that Trump could not use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-scale tariffs on countries across the globe. On Saturday, Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-hikes-his-new-tariffs-to-15-after-complete-review-of-scotus-decision?author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Up+Next&amp;rowType=Up+Next+Carousel&amp;title=Trump+Hikes+His+New+Tariffs+To+15%25+After+%E2%80%98Complete+Review%E2%80%99+Of+SCOTUS+Decision">signed</a> a global 15% tariff on all countries under the Trade Act of 1974. 
Trump suggested Monday that he would impose licensing requirements on foreign goods entering the United States. 
“For one thing, I can use Licenses to do absolutely ‘terrible’ things to foreign countries, especially those countries that have been RIPPING US OFF for many decades, but incomprehensibly, according to the ruling, can’t charge them a License fee — BUT ALL LICENSES CHARGE FEES, why can’t the United States do so? You do a license to get a fee! The opinion doesn’t explain that, but I know the answer!” Trump said. 
The president added that the Supreme Court should be “ashamed” of the tariff ruling, except for the three justices who dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kavanaugh-trump-has-other-legal-paths-to-keep-tariffs-in-place-despite-scotus-ruling?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Kavanaugh+Lays+Out+How+Trump+Could+Recreate+Tariffs+Through+Other+Laws">authored</a> the dissenting opinion, which was joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 
“Our incompetent supreme court (sic) did a great job for the wrong people, and for that they should be ashamed of themselves (but not the Great Three!),” Trump said. 
The president also suggested that the Supreme Court might next strike down his executive actions to prevent the children of illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary visas from receiving citizenship upon birth in the United States. Trump said that striking down his actions would benefit China. 
“This supreme court (sic) will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion, one that again will make China, and various other Nations, happy and rich,” Trump said. “Let our supreme court (sic) keep making decisions that are so bad and deleterious to the future of our Nation &#8211; I have a job to do.”

President Trump And The First Lady Host Governor’s Dinner In East Room Of White House

‘A Great Job For The Wrong People’: Trump Renews Attack On SCOTUS’s ‘Incompetent’ Tariff Ruling

Supreme Court

Tariffs

The Supreme Court delivered a long-awaited decision on Friday, striking down President Trump’s sweeping International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. But while the court ruled on the legality of the tariffs themselves, it did not address whether the United States must refund more than $200 billion in revenue already collected.
“The court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds,” dissenting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote. “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury.”
Ruling only on the narrow legal question before them, the court did not establish a framework for refunds. Such a framework will likely be established by lower courts, particularly the United States Court of International Trade, which ruled against Trump’s tariff decision.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, President Trump said, “They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars … wouldn’t you think they’d put one sentence in there saying keep the money or don’t keep the money?”
If refunds are ultimately required, the United States Treasury would be tasked with reimbursing importers for the levies they incurred — a process Kavanaugh deemed a “mess,” as refunds could be required to be issued to foreign nations, consumers, and manufacturers depending on court outcomes.
The president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Maya MacGuineas, said that with the federal deficit in mind, the ruling was very bad news: &#8220;With today’s Supreme Court ruling affirming the illegality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the country will now be about $2 trillion deeper in the hole. With the national debt already the size of the entire U.S. economy and interest on the debt costing more than $1 trillion this year, this is very bad news. Congress should work quickly to fill that hole.&#8221;
She added, &#8220;We are in a dismal fiscal situation, and it just got worse.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the $200 billion in tariff revenue could be used to shrink the $2 trillion deficit and pay down the $36 trillion debt.
Beyond budgetary concerns, the ruling could impact Trump’s broader use of tariffs as a foreign policy tool during negotiations. In February, he threatened to impose tariffs on countries that do business with Iran, citing the country’s repression of protesters, support for proxy terrorist groups, and continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities. In May, the president warned China that tariffs would increase if the country continued not to ship rare earth minerals to the United States — materials used in products ranging from household appliances and automobiles to semiconductors for artificial intelligence chips.
In addition to bringing back jobs and supply chains to the United States, Trump argues he needs tariffs to address a national security concern: the hollowing out of the manufacturing base. In an executive order signed on Liberation Day, Trump explained that the inability to scale advanced manufacturing undermines “critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.”
At a White House press conference on Friday, the president confirmed he will continue issuing tariffs under authorities granted to him through Section 232, rather than relying on the broader emergency powers provided under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

President Trump Holds “Make America Wealthy Again Event” In White House Rose Garden

Tariffs Overturned: What Happens To The $200 Billion Already Collected?

