Published June 2, 2025 10:00am EDT close 'CyberGuy' warns of cyberscams costing Americans billions a year Tech expert Kurt Knutsson joins "Fox & Friends" to warn of new cyberscams and give tips on how to avoid them. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Given the number of phishing scams we have all faced over the past decade, most of us have developed a basic skill to spot and avoid obvious phishing emails or SMS messages. Cybercriminals are aware of this, and they have evolved their tactics by shifting to more complex and convincing schemes designed to bypass skepticism and lure victims.Their goal remains the same: to trick you into handing over sensitive information, especially credit card data. One of the latest examples is the rise in subscription scam campaigns. Scammers are creating incredibly convincing websites selling everything from shoes and clothes to electronics, tricking people into signing up for monthly subscriptions and willingly providing their credit card information. Facebook is being used as the primary platform to promote these new and sophisticated scams. A woman shopping online (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)What you need to knowBitdefender researchers have uncovered a massive and highly coordinated subscription scam campaign involving more than 200 active websites designed to look like real online stores. These sites, often promoted through Facebook ads, sell everything from clothes and electronics to beauty products, but the real goal is to trick users into signing up for recurring payments, often without realizing it.One of the most common lures is the "mystery box" scam, where you are promised a surprise package at a bargain price. These offers are made to look fun and harmless, but behind the scenes you are giving away personal and credit card information while unknowingly agreeing to hidden subscription terms, often written in tiny fine print.The scam doesn’t stop there. Once you’re convinced and reach the checkout page, scammers often layer in a second scam, like loyalty cards or VIP memberships that further lock you into payments. It’s all designed to confuse you, overwhelm you with supposed perks and make the scam feel like a good deal.Researchers found that many of these websites share a single Cyprus address, possibly tied to offshore entities linked to the Paradise Papers. Despite being spread across different categories and brand names, the sites often use the same layouts, AI agents and payment structures, all pointing to a centralized fraud network.Scammers frequently rotate the brands they impersonate and have started moving beyond mystery boxes, now peddling low-quality products, counterfeit goods, fake investment schemes, dubious supplements and more. To avoid automatic detection, they employ several tactics. These include running multiple versions of an ad, with only one of which is actually malicious while the others display harmless product images, uploading ad images from platforms like Google Drive so they can be swapped out later and cropping visuals to alter recognizable patterns. Listing fake products (Bitdefender) (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)The scam is expandingWhat started with simple "mystery box" scams has grown into a sprawling, coordinated campaign. These scams now feature fake surveys, tiered "VIP" memberships and deceptive credit systems that make the purchase process intentionally confusing. Users are promised deep discounts or access to exclusive deals, but in reality they’re just being locked into recurring payments.Many of the scam websites trace back to the same physical address in Cyprus, pointing to what appears to be a centralized operation. Researchers also found links to entities mentioned in the Paradise Papers, suggesting these fraudsters are hiding behind offshore infrastructure.And it’s not just mystery boxes anymore. The same scam format is being used to sell low-quality goods, fake supplements and even bogus investment opportunities. With high-quality site design, aggressive advertising and increasingly sophisticated tactics, subscription scams are becoming the new face of online fraud. A person shopping online (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)10 proactive measures to take to protect your dataEven as scammers become more sophisticated, there are practical steps you can take right now to protect your personal and financial information from subscription fraud and other online threats. Here are ten proactive measures to help keep your data safe:1) Always read the fine print: One of the simplest yet most effective ways to protect yourself from subscription scams is to slow down and read the fine print, especially on checkout pages. Scammers often hide recurring payment terms in small or lightly colored text that’s easy to miss. What seems like a one-time purchase could actually sign you up for a biweekly or monthly charge. Taking just a moment to scan for hidden terms before hitting "Pay" can help you avoid weeks of silent billing.2) Avoid mystery box or VIP-style deals: These offers often prey on curiosity and the promise of surprise or luxury for a low fee. In reality, the "mystery" is the trap: you might receive nothing or a low-quality item while being unknowingly enrolled in a recurring subscription. Scammers use the illusion of exclusivity or urgency to pressure quick decisions.3) Don’t trust ads blindly on social media: Facebook, Instagram and other platforms are a hotbed for these scams, with criminals running paid ads that mimic well-known brands or influencers. These ads often link to professional-looking but fake storefronts. If you’re interested in a deal you see online, don’t click through immediately. Instead, look up the brand or offer in a separate tab and check if it exists outside social media.4) Investigate before you buy: Before purchasing from any unfamiliar site, take a few quick steps to verify its legitimacy. Search the brand's name alongside words like "scam" or "reviews" to see what others have experienced. Look up the company's physical address and check if it actually exists using tools like Google Maps. Make sure the website uses HTTPS, review the site's contact information and cross-check reviews on trusted third-party sites like the Better Business Bureau or Consumer Reports.5) Use strong antivirus software: Adding a strong antivirus program to your devices can provide an extra layer of defense against fraudulent websites and phishing attempts. Strong antivirus software warns you about suspicious links, blocks malicious ads and scans downloads for malware. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.6) Invest in personal data removal services: Scammers often rely on leaked or publicly available personal information to target victims with convincing subscription scams. Investing in a personal data removal service can help minimize your digital footprint by removing your information from data broker databases and reducing the chances of being targeted in future campaigns. Regularly monitoring and cleaning up your online presence makes it harder for fraudsters to exploit your data for financial gain. Check out my top picks for data removal services here.