Scott Bessent

World

X announced Friday that it is challenging a $140 million fine imposed by the European Commission under what critics call the bloc&#8217;s digital “censorship” law. 
The social media company was hit with a fine in December 2025 for alleged non-compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping speech-regulation law that allows authorities to penalize companies for failing to remove so-called misinformation or other content deemed illegal. X filed an appeal on Monday in the E.U.&#8217;s General Court, arguing it was denied due process and faced a biased enforcement process. 
“This EU Decision resulted from an incomplete and superficial investigation, grave procedural errors, a tortured interpretation of the obligations under the DSA, and systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process requirements suggesting prosecutorial bias,” X’s Global Government Affairs team <a href="https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/2024803983093629298">said</a>. “X remains committed to user safety and transparency while defending our users&#8217; access to the only global town square.”
X&#8217;s move marks the first legal challenge to the Digital Services Act, which critics say enables political censorship and punishment of disfavored viewpoints. The law allows the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies it claims are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation.
The act relies on non-governmental organizations that advise regulators on whether online content may be deemed illegal for violating E.U. standards. It places significant reporting and compliance burdens on tech companies. In certain cases, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions. 
The legal challenge is being supported by Alliance Defending Freedom International, which has spoken out extensively against the Digital Services Act. 
“X is where millions of people go to freely express their views. This is a crackdown on X by authorities who view a free speech platform as a serious threat to their total control of online narratives,” said Adina Portaru, a senior European counsel for ADF International. “By targeting X, they are targeting the free speech of individuals across the world who simply want to share ideas online free from censorship.”
Portaru said the legal challenge confronts what she described as the enormous power the European Commission wields to define the content moderation rules, launch investigations, and levy fines.
“If the Commission’s concentration of power goes unchallenged, it will further cement a highly problematic standard for speech control across the EU and beyond,” she said. 
In October, ADF International led a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime">letter</a> signed by more than 100 free speech advocates urging the European Commission to reconsider the law. In a November review, the commission claimed that the act was content-neutral. 
X owner Elon Musk called the fine against his company “bullsh*t” and, one day after it was issued, <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719">said</a> the European Union should be &#8220;abolished.&#8221;
Both the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have voiced opposition to the law.
“Look, Europe has to be very careful,” Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-has-to-be-very-careful-trump-issues-stern-warning-after-eu-fines-elon-musks-x">said</a> while commenting on the fine back in December. “They’re doing a lot of things. … Europe is going in some bad directions. It’s very bad for the people.”
Last week, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-would-give-american-victims-of-foreign-censorship-power-to-sue?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Bill+Would+Give+American+Victims+Of+Foreign+Censorship+Power+To+Sue">said</a> lawmakers are exploring legislation to protect American companies from penalties under foreign laws that regulate speech. The committee has released documents it says show the European Union pressured tech companies to create guidelines defining acceptable speech on topics ranging from mass migration to men competing in women’s sports.

SWITZERLAND-POLITICS-ECONOMY-DIPLOMACY

Elon Musk Escalates Fight With Europe Over ‘Speech Controls’

Censorship

Elon Musk

European Union

Free Speech

Mark Zuckerberg made his courtroom debut in a landmark social media addiction trial, <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/social-media-trial-latest-mark-zuckerberg-to-appear-before-jury-for-first-time-13508905">positioning</a> Meta’s defense around value, not vice. 
“You should try and create something useful … and if you do, people will naturally want to use it.” He added, “To me, the north star is ensuring we&#8217;re delivering value and people are having a positive experience. If that happens, people will spend more time with social media.” 
Zuckerberg appeared before the Los Angeles Superior Court to face claims that his platforms are engineered to foster addiction.
He compared time spent on social media to other forms of entertainment, like watching TV. “TV hasn’t got better over time but social media has quite a bit.” 

The plaintiff argued that it was not because social media had “got better over time,” but that its addictiveness is what drives users to the platform. 
When challenged by the plaintiff’s attorney on whether a reasonable company would take advantage of those who use its services, Zuckerberg responded that he thought a reasonable company should try to help its people use its services. He elaborated on that point, saying the company has “evolved over time to add a lot more controls” which led to account removals when the company found users who were under thirteen. 
Zuckerberg bolstered his argument by noting that less than 1% of Instagram&#8217;s revenue comes from teenagers, emphasizing the demographic has limited purchasing power and is therefore less attractive to advertisers.  He argued that, from a business perspective, attracting teenagers is not &#8220;meaningful in the short term.&#8221;
Zuckerberg’s Meta is just one of the defendants in the case. Google and Meta are just the remaining defendants after TikTok and Snapchat settled prior to the trial. 

Snapchat told the Daily Wire that it was “pleased” to have settled the case in “an amicable manner.” Youtube, owned by Google, argues that its platform operates differently from Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat so should not be included in the same litigation. YouTube told the Daily Wire that the allegations it faces are “simply not true.” 
The case before the California Supreme Court originated when a 19-year-old woman, referred to as K.G.M. in the trial, argued that social media platforms have knowingly designed their platforms to get younger users addicted. The defense argues that Meta makes its platforms addictive to “maximize young users’ time on their platforms to drive revenue.” 
A <a href="https://www.stompoutbullying.org/blog/teens-use-average-nine-hours-media-day-while-tweens-use-six-hours">report</a> released by Common Sense Media found that teenagers spent an average of nine hours on entertainment media per day, while children aged 8-12 spend an average of six hours a day, not including time spent using media for school. 
In the coming weeks, Meta’s defense could have an influence on future social-media platform regulation depending on the outcome of the trial. 
The courtroom did not allow cameras, and even outlined a ban on glasses that could capture scenes from instead the courtroom. When returning from recess, the Judge Carolyn Kuhl <a href="https://x.com/meghanncuniff/status/2024214400266326180">said</a> if anyone has used AI glasses with facial recognition to record jurors &#8220;you must delete it or you will be held in contempt of court.&#8221;

US-TECHNOLOGY-INTERNET-CHILD-EXPLOITATION

Zuckerberg Fires Back At ‘Addiction’ Claims — Says Facebook Just Can’t Help It

addiction

Social Media

A man who injured a Customs and Border Protection officer by hurling rocks through a car window during last summer&#8217;s violent anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles County pleaded guilty on Tuesday to assaulting a federal officer. 
Elpidio Reyna, 41, admitted to one count of assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon resulting in bodily injury. He was one of the dozens arrested after riots erupted after Immigration and Customs Enforcement began enforcement operations in the Los Angeles area. 
“This defendant could have easily killed a federal officer or innocent bystander,” <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/compton-man-pleads-guilty-assaulting-and-injuring-federal-officer-during-anti">said</a> First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “As he found out the hard way, violence against law enforcement is not constitutionally protected and will be met with swift justice. Those who engage in similar violence will be arrested, charged, and eventually convicted in a court of law.”
On June 7, 2025, Reyna joined a crowd throwing rocks and improvised explosives at federal officers operating near a Home Depot in Paramount, located about 11 miles north of Long Beach. 
“Protestors, including the defendant, began to throw rocks at the officers’ official vehicles, lit objects on fire, and impeded law enforcement activity. During this, defendant knowingly and intentionally lit objects on fire in the middle of the street and threw rocks at a convoy of law enforcement vehicles occupied by Customs and Border Protection Officers,” according to the plea agreement. 
One of the projectiles shattered a car window, cutting a Customs and Border Protection officer on the forehead. In <a href="https://x.com/USAttyEssayli/status/1932267820798353760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1932267820798353760%7Ctwgr%5E2a2f0cba6174f5a73c77e8c8924987e0ce6ce20b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Ffbi-identifies-man-caught-on-camera-hurling-rocks-at-feds-during-anti-ice-riot">video</a> released by the Justice Department, Reyna can be seen pelting law enforcement vehicles with rocks and chunks of concrete while wearing a motorcycle helmet. 
The FBI offered a $50,000 reward for Reyna after a special agent identified him through a review of TikTok videos. He was on the FBI&#8217;s most wanted list before <a href="https://x.com/USAttyEssayli/status/1948056678504767913">surrendering</a> at the U.S.-Mexico border on July 23. 
Reyna faces up to 20 years in prison when he is sentenced on August 7 by U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. He has remained in federal custody since July 2025. 
Dozens of arrests were made during the protests in June and July across the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas over federal immigration operations. The unrest prompted President Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property, setting off a prolonged legal battle with California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom over the troop deployment.