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.7) Be cautious with payment methods: Use secure payment options like credit cards, which often offer better fraud protection than wire transfers, gift cards or cryptocurrency.8) Limit personal information shared on social media: Scammers often gather details from public profiles to craft convincing scams. Review your privacy settings and only share necessary information.9) Use strong, unique passwords and enable multifactor authentication: Create strong, unique passwords for each of your online accounts, especially those tied to your finances or shopping. Enable multifactor authentication wherever possible, as this adds an extra layer of security and makes it harder for scammers to access your accounts, even if your password is compromised. Also, consider using a password manager to generate and store complex passwords. Get more details about my best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 here.10) Keep your devices and software updated: Regularly update your operating system, browsers and apps. Security updates often patch vulnerabilities that scammers exploit to gain access to your information or install malicious software.Kurt’s key takeawayWhile the rise of subscription scams and deceptive ads is concerning, it’s especially troubling that platforms like Facebook continue to allow these fraudulent ads to run unchecked. Facebook has repeatedly failed to adequately vet or prevent these malicious campaigns from reaching vulnerable individuals. The platform’s ad approval system should be more proactive in spotting and blocking ads promoting scams, particularly those that impersonate well-known brands or content creators. How do you feel about Facebook’s role in allowing scam ads to circulate? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Cosmology of Kyoto is a first-person horror exploration game where players navigate a deeply haunted yet surprisingly educational terrain. Originally released in 1993, Cosmology of Kyoto and its disturbing depictions of suffering have since become a cult classic. Roger Ebert, known hater, loved the game so much that he spent weeks playing it. Despite its acclaim, though, the game was a commercial failure and never got a sequel. At least, that’s what many people believed until now. In 2023, a game called TRIPITAKA 玄奘三蔵求法の旅 was listed on Yahoo Japan. The game was sold for $300 to an unknown party who, despite embarking on a bidding war that culminated in hundreds of dollars, didn’t really share anything publicly about it. The transaction was originally noticed by Mark Buckner, who brought it up in a discussion between fans about the original eerie Japanese game. Though diehard aficionados had a suspicion that the Cosmology developers had considered a follow-up, concrete evidence of it was scant. The only apparent mention of a sequel lied in the resumes of two Cosmology producers, Hiroshi Ōnishi and Mori Kōichi. Fans also spotted mention of it in an old website for a 1999 museum exhibition on the Silk Road. Though it was a work of fiction, Cosmology was rooted in the history of 10th century Japan and provided players with an in-game encyclopedia. It would make sense for a potential sequel to have enough an educational focus worthy of a museum exhibition. Despite these rumblings, it was unclear if the game had ever been published, or how far into production it got. Knowledge of the auction prompted video game academic Bruno de Figueiredo to track down the auction winner. The hope was that whoever bought it might share a copy of the game online. After all, up until this point, few knew what this game was and its mere existence lay in doubt. But if it did exist, then it was obviously significant from a historical perspective. Fans would be eager to play it. But getting collectors to share copies of rare games is tricky. If a game is widely accessible, then it’s no longer rare. Holding on to a copy ensures that it retains its aura as a prized possession. Hoarding also means that the value of a game won’t drop — in fact, it might rise. Not all collectors see their possessions as commodities, though. Holding on to a culturally significant game might be motivated by the desire to preserve it for future generations, which is relevant in instances where a copy of a game is still sealed. Uploading a game that you did not develop is also likely to be legally dubious. In this case, the owner declined to share the game in a form that others could play. The collector did however upload an hour’s worth of footage on YouTube. The game was called TRIPITAKA, and though it did not outright classify itself as a sequel, the art style, historical focus, and slightly unnerving vibe placed TRIPITAKA in a similar realm as Cosmology of Kyoto. Fans considered it a spiritual successor. Cosmology itself had been developed with the help of Japanese museums. For some, it was enough to get more of a game they loved. Even if they couldn’t personally control the gameplay, the TRIPITAKA video was lengthy enough to give a sense of what the experience would be like. Others were enraged: Couldn’t the collector see how important this game was? “I cannot understate just how disgusted I am that this piece of culture and art (that I am a huge fan of) isn’t being preserved and spread for the enjoyment of others,” one commenter on YouTube wrote. “Shame on you.” Undeterred by this roadblock, Bruno de Figueiredo continued his pursuit of TRIPITAKA. In 2025, his efforts bore fruit. On X, the expert on obscure Japanese games revealed that he had finally convinced the collector to share the game online after “years of appeals.” Figueiredo has since uploaded a playable ISO of the game online alongside a full three-hour playthrough of a game that had once been considered lost media. Figuerido did not respond to a request for comment. In a blog post, he emphasized the significance of this find by stating that “the importance of this footage could hardly be overstated.” He continued: I am delighted to have played a minor role in the unraveling of this thirty year old mystery, and can hardly contain my enthusiasm, as I now find myself equipped with sufficient information to produce a full post concerning a game about which I could not have written more than a sentence, just last year. Figuerido refers to TRIPITAKA as one of the rarest games ever made, and it’s true inasmuch as there appears to be only one known copy of it. Value and rarity are also fluid concepts that are ultimately determined by interested audiences. At the same time, TRIPITAKA’s fate and availability is shockingly ordinary when you consider how poorly the gaming industry preserves its own history. If the lack of care is evident with significant games that have arguable merit, it’s doubly true for average games. This is how a game with mixed reviews from twenty years ago suddenly starts commanding hundreds of dollars on resale sites; the scarcity happens because nobody felt a game was worth holding on to. “There are many extremely rare (and even lost) games for personal computers which, unlike consoles, don’t have any central control over who can publish a game, or what the minimum number of manufactured units needs to be,” says Frank Cifaldi, founder of the Video Game History foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving video games. Cifaldi notes that games in the 80s and 90s in particular, some of which were self-published and never got widespread circulation to begin with, are particularly prone to the type of obscurity that can lead to only a single copy of a game. “I would further suspect that there were many games and multimedia objects from Japan during this era that are just as rare, but we don’t hear about them because of their lack of historical significance in the West,” Cifaldi says. “I would bet good money that if you surveyed the collection at the Game Preservation Society in Japan, you’d come up with dozens of ‘only known copies’ of 1980s microcomputer games.”