MixCollage-18-Feb-2026-07-15-AM-3747

Anti-ICE Rioter Who Hurled Rocks At Feds Now Facing Life-Changing Fallout

California

Customs and Border Protection (CPB)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Los Angeles

Los Angeles County

Riots

U.S.

Bayer said on Tuesday its Monsanto unit had reached an agreement worth as much as $7.25 billion to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits claiming that its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer.
The German company said the proposed nationwide settlement, filed on Tuesday in state court in St. Louis, Missouri, would establish a long-term claims program funded by capped annual payments over up to 21 years.
The company, which acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, is facing claims over Roundup from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts.
The plaintiffs say they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer after using the weedkiller, either at home or on the job.
Following the announcement, Bayer shares rose as much as 7.7% to reach their highest level since September 12, 2023. Frankfurt-listed Bayer shares were up 7.2% by 1839 GMT.
Bayer said it expects its provisions and litigation liabilities to rise from 7.8 billion euros ($9.24 billion) to 11.8 billion euros. It anticipates around 5 billion euros in litigation-related payouts in 2026, and now expects negative free cash flow for the year.
Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States. Bayer has said decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.
The deal covers the bulk of the lawsuits, but requires a judge&#8217;s approval and a minimum number of plaintiffs to opt in. It does not require Bayer to admit liability or wrongdoing and allows the company to back out if too many plaintiffs decline to participate.
It is also designed to head off future lawsuits, and allows people who can prove they have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and were exposed to Roundup prior to Tuesday to file claims to receive a portion of the settlement up to 21 years from now.
The agreement was negotiated with Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss and other law firms that would represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, if the court allows the deal to proceed.
Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said on a call with investors and reporters that he is confident the proposed class action settlement will resolve the vast majority of the claims, although he declined to say how many people currently support the deal.
Attorneys who negotiated on behalf of the plaintiffs said the deal represents the best path forward. Payouts will be determined by a tiered system that considers exposure, age at diagnosis and cancer type. Individuals could receive up to $198,000 or more, according to attorney Eric Holland.
The company said it had separately reached confidential settlements to resolve other Roundup cases with specific law firms, although the company would not name the firms or specify the amount of those deals.
Tuesday&#8217;s proposed settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in a case that Bayer argues will sharply limit its liability in the litigation.
The company said the Supreme Court case, scheduled for oral arguments at the end of April, remains essential to resolving the Roundup litigation.
Bayer is arguing that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. Bayer argued that federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label.
A favorable ruling would wipe out several large verdicts that remain on appeal and could also prevent future claims from individuals who choose to opt out of the nationwide settlement.
Bayer investors welcomed news of the proposed settlement but some, like Markus Manns, portfolio manager at Bayer shareholder Union Investment, cautioned it was &#8220;not yet the breakthrough that many investors had hoped for.&#8221;
&#8220;The settlement buys Bayer time, but without a win in the Supreme Court, a new wave of lawsuits could roll over Bayer in a few years,&#8221; Manns said.
The company had previously paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement then covering future cases.
It has had a mixed record with cases that have gone to trial. It prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but has been hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the U.S. state of Georgia in March.
The verdicts shattered both investor confidence and company hopes that the worst of the Roundup litigation was over, and put pressure on Bayer to find a comprehensive solution to the lawsuits.
(Reporting by Diana Jones and Kirsti Knolle; Additional reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Writing by Linda Pasquini and Friederike Heine; Editing by Alexander Smith, Alexia Garamfalvi and Jan Harvey)

Roundup

Bayer Proposes $7.25 Billion Plan To Settle Roundup Cancer Cases

Cancer

Lawsuit

Monsanto

NPR host and veteran podcaster David Greene has sued tech giant Google after he thought an AI voice in one of the company’s tools mimicked him nearly perfectly.
Greene’s lawsuit is one of the first in what is expected to quickly become a quagmire of legal actions and court rulings over the use of artificial intelligence and the extent of protections around copyright and ownership.
The host of NPR’s “Morning Edition” said he came across the AI tool, which involves two AI voices of a man and woman talking with each other, after a former coworker sent it to him. The coworker had wanted to know if Greene had given Google authorization to use his likeness because of the similarity. After the coworker’s note, Greene was bombarded with similar messages from friends and family asking him if he lent his likeness to Google for use in its AI tool.
“I was, like, completely freaked out,” Greene told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/15/david-greene-google-ai-podcast/">The Washington Post</a>, which first reported on the lawsuit. “It’s this eerie moment where you feel like you’re listening to yourself.”
Google told the Post that Greene’s likeness was not used for the tool, called NotebookLM.
“These allegations are baseless,” Google spokesman José Castañeda said. “The sound of the male voice in NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews is based on a paid professional actor Google hired.”
Guessing whom the NotebookLM voices most resemble has become somewhat of a niche parlor game online, with some people claiming that it most sounds like Greene. Others have suggested other names, such as former tech podcaster Leo Laporte. Others have suggested that the AI model most closely resembles the “Armchair Expert” podcast co-hosted by Dax Shepard and Monica Padman.
Some AI court cases have the potential for massive payouts. One of the most significant cases in law around AI was settled last year in Bartz v. Anthropic. Anthropic, an AI company, trained its model on thousands of illegally downloaded books pirated online. The company faced a class-action lawsuit from the creators of those works and, in August, <a href="https://copyrightalliance.org/participating-bartz-v-anthropic-settlement/">agreed</a> to pay out the largest copyright settlement ever: $1.5 billion.
After the Anthropic settlement, other court cases followed suit. Some resulted in partnerships such as in the case of Universal Music Group (UMG) and the AI music platform Udio. In a settlement that ended a series of copyright disputes, UMG and Udio <a href="https://www.universalmusic.com/universal-music-group-and-udio-announce-udios-first-strategic-agreements-for-new-licensed-ai-music-creation-platform/">announced</a> an agreement to collaborate “on an innovative, new commercial music creation, consumption and streaming experience.”

Google

Familiar Voice Sparks Legal Showdown Between NPR Host And Google

Artificial Intelligence

San Francisco residents are suing the city over a Reparations Fund established solely for black residents, two months after the fund’s initial creation sparked controversy.
One plaintiff, Richie Greenberg, said the fund is “dividing the city rather than trying to unite.”
“What we really need is to be focusing on how to uplift everybody rather than focusing on one group giving everything to that one group,” Greenberg <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/san-francisco-residents-band-together-shut-down-reparations-fund-claiming-its-dividing-city">told</a> Fox News Digital.
The original bill, signed right before Christmas, established a dedicated reparations fund, creating a legal framework to address what the city deems to be historical systemic harms against its black community, The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/san-francisco-mayor-sparks-outrage-with-christmas-eve-signing-of-reparations-bill">reported</a>. It included a proposal that could eventually grant eligible residents lump-sum payments of $5 million.
“San Francisco is engaged in a sordid and unconstitutional enterprise — it is administering funding and wielding public authority to distribute government benefits explicitly based on race and ancestry,” the lawsuit says.
The plaintiffs argue San Francisco is violating the Constitution by distributing money on the basis of race, through the city’s Human Rights Commission.
“By directing an agency funded almost entirely by taxpayer dollars to administer funding solely dedicated to implement race-exclusive benefits, the City is using public money, public employees, and public authority to carry out an unconstitutional racial spoils system that allocates benefits and opportunities based on race and ancestry,” the lawsuit says.
The Californians for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER) is one of the plaintiffs in the case. Greenberg and fellow plaintiff Arthur Ritchie are members of CFER. In 2023, CFER sued San Francisco over allegedly racially discriminatory guaranteed income programs, The Daily Wire previously reported.
Additional benefits for eligible black residents include debt forgiveness for a variety of loans, exemption of property taxes, and priority status for employment opportunities, according to the lawsuit.
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said in December that the plan would not require taxpayer dollars, instead setting up a “structure” for future city or private funding. The city’s $1 billion budget deficit prevents immediate funding, but the plan signals a shift in city policy.
“We need to stop this because it is a tremendous, tremendous amount of funding that would, eventually, basically kill the city,” Greenberg said. “It would destroy the city of San Francisco, and it would set up an unworkable situation of who within the city gets preference as opposed to everyone else that would not.”