Editor's take: I really want Doom: The Dark Ages to be good, and so far, the reviews look decent enough. However, other evidence, including declining player counts and online gab, paints a different picture. It also brings into question the sincerity of Bethesda's most recent social media post regarding the game's performance. Bethesda took time out of its busy schedule this week to take a victory lap over Doom: The Dark Ages, which has reached 3 million players since its May 15 release. The publisher claimed the game hit that milestone seven times faster than Doom Eternal, making it the most successful launch in id Software's history. We'll have to take its word for it, though – Bethesda offered no sales figures, and player counts are hard to verify since only Steam makes them public. Some have found Bethesda's claims dubious. Video Games Chronicle points out that Bethesda's assertion of The Dark Ages reaching 3 million players seven times faster than Doom Eternal contradicts known statistics. According to 2020 numbers from Superdata, Eternal took 10 days to reach that mark. Bethesda posted its self-congratulatory message on X five days after launch, meaning The Dark Ages met the goal twice as fast, not seven times. Although IGN gave the game a glowing 9/10 review, it expressed skepticism about the achievement. According to Steam data, Doom: The Dark Ages peaked at 31,470 concurrent players and has steadily declined since. Comparatively, Doom Eternal reached 104,891, and Doom (2016) hit 44,271 during similar timeframes. While concurrent Steam player counts don't reflect total player numbers, they offer a rough gauge of the game's momentum. While the newest installment in the franchise has earned solid marks – 86/100 from critics and 8.6/10 from users – forum chatter remains mixed, though it leans slightly positive. Redditor Westonsammy summed up the general consensus among his friends. "If you loved Eternal and its combat, you'll like Dark Ages but see it as a downgrade from Eternal in terms of gameplay," he wrote. "If you disliked Eternal and its combat, you'll love Dark Ages, and it'll be your favorite game in the trilogy." // Related Stories Many others found this a fair assessment, chiming in with views along the same lines, with difficulty (or lack thereof) being a common complaint. "In Eternal, I knew if I set it to nightmare, I was going to get a good challenge, whereas in TDA, I barely have to think on nightmare," Muddymess responded. "I could probably tweak the sliders to get a decent challenge, but that, to me, just feels cheap somehow [grammar edited for clarity]." Doomscrolling (pun intended) the same thread did not reveal much glowing praise, despite the original post – "Doom: The Dark Ages Is The 'Biggest Launch' In id Software History" – being a straightforward report on Bethesda's claim. Perhaps the tone was set by the first comment on the thread: "Love the game but I do feel it was a step backwards from eternal," Outside-Point8254 wrote. "It's really missing Mick Gordon music." Regardless of the contradictory nature of forum discussions versus reviews, the fact remains that it's hard to tell whether Bethesda is being genuine about the game's success or just blowing smoke to hype what could be the weakest id Software game in nearly a decade. Remember, in the age of software as a service/subscription, unique player numbers don't directly translate into sales figures. The Dark Ages was a day-one release on Game Pass, which likely gave it the boost it needed to surpass the 3 million player mark. With the game priced at $70, it makes sense that many who might have bought it – some even sight unseen – opted to play it for "free" through their existing Xbox subscriptions. Maybe we should wait until we have some sales figures to throw a party. Just sayin'.

At I/O 2025, nothing Google showed off felt new. Instead, we got a retread of the company's familiar obsession with its own AI prowess. For the better part of two hours, Google spent playing up products like AI Mode, generative AI apps like Jules and Flow, and a bewildering new $250 per month AI Ultra plan. During Tuesday's keynote, I thought a lot about my first visit to Mountain View in 2018. I/O 2018 was different. Between Digital Wellbeing for Android, an entirely redesigned Maps app and even Duplex, Google felt like a company that had its pulse on what people wanted from technology. In fact, later that same year, my co-worker Cherlynn Low penned a story titled How Google won software in 2018. "Companies don't often make features that are truly helpful, but in 2018, Google proved its software can change your life," she wrote at the time, referencing the Pixel 3's Call Screening and "magical" Night Sight features. What announcement from Google I/O 2025 comes even close to Night Sight, Google Photos, or, if you're being more generous to the company, Call Screening or Duplex? The only one that comes to my mind is the fact that Google is bringing live language translation to Google Meet. That's a feature that many will find useful, and Google spent all of approximately a minute talking about it. I'm sure there are people who are excited to use Jules to vibe code or Veo 3 to generate video clips, but are either of those products truly transformational? Some "AI filmmakers" may argue otherwise, but when's the last time you thought your life would be dramatically better if you could only get a computer to make you a silly, 30-second clip. By contrast, consider the impact Night Sight has had. With one feature, Google revolutionized phones by showing that software, with the help of AI, could overcome the physical limits of minuscule camera hardware. More importantly, Night Sight was a response to a real problem people had in the real world. It spurred companies like Samsung and Apple to catch up, and now any smartphone worth buying has serious low light capabilities. Night Sight changed the industry, for the better. The fact you have to pay $250 per month to use Veo 3 and Google's other frontier models as much as you want should tell everything you need to know about who the company thinks these tools are for: they're not for you and I. I/O is primarily an event for developers, but the past several I/O conferences have felt like Google flexing its AI muscles rather than using those muscles to do something useful. In the past, the company had a knack for contextualizing what it was showing off in a way that would resonate with the broader public. By 2018, machine learning was already at the forefront of nearly everything Google was doing, and, more so than any other big tech company at the time, Google was on the bleeding edge of that revolution. And yet the difference between now and then was that in 2018 it felt like much of Google's AI might was directed in the service of tools and features that would actually be useful to people. Since then, for Google, AI has gone from a means to an end to an end in and of itself, and we're all the worse for it. Even less dubious features like AI Mode offer questionable usefulness. Google debuted the chatbot earlier this year, and has since then has been making it available to more and more people. The problem with AI Mode is that it's designed to solve a problem of the company's own making. We all know the quality of Google Search results has declined dramatically over the last few years. Rather than fixing what's broken and making its system harder to game by SEO farms, Google tells us AI Mode represents the future of its search engine. The thing is, a chat bot is not a replacement for a proper search engine. I frequently use ChatGPT Search to research things I'm interested in. However, as great as it is to get a detailed and articulate response to a question, ChatGPT can and will often get things wrong. We're all familiar with the errors AI Overviews produced when Google first started rolling out the feature. AI Overviews might not be in the news anymore, but they're still prone to producing embarrassing mistakes. Just take a look at the screenshot my co-worker Kris Holt sent to me recently. Kris Holt for Engadget I don't think it's an accident I/O 2025 ended with a showcase of Android XR, a platform that sees the company revisiting a failed concept. Let's also not forget that Android, an operating system billions of people interact with every day, was relegated to a pre-taped livestream the week before. Right now, Google feels like it's a company eager to repeat the mistakes of Google Glass. Rather than trying to meet people where they need it, Google is creating products few are actually asking for. I don't know about you, but that doesn't make me excited for the company's future.