Close up on man’s hand holding twenty dollar bill, US currency, cash

Lawsuit Targets San Francisco Reparations Plan: ‘Unconstitutional Racial Spoils System’

Reparations

San Francisco

The Texas Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case surrounding a statute that could impact how gender medical malpractice lawsuits are handled across the country.
Detransitioner Soren Aldaco’s medical malpractice lawsuit was dismissed in November 2024 when a judge ruled her claims were filed outside of Texas’ two-year statute of limitations, nullifying her ability to seek damages for the harms caused by her sex-rejecting surgery.
When Aldaco’s appeal <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TaXEX_NtHw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reached</a> the Texas Supreme Court this week, her counsel argued the statute of limitations couldn’t begin until she was physically harmed by the surgeon&#8217;s knife.
“What was done to Miss Aldaco and many people like her is a medical scandal,” attorney John Ramer argued. “Kids and young adults suffering from severe psychological distress went looking for help, and what they found is medical providers saying that what&#8217;s going to liberate them from their distress is pumping them full of cross sex hormones and cutting off their body parts.”
Some Texas lawmakers have <a href="https://x.com/shelbyslawson/status/2019111108553084979" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposed legislation</a> that would <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00888I.pdf#navpanes=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">extend</a> the statute of limitations from two to ten years for those harmed by rejection interventions in their state. They say that Aldaco’s case highlights the need for reform.
“Cases like Soren’s are not the intent of these two-year statutes of limitations in the Texas Medical Liability Act,” Texas State Representative Shelby Slawson told The Daily Wire. “Those limitations are not meant to give safe harbor hideouts for medical professionals whose ideology causes egregious harm to Texas patients.”
The outcome of Aldaco’s case could reverberate across the country. The statute of limitations for medical malpractice <a href="https://www.rocketlawyer.com/family-and-personal/health-and-medical/personal-injury/legal-guide/medical-malpractice-statute-of-limitations-by-state" target="_blank" rel="noopener">varies</a> from state to state, with many limiting the timeframe in which a patient can sue between one and three years after the injury occurred. If the Texas Supreme Court rules in Aldaco’s favor, it could inspire detransitioners in other states to bring similar suits.
Attorneys for Aldaco say the court &#8220;clearly expressed concern&#8221; at what was done to her, and are hopeful that its ruling &#8220;will encourage courts in other states to ensure justice for their vulnerable citizens.&#8221;
&#8220;Soren&#8217;s case reaching the Texas Supreme Court highlights the fact that the treatment she was subjected to is unprecedented,&#8221; Daniel Sepulveda, a partner 
at Campbell Miller Payne told The Daily Wire. &#8220;During oral argument, the Court clearly expressed concern at the idea of vulnerable individuals like Soren not having a reasonable amount of time to sue after being subjected to such medical and mental health treatments. A ruling in her favor would benefit all Texans harmed in these ways, and could also encourage courts in other states to ensure justice for their vulnerable citizens.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-one-has-a-right-to-sterilize-a-child-two-detransitioners-sue-doctors-over-medical-interventions?author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=39&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=%E2%80%98No+One+Has+A+Right+To+Sterilize+A+Child%E2%80%99%3A+Two+Detransitioners+Sue+Doctors+Over+Medical+Interventions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Prisha Mosely,</a> who was given testosterone and underwent a sex rejecting double mastectomy as a teen, filed a lawsuit in <a href="https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/north-carolina-woman-files-lawsuit-in-wake-of-gender-transition-surgery-as-a-teen?redirectedfrom=cna" target="_blank" rel="noopener">July 2023</a> against her gender affirming healthcare providers that was initially <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/2025/08/14/detransitioner-prisha-mosley-fights-to-revive-medical-malpractice-claim-in-lawsuit-poised-to-set-national-precedent/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dismissed</a> because it was filed outside of North Carolina’s statute of limitations. In July 2025, the North Carolina General Assembly <a href="https://ncfamily.org/nc-general-assembly-overrides-governors-veto-of-hb-805/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB 805,</a> which extended the statute of limitations for sex-rejecting interventions to 10 years, allowing Mosely to <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/north_carolina/article_9097012b-b600-477b-b64c-3b1537846b44.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refile</a> her lawsuit.
Texas State Representative Brent Money told The Daily Wire that in cases where there has been a “clear violation of the duty of care,” it is important that individuals, particularly children, can seek compensation through the court system.
“We also need to make sure that, in cases where there&#8217;s a clear violation of the duty of care, that the patient, who has been wronged, can be adequately compensated for that. Especially when the patient is a child,” Money told The Daily Wire.
Aldaco, a woman who struggled with gender confusion throughout her adolescence, underwent a double mastectomy at 19 that she later regretted, court <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/second-court-of-appeals/2024/02-24-00217-cv.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">documents show</a>. She sued her mental health providers, Barbara Rose Wood and Three Oaks Counseling Group, LLC, alleging they negligently wrote a surgical recommendation letter in February 2021 that allowed her to undergo the mastectomy in June 2021, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/second-court-of-appeals/2024/02-24-00217-cv.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">court documents</a> show.
Many insurance companies and surgeons require a timely <a href="https://www.templehealth.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/surgery-readiness-letter-guide-2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mental health assessment </a>and surgery recommendation <a href="https://transcare.ucsf.edu/surgery-referral-assessment-requirements" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> in order to move forward with sex-rejecting surgery.
In May 2023, Aldaco sent her former healthcare providers notice of her “health care liability claims,” weeks before the two-year anniversary of her surgery, believing she was within the statute of limitations. However, a judge agreed with the defendants, who argued the two-year period of liability began when the surgical recommendation letter was written in February 2021, and Aldaco missed her window to sue, court documents show.
Ramer told the court that while the mental healthcare was provided before surgery, Aldaco didn’t have cause of action — giving her grounds for her lawsuit — until she underwent surgery.
“The limitations period for a health care liability claim does not begin to run before the claimant is even injured,” Ramer told the court.
“There&#8217;s no such thing as a tort without an injury, and more specifically here, there&#8217;s no such thing as a negligence claim without an injury,” Ramer stated.
Opposing counsel argued the statute of limitations began in February 2021, when the surgery letter of recommendation was written, and acknowledged Aldaco’s mental health provider did not discuss her gender dysphoria before writing the surgery recommendation letter.
Ramer explained to the justices that the surgical recommendation letter was not equivalent to a simple medical referral but was critical to Aldaco accessing a double mastectomy.
“The letter was the gateway to the injury,” Ramer said. “The letter is what got her into–onto–the operating table for purposes of receiving this surgery because it was a required letter from the psychologist under the standards of gender affirming care that have to be followed.”
In 2021, <a href="https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/625048/1/2011_WPATH_Standards_of_Care_V7-%202011.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">guidance</a> from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health, whose recommendations underpin insurance and health policies worldwide, required patients to undergo a mental health assessment to determine if sex-rejecting was “medically necessary.”
The guidance stated mental health professionals and surgeons had a “shared responsibility” when deciding to move forward with irreversible sex-rejection surgeries.
A recent <a href="https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/health-policy/positions/2026-gender-surgery-children-adolescents.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">policy statement</a> published by the American Society of Plastics Surgeons recommending minors do not receive sex-rejection surgeries addressed the role of “shared responsibility” in the multidisciplinary care of gender confused children.
“Diagnostic assessment, psychosocial support, endocrine intervention, and surgery form a connected clinical pathway rather than a series of independent steps,” the policy reads.
The American Society of Plastics Surgeons warned surgeons they cannot “rely” on the assessments of other healthcare disciplines when deciding if an adolescent is an appropriate candidate for sex-rejecting surgery.
“Surgical interventions inherit the foundational uncertainties present earlier in the continuum of care,” the policy says. “In this context, plastic surgeons cannot rely on the presence of a prior medical intervention, referral, or letter of support as a proxy for surgical indication or adolescent readiness.”
&#8220;Wednesday&#8217;s hearing at the Supreme Court of Texas is understatedly important. Even though I believe my case falls within the state&#8217;s two-year statute of limitations — and hopefully SCOTX will agree — detrans Texans deserve better,” Aldaco told The Daily Wire.
Barbara Wood and Three Oaks Counseling did not immediately respond to The Daily Wire’s request for comment.