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/googles-most-powerful-ai-tools-arent-for-us-134657007.html?src=rss

DOGE in court Trump admin tells Supreme Court: DOGE needs to do its work in secret DOJ complains of "sweeping, intrusive discovery" after DOGE refused FOIA requests. Jon Brodkin – May 21, 2025 5:08 pm | 73 A protest over DOGE's reductions to the federal workforce outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building on March 19, 2025 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images | Michael M. Santiago A protest over DOGE's reductions to the federal workforce outside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building on March 19, 2025 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images | Michael M. Santiago Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Department of Justice today asked the Supreme Court to block a ruling that requires DOGE to provide information about its government cost-cutting operations as part of court-ordered discovery. President Trump's Justice Department sought an immediate halt to orders issued by US District Court for the District of Columbia. US Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the Department of Government Efficiency is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as a presidential advisory body and not an official "agency." The district court "ordered USDS [US Doge Service] to submit to sweeping, intrusive discovery just to determine if USDS is subject to FOIA in the first place," Sauer wrote. "That order turns FOIA on its head, effectively giving respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies. And that order clearly violates the separation of powers, subjecting a presidential advisory body to intrusive discovery and threatening the confidentiality and candor of its advice, putatively to address a legal question that never should have necessitated discovery in this case at all." The nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed FOIA requests seeking information about DOGE and sued after DOGE officials refused to provide the requested records. US District Judge Christopher Cooper has so far sided with CREW. Cooper decided in March that "USDS is likely covered by FOIA and that the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records CREW seeks," ordering DOGE "to process CREW's request on an expedited timetable." Judge: DOGE is not just an advisor DOGE then asked the district court for a summary judgment in its favor, and CREW responded by filing a motion for expedited discovery "seeking information relevant to whether USDS wields substantial authority independent of the President and is therefore subject to FOIA." In an April 15 order, Cooper ruled that CREW is entitled to limited discovery into the question of whether DOGE is wielding authority sufficient to bring it within the purview of FOIA. Cooper hasn't yet ruled on the motion for summary judgment. "The structure of USDS and the scope of its authority are critical to determining whether the agency is 'wield[ing] substantial authority independently of the President,'" the judge wrote. "And the answers to those questions are unclear from the record." Trump's executive orders appear to support CREW's argument by suggesting "that USDS is exercising substantial independent authority," Cooper wrote. "As the Court already noted, the executive order establishing USDS 'to implement the President's DOGE Agenda' appears to give USDS the authority to carry out that agenda, 'not just to advise the President in doing so.'" Not satisfied with the outcome, the Trump administration tried to get Cooper's ruling overturned in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The appeals court ruled against DOGE last week. The appeals court temporarily stayed the district court order in April, but dissolved the stay on May 14 and denied the government's petition. "The government contends that the district court's order permitting narrow discovery impermissibly intrudes upon the President's constitutional prerogatives," the appeals court said. But "the discovery here is modest in scope and does not target the President or any close adviser personally. The government retains every conventional tool to raise privilege objections on the limited question-by-question basis foreseen here on a narrow and discrete ground." US argues for secrecy A three-judge panel at the appeals court was unswayed by the government's claim that this process is too burdensome. "Although the government protests that any such assertion of privilege would be burdensome, the only identified burdens are limited both by time and reach, covering as they do records within USDS's control generated since January 20," the ruling said. "It does not provide any specific details as to why accessing its own records or submitting to two depositions would pose an unbearable burden." Yesterday, the District Court set a discovery schedule requiring the government to produce all responsive documents within 14 days and complete depositions within 24 days. In its petition to the Supreme Court today, the Trump administration argued that DOGE's recommendations to the president should be kept secret: The district court's requirement that USDS turn over the substance of its recommendations—even when the recommendations were "purely advisory"—epitomizes the order's overbreadth and intrusiveness. The court's order compels USDS to identify every "federal agency contract, grant, lease or similar instrument that any DOGE employee or DOGE Team member recommended that federal agencies cancel or rescind," and every "federal agency employee or position that any DOGE employee or DOGE team member recommended" for termination or placement on administrative leave. Further, USDS must state "whether [each] recommendation was followed." It is difficult to imagine a more grievous intrusion and burden on a presidential advisory body. Providing recommendations is the core of what USDS does. Because USDS coordinates with agencies across the Executive Branch on an ongoing basis, that request requires USDS to review multitudes of discussions that USDS has had every day since the start of this Administration. And such information likely falls within the deliberative-process privilege almost by definition, as internal executive-branch recommendations are inherently "pre-decisional" and "deliberative." Lawsuit: “No meaningful transparency” into DOGE The US further said the discovery "is unnecessary to answer the legal question