Doctor with LGBTQ pin

‘Safe Harbor Hideouts’ For Gender Surgeons Could Face Reckoning

detransitioner

Gender Transition

Texas

President Donald Trump on Thursday nominated White House attorney Kara Westercamp to the U.S. Court of International Trade, a position that carries a lifetime appointment if she is confirmed by the Senate.
&#8220;Kara is a very experienced Trade Lawyer, who spent over a decade working as an Attorney at the Department of Justice, and is now one of the incredible lawyers defending our historic and popular America First Agenda as an Associate Counsel at the White House,&#8221; Trump posted on Truth Social. “Kara knows the wisdom and courage required to protect the American people who have been ripped off by other countries for far too long. She will always put America first.” 
If confirmed, Westercamp will join a court that oversees disputes involving tariffs and trade policy, a key focus of Trump&#8217;s economic agenda.
Westercamp currently serves as associate counsel to the president. Before joining the White House, she worked in the Justice Department&#8217;s Civil Division, where she argued dozens of cases before the Court of International Trade. She previously practiced law at Jones Day. 
The Court of International Trade has played a central role in adjudicating challenges to the administration&#8217;s use of executive authority to impose broad tariffs. One such ruling is currently under review by the Supreme Court after the Trump administration appealed. 
After the court struck down portions of his tariff program last year, Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114593880455063168">questioned</a> the ruling on Truth Social.
&#8220;How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States?&#8221; Trump asked. &#8220;Is it purely a hatred of &#8216;TRUMP&#8217;? What other reason could it be?&#8221;
The court consists of nine judges and is based in New York. It oversees nationwide civil disputes involving trade laws, including challenges and duty assessments by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Across his two terms, Trump has appointed <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/apptsbypres.pdf">more than 270</a> federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices. By comparison, President Barack Obama appointed 334 judges during his eight years in office.

US-ECONOMY-SHIPPING

Trump Nominates Ally To Court Overseeing Key Tariff Cases

Former CNN host Don Lemon has hired a former federal prosecutor to defend him against charges related to the anti-ICE activist invasion of Cities Church last month.
Joseph Thompson not only served as a federal prosecutor, but Thompson previously worked out of the same prosecutor’s office in Minnesota that charged Lemon. Thompson will join Abbe Lowell, Lemon’s lead attorney, in the case to defend the independent journalist, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/us/joseph-thompson-don-lemon-minneapolis-protest.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share">The New York Times</a>.
Thompson recently left the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota. He resigned from the office last month in protest of the Trump administration’s immigration policy and crackdown on illegal aliens in Minneapolis.
Lemon filmed as protesters invaded Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 18. Prior to the event, Lemon joined the activists in a parking lot and appeared to intentionally keep details of the planned operation hidden from his audience as he talked to protesters.
During his livestream of the protesters&#8217; early gathering, Lemon “stepped away momentarily so his mic would not accidentally divulge certain portions of the planning session,” prosecutors <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/don-lemon-helped-protestors-keep-church-plans-under-wraps-blocked-congregants-from-leaving-indictment">said</a> in an indictment.
Lemon was arrested last month and charged with conspiracy to violate the right of religious freedom at a house of worship and violations of the FACE Act, which bans disruption of religious services.
During his livestream, Lemon defended the protesters as they stormed into Cities Church and disrupted the service to the extent that parishioners opted to leave rather than wait for order to be restored. The ex-CNN host claimed that the actions of the protesters who stormed church property to disrupt the service are protected under the Constitution.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that tells you what time you can protest. You can protest at any time. That’s the whole point of it, to disrupt, to make uncomfortable. And that’s what they’re doing,” Lemon <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-ice-activists-storm-minnesota-church-with-don-lemon-doj-launches-probe">said</a> during his livestream. “When you see how &#8230; uncomfortably and harsh people are being treated on the streets, you have to be willing to go into places and disrupt and make people uncomfortable. That is what this country is about.”
Lemon blamed the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis for the activist operation.
“This is the beginning of what’s going to happen here. When you violate people’s due process, when you pull people off the street, you start dragging them and hurting them and not abiding by the Constitution – when you start doing all of that, people get upset and angry,” Lemon said.
The protest was organized and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DToXsEEEVk2/">promoted</a> by the Racial Justice Network and Black Lives Matter Minnesota. Cities Church was targeted by the activists because, activist leader Nekima Levy-Armstrong claimed, one of its pastors works for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“They cannot pretend to be a house of God while harboring someone who is directing ICE agents to wreak havoc upon our community,” Levy-Armstrong told Lemon. “I am a reverend on top of being a lawyer and an activist, so I come here in the power of the almighty God for righteousness, truth, and justice.”
On Lemon’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ctuhv-cck">stream</a> of the protest, Levy-Armstrong led dozens of protesters into the church during services, crowding the aisle and chanting slogans such as “justice for Renee Good,” “hands up, don’t shoot,” and “ICE out of Minnesota.”

Don Lemon

Don Lemon Hires Ex-Fed Prosecutor As He Gears Up For Trial Over Anti-ICE Protest

Cities Church

Minnesota

Menu