whether USDS qualifies as an 'agency' that is subject to FOIA," and is merely "a fishing expedition into USDS's advisory activities under the guise of determining whether USDS engages in non-advisory activities—an approach to discovery that would be improper in any circumstance." CREW, like others that have sued the government over DOGE's operations, says the entity exercises significant power without proper oversight and transparency. DOGE "has worked in the shadows—a cadre of largely unidentified actors, whose status as government employees is unclear, controlling major government functions with no oversight," CREW's lawsuit said. "USDS has provided no meaningful transparency into its operations or assurances that it is maintaining proper records of its unprecedented and legally dubious work." The Trump administration is fighting numerous DOGE-related lawsuits at multiple levels of the court system. Earlier this month, the administration asked the Supreme Court to restore DOGE's access to Social Security Administration records after losing on the issue in both a district court and appeals court. That request to the Supreme Court is pending. There was also a dispute over discovery when 14 states sued the federal government over Trump "delegat[ing] virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities." A federal judge ruled that the states could serve written discovery requests on Musk and DOGE, but the DC Circuit appeals court blocked the discovery order. In that case, appeals court judges said the lower-court judge should have ruled on a motion to dismiss before allowing discovery. Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon Brodkin Senior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 73 Comments

Influencer Haliey Welch, who rose to fame as the "Hawk Tuah" girl from a viral TikTok video last year, became the epicenter of a major controversy after launching a dubious cryptocurrency meme coin called $HAWK in December.The token hit the roof in mere hours, reaching a market cap of almost half a billion dollars, before plummeting back down and leaving investors hanging out to dry. The events cemented it as yet another classic pump-and-dump, a recurring fixture in the largely unregulated crypto world.In the months since, and following an investigation by the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Welch has attempted to repair her reputation, with some seriously mixed results.Now, in a new episode of her podcast "Talk Tuah," the influencer told the story of what had happened, claiming she had absolutely no idea of what was going on at the time, despite her name and brand being plastered all over the meme coin."I couldn’t tell you how crypto worked the day that coin launched," she said. "I had no idea. I don’t know. So that screwed me."Innocent bystander or not, the incident certainly highlights the dangers of investing in dubious meme coins — and how easy it is to get lured in by the promise of a get-rich-quick scheme, something even the president of the United States himself has demonstrated.In her latest podcast episode, Welch recalled how the FBI knocked on her grandmother's door, demanding to search her phone."They went through my phone, so they cleared me," she said. "I was good to go."She also surrendered her phone to the SEC for "two or three days," allowing them to "clone" it.Welch claimed she "wasn't named on the lawsuit," which was filed by investors in New York against the meme coin's creators, mere weeks following its launch.At the time, she wrote in a since-deleted statement that "I take this situation extremely seriously and want to address my fans, the investors who have been affected, and the broader community."For her part, Welch claimed in her podcast this week that she only "got paid a marketing fee" and never made a "dime from the coin itself."Apart from dodging a bullet by not getting roped into a lawsuit, Welch appeared apologetic."It makes me feel really bad that they trusted me, and I led them to something that I did not have enough knowledge about," she said. "I did not have enough knowledge about crypto to be getting involved with it. And I knew that, but I got talked into it, and I trusted the wrong people."The money she took for promoting the money has since gone to "PR crisis, a new lawyer, stuff like that," Welch said. "So I’ve really come out with nothing. All that trouble for nothing."While the class action lawsuit filed against $HAWK's creators is still ongoing, Welch's experience highlights the importance of reading the small print.In many ways, even a simple Google search for meme coins and the likelihood of things going south could've sufficed. "Rug pulls," as they've become known, have become dime a dozen, with fraudsters absconding with millions of dollars worth of crypto after selling investors on a lie."I don’t have anything to hide," Welch said in the footage. "I wish we knew then what we know now. It would've saved us a lot of trouble.""But it was a big mess," she admitted.Share This Article

Torrenting, or P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing, is a convenient way to download large files quickly. But it isn’t without its risks. Not only is there the risk of accidentally downloading a malicious file or malware, but there’s a privacy risk as well — your ISP can see all your online activity and they usually don’t take too kindly to torrenting. That’s why it’s imperative that you use a VPN while doing any torrenting or P2P file sharing. A VPN can keep your connection private and encrypt your data so that unwanted prying eyes — cybercriminals, overbearing ISPs, or nosy government watchdogs — can’t monitor your online activity. If you’re interested in using a VPN for something other than just torrenting you can check out my list of best VPNs for even more great options. NordVPN – Best VPN for torrenting overall Pros Tons of privacy and security features Outstanding speeds Included antivirus and password manager Cons Expensive Price When Reviewed: Dès 3,49 €/mois Best Prices Today: Retailer Price NordVPN €3.49 View Deal Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide Product Price Price comparison from Backmarket Who should use NordVPN? NordVPN is the perfect VPN for torrenting due to its fantastic security features, multi-hop connections, and independently verified no-logs policy. Plus, it comes with a built-in ad- and tracker-blocker as well as malware protection and a link checker — you know, for any of those dubious Linux torrenting sites you might run into. NordVPN also proved to be the fastest VPN on the market in my testing, so those large P2P files should download in no-time. It truly has everything you could want to make your torrenting faster, easier, and most importantly, safer. Even power users will find plenty of customizable options to get the most out of their experience. NordVPN: Further considerations NordVPN comes with broad device support and Windows and Android apps are easy to use. It also comes with handy features such as access to the TOR network over VPN, multi-hop connections, Meshnet file sharing network, and Nord’s latest password manager and link-checker safety tool. Additionally, NordVPN offers an extensive server network with locations all over the world. A monthly subscription might be a bit expensive, but if you opt for longer-term plans the price becomes a lot cheaper. Read our full NordVPN pour Mac review ExpressVPN – Best VPN for torrenting runner-up Pros Excellent speeds Well-designed interface Great security and privacy practices Cons More expensive than other VPNs Light on extra security features Price When Reviewed: Dès 7,94 €/mois Best Prices Today: Retailer Price ExpressVPN €7.94 View Deal Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide Product Price Price comparison from Backmarket Who should use ExpressVPN? ExpressVPN is a true all-arounder and a great option for everyone. I give it the runner-up spot here as NordVPN comes with a few more security features than ExpressVPN — when it comes to torrenting, the more security the better. However, ExpressVPN is still an excellent VPN choice for torrenting as it makes all of the right privacy promises and its speeds are very good. Also, ExpressVPN is officially based in the British Virgin Islands, meaning it isn’t subject to any domestic or international data sharing requirements. You can feel confident your ISP or other interested parties won’t uncover your P2P activity. ExpressVPN: Further considerations ExpressVPN also has a lot of other great qualities that make it worth your while, such as wide device support, smart DNS, and reliable unblocking capabilities. The service has even begun branching out to adopt a more holistic approach to security, adding ad- and tracker-blocking and, most recently, a password manager to the service, as well. It’s not the cheapest VPN out there, but you do get excellent value for your money, and the service is regularly bringing in third-party auditors to validate its privacy credentials. Read our full ExpressVPN review Proton VPN – Best free VPN for torrenting Pros Unrivaled free plan Great privacy tools Reliable and transparent no-logs policy Cons Premium plan is expensive Some minor unblocking issues Best Prices Today: Retailer Price Proton VPN $9.99 View Deal Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide Product Price Price comparison from Backmarket Who should use Proton VPN? Simply put, anyone who wants to torrent should use a VPN and anyone who doesn’t want to pay for a VPN should use ProtonVPN. It’s free and has no data limits. I call that a win-win. At no cost, you’ll get a one-device connection with no data or time limits. I repeat, no data or time limits. That’s absolutely unheard of from a major VPN provider and it means you can safely torrent to your heart’s content without worrying about your file sizes. Sure, the free version of ProtonVPN comes with access to only five servers, but when you’re torrenting, the server location shouldn’t matter anyways. Proton VPN: Further considerations ProtonVPN also has some of the fastest speeds around, both upstream and down, which is helpful when you want to spread the Open Office love as quickly as possible. The Swiss-based service has excellent privacy promises, and it has a bunch of servers in a friggin’ bunker too — looking at you, torrenting preppers. The monthly price for the premium version does come in at the expensive side though, so I would recommend trying out the free version first before you upgrade. Read our full ProtonVPN review Mullvad – Best for privacy Pros Good speeds Inexpensive monthly plan Unrivaled anonymity Cons Struggles with unblocking streaming services Smaller server network Lacks some extra features Who should use Mullvad? Mullvad is ultimately for the privacy-conscious user. Those who really demand ultimate anonymity when torrenting, or just using a VPN in general, will find that Mullvad takes active measures to ensure they never know who you are — meaning no other observer will know who you are either. All Mullvad servers are also capable of P2P transfers so you can just pick your favorite server and start torrenting. The Sweden-based company appreciates your business, but it’s not interested in finding out who you are. It goes well beyond the standards of most other VPN companies when it comes to protecting your anonymity. Instead of using an email and password combo, Mullvad randomly generates an account number that functions as your username and password. And you can even decide to mail in cash as a subscription payment if you don’t want your credit card on file. Mullvad: Further considerations While Mullvad focuses on privacy, it’s no slouch in other departments. It ranks in the top 10 for speeds, and comes with a convenient split-tunneling feature too. Plus, the service has a very inexpensive monthly subscription fee so it can be a great budget option as well. Read our full Mullvad review Private Internet Access – Best for customization Pros Multiple independently verified no-log audits Unlimited simultaneous device connections Vast server network Cons App is a little clunky Speeds are fairly pedestrian Best Prices Today: Retailer Price Private Internet Access $11.95 View Deal Price comparison from over 24,000 stores worldwide Product Price Price comparison from Backmarket Who should use Private Internet Access? PIA is best suited for those who like to tinker with their software. It provides so many customizable features that it can come across as a bit overwhelming to the uninitiated and those just looking for a set-it and forget-it option. But power users will find a plethora of tweakable options and settings to keep them happy through all of their torrenting endeavors. All servers are capable of P2P file transfers, and features like port forwarding mean your torrenting will be faster and more reliable. Private Internet Access: Further considerations Private Internet Access (PIA) is one of the most popular VPN providers and has seemingly been around forever. PIA not only comes with an insane amount of servers, but also great features such as multi-hop, an app-based kill switch, and split-tunneling. PIA also has a great record of transparency, regularly undergoing independent no-logs audits. It does lack some speed in comparison to other top picks here, but that shouldn’t translate to too much of a hit while torrenting. Read our full Private Internet Access review Other VPNs we liked While we believe that the above VPNs for torrenting are currently the most worthy of your hard-earned money, there are a few other noteworthy services that deserve attention: PrivadoVPN is a strong overall service, but the free version of the VPN really stands out and is second only to Proton VPN. Windscribe Pro offers great security, with both a Windows client and browser extension that work in tandem to block ads and its free version is a good option for everyday activities. Hide.me is a well-rounded service that ticks almost every box and the fantastic array of configurable settings make it a power-user’s dream. U.S.-based IPVanish nails all of the basics: good speeds, a large server network, and privacy promises backed up with independent audits. TunnelBear is an undeniably charming VPN that is extremely easy to use, and doesn’t overwhelm with too many features or country options, which makes it ideal for VPN novices or those who aren’t the most tech-savvy. I’m continuously evaluating new VPNs and reevaluating services I’ve already tested on a regular basis to find the best for torrenting, so be sure to come back for more recommendations and to see what else we’ve put through their P2P paces. Can I get a better VPN deal? Here at PCWorld, we are regularly hunting down the best VPN deals to help you get the most bang for your buck. VPN services are frequently running deals throughout the year, so you should have a few chances to snag your favorite torrenting VPN on a steep discount if you can time it right. While the prices for all VPNs on this list are updated daily, they do not account for special deals or offers. It’s best to keep checking our deals article to see what new limited-time discounts are on offer each week. Additionally, sales events such as Amazon Prime Day in mid-July and Black Friday at the end of November provide excellent opportunities to find even cheaper VPN deals. How we test VPNs We judge VPNs on a variety of criteria including server network, connection speeds, privacy protections, ease-of-use, additional features, and cost. For a more detailed guide on our evaluation process, check out PCWorld’s comprehensive guide on how we test VPN services. Speed tests are kept as simple as possible. We average the connections between different global locations for any given VPN and then compare them to our baseline internet speed to get a good picture of the overall connection speeds. We thoroughly research and analyze the privacy policies and histories of each VPN and note any outstanding discrepancies or data collection issues. Experience and ease-of-use are subjective, but we try our best to give an accurate representation of how it feels to work with the VPN. And finally, we compare the value of the service based upon its price and additional features to the industry average to help you gain an accurate picture of what you’ll get for your money. Why you should trust PCWorld for VPN reviews and buying advice Here at PCWorld we’ve been testing computer hardware, software, and services since the 1980s. As reviewers and users of PC hardware and software, we put every product through its paces using rigorous benchmarking and hands-on evaluation. We’d never recommend something we wouldn’t want for ourselves. Who curated this article? Sam Singleton is PCWorld’s VPN beat reporter and jack of all trades. When he’s not on the hunt for the best computer deals he’s covering VPNs, productivity software, laptops, and a wide gamut of consumer-grade hardware and software. How to choose the best VPN for torrenting One of the first things you should look for when shopping around for a VPN is the number of servers and locations. It’s difficult to judge any VPN by just one feature, but a semi-reliable way to tell if a VPN is even worth your time is to look at the server network. Anything with 1,000 or more servers and 30 or more country locations will do. Speed The next thing to consider is a VPN’s speed. This may be tricky to do since you aren’t likely to be able to test connection speeds without paying to use the service. Reading reviews online will give you a general estimate. Look for reviews, like ours, that give you a relative average of connection speeds rather than direct Mbps speed comparisons, for a more accurate picture. Privacy You’ll also want to read up on a VPN’s privacy protections. Does it have a no-logs policy? Has it undergone any independent audits of its servers? Where is the VPN company located? All of these will give you an idea of whether or not a VPN is transparent with its data collection policies and if it’s subject to government data sharing requirements. Price As with all subscription services, you’ll want to review the price of a VPN service. Do you want a monthly or yearly subscription? Some top VPNs might be pricey month-to-month, but actually become quite affordable with long-term plans. P2P In regards to torrenting, you absolutely want a VPN service provider that allows P2P file sharing on their network. Preferably P2P is allowed on all servers, but even some of the best VPNs only allow it on designated servers—check these P2P-optimized server locations first to make sure they are in convenient locations close to you to ensure the best speeds. Additional features Other factors you’ll want to take into consideration are the overall ease-of-use, user experience, and any additional features. Some of these features, such as split-tunneling and kill switches, can be extremely useful for certain purposes and might sway your subscription decision one way or the other. FAQ 1. What is the best VPN for torrenting? NordVPN is our pick for the best VPN for torrenting. Not only do all of its servers work with P2P, but it has the fastest speeds of any VPN on the market and a huge server network. There is currently no other VPN on the market that provides as much privacy and security for the value as NordVPN and that’s why it’s our top pick. 2. What is the best free VPN for torrenting? Proton VPN is our pick for best free VPN for torrenting. With the free version, you’ll get all of the same privacy and security benefits of the premium version, plus no monthly data limits and good speeds.  The only major drawback is that you’ll be limited to a few servers, but that won’t really matter for torrenting anyways. 3. What is a VPN? VPNs create a secure tunnel between your PC and the internet. When you connect to a VPN your web traffic is routed through the chosen VPN server to make it appear as though you’re browsing from that server’s location, and not from your actual location. The VPN app will also encrypt your data so that any third parties such as your ISP can’t see your specific online activities. A VPN can be a great response to a variety of concerns, such as online privacy, anonymity, greater security on public Wi-Fi, and, of course, spoofing locations. 4. Is torrenting through a VPN safe? Safety while torrenting comes down to two things: anonymity and protection from malware or other malicious files.  As far as anonymity goes, yes, you will be protected from any snooping outsiders or your own ISP’s restrictions on file torrenting by using a VPN. If you know and trust the the service you’re using, torrenting with a VPN should be completely safe from prying eyes. In regards to protection from malware and other malicious files, no. A VPN on its own will not protect you from accidentally downloading malicious files from P2P networks or torrent sites. For this, it is highly recommended that you use an antivirus program to help keep you safe. 5. Are VPNs legal to use? Yes, in most countries, including the United States, using a VPN is perfectly legal. Even though some websites might try to block VPN connections, they are still okay to use. Please note, while using a VPN is legal, some of the activities done while using a VPN might be illegal. Activities such as downloading pirated copyrighted content or accessing dark web markets are both illegal with or without a VPN. 6. Can you be tracked with a VPN? While VPNs certainly offer you better privacy and security, they don’t make you completely anonymous nor keep you from being tracked entirely. A VPN will keep your ISP from seeing your traffic, but there are a mind-boggling number of ways that other companies or sites track you across the internet. For example, when you sign into a website, your identity is still revealed to that website, VPN or not. Or when you log into your Gmail account while using a VPN, Google can now collect personalized cookies based on your browsing. 7. Yes, but with a caveat. When using your normal home internet connection, your ISP can see everything you’re doing online. By using a VPN, all of your traffic will be rerouted through the VPN’s private servers, meaning your ISP won’t be able to snoop on your activity while connected.  The VPN creates a private tunnel for your traffic and encrypts all of your data running through that tunnel. This makes it unreadable to outside entities and so adds an extra layer of security, especially while downloading torrent files. This will mask the contents of your downloads from your ISP, but will not hide the fact that you’re downloading something nor the size of the download. Still, a VPN is one of the best ways to keep your online activities private and hidden from outside parties.

In May 2015, prominent right-wing intellectual Charles Murray published a book calling on the superrich to fund an American rebellion against their government.Titled By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, the book argued that the growth of the regulatory state was worse than dangerous: It was an existential threat to the American way of life. For this reason, federal authority had become fundamentally illegitimate. The normal political process — most notably elections — was hopelessly compromised, to the point where no candidate promising to roll back the size of the state could hope to win.The best solution, in Murray’s eyes, was for wealthy donors to fund a legal defense designed to facilitate a mass campaign of civil disobedience against the regulatory state. This so-called Madison Fund would defend people accused of noncompliance in court and pay any assessed fines if they lose. With enough donations, the Madison Fund could ensure that nearly anyone could disobey regulations with impunity.By the People has largely been forgotten today. It was published one month before Donald Trump descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower, announcing a presidential bid that would alter the course of history. Trump’s rejection of old GOP orthodoxies, including its libertarian hostility to programs like Social Security, suggested that Murray’s anti-government radicalism might belong to an era of the past.But the events of the second Trump term, most notably DOGE’s lawless gutting of the federal government, suggest that the book deserves a second look. Its extreme hostility to the very idea of liberal governance, its skepticism of democracy, and its faith in the primacy of the wealthy over the law all prefigured the way that Trump and Elon Musk would assail key functions of government in 2025.Moreover, it helps us understand why mainstream conservatives — the sort who pledge unending fealty to the Constitution and the founders — have been so okay with all of this. It’s not only that people on the right fear crossing Trump; it’s also, in part, that they share his belief that the American government is no longer worthy of respect.For if the state has become too big to command legitimacy, to the point where ordinary citizens are justified in disobeying it, then why should anyone care if the duly elected government breaks laws in pursuit of shrinking itself?By the People, explainedCharles Murray has been a leading intellectual figure on the right for a very long time. Generally speaking, his work has focused on class and race inequality in the United States — and, more specifically, with the idea that welfare programs either do little to fix these problems or actually make them worse.His most (in)famous book, 1994’s The Bell Curve, argues that much of America’s class and racial stratification can be explained by gaps in IQ — suggesting, in one of its most provocative chapters, that white people have higher IQs than Black people due to their superior genes. The book made theorizing about genetic differences between the races acceptable among certain corners of the mainstream right, paving the way for scientific racism’s resurgence in the Trump era.By the People is, in some ways, a more ambitious book than The Bell Curve. Moving away from social policy, Murray strays into the realm of political theory — arguing not just that liberal policies have bad consequences, but that that they are fundamentally illegitimate uses of state power. The concept of “legitimacy,” generally speaking, refers to the principle used to assess whether a particular government is morally justified in exercising political power. In Murray’s view, the key principle is government non-interference in personal affairs. The modern regulatory state, and its involvement in life ranging from setting education policy to licensing barber shops, has become so corrosive of American liberty that it cannot be seen as legitimate.“It is part of our national catechism that government is instituted to protect our unalienable rights, and that when it becomes destructive of those rights, the reason for our allegiance is gone,” he writes. “At that point, revolution is not treason, but the people’s right.”Charles Murray speaking at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas. Gage Skidmore/Flickr Creative CommonsTo support this claim, he quotes a list of luminaries — ranging from Alexis de Tocqueville to Grover Cleveland — to argue that Americans have almost always believed in a state whose legitimacy is grounded in self-limitation.“The federal government lost its legitimacy in theory during the constitutional revolution of 1937-1942, lost its legitimacy in practice during the 1960s, and it has been downhill ever since,” he writes. “It is by that historical understanding that many of us who are devoted to limited government have thought of ourselves as living in a post-American country, governed by people who mouth the clichés about America as the land of the free without understanding what freedom means.”It may occur to you, at this point, that Murray has a democracy problem. Very few Americans actually agree with this libertarian vision of the American state, and they express that disagreement by electing non-libertarian politicians. In a democracy, the key principle of legitimacy is not libertarian theories of rights but rather popular sovereignty. It is the people, collectively, who decide on the limits of power — under conditions of free debate and exercised within constitutional constraints. If the people think the regulatory state is legitimate, why should Charles Murray and his libertarian friends get to ignore the laws that everyone else voted for?By the People offers two contradictory answers to this question. The first is that the people really have turned on the government, a big claim Murray supports with data showing a consistent decline in trust in government over the years. But this is measuring something different than basic legitimacy. Moreover, Murray once again has a democracy problem. If voters really were so furious about big government that they believed the entire state was illegitimate, then why aren’t radical anti-government politicians winning in landslides? To this, we have Murray’s second answer: that the people are bought off. They have become so dependent on government goodies that there is no hope for a return to pre-New Deal America.“The proportion of Americans who depend on the federal government to put food on the table, whether through welfare, Social Security, a government paycheck, or a paycheck financed by a federal contract, will continue to increase, and it will push the Republican Party to the center in all presidential elections,” he writes.Here Murray betrays himself: admitting, implicitly, that he does not really care about popular sovereignty. He admits that people routinely choose, in democratic elections, to authorize and reauthorize an expansive state — but dismisses their right to make a choice he personally finds antithetical to liberty. He is certain his libertarian view of legitimacy is true, regardless of what the people think, and thus is convinced that people like him are justified in ignoring the law.But how could anyone ever hope to win a fight against the federal leviathan when the people have been bought off by Social Security? This is where his “Madison Fund” financing civil disobedience comes in: Murray believes that successfully defending people who ignore regulations will help others realize that a better future without government interference could actually be possible.And it all starts, in his mind, with one good billionaire.“The Madison Fund could get started,” he writes, “if just one wealthy American cared enough to contribute, say, a few hundred million dollars.”By the People as Trumpist urtextMurray’s specific vision for a “Madison Fund” was certainly idiosyncratic. But his broader argument about legitimacy was widely shared on the 2010s right, heard often among the Tea Party types who dominated conservative politics for most of the Obama presidency.Indeed, By the People was received warmly among traditional conservatives, some of whom described its wild arguments as helpfully restrained. “If you want a book that will crisply outline what has happened to Madisonian America since the Great Depression, without scaring the neighbors, it’s your lucky day,” Charles C.W. Cooke writes in National Review. Some even suggested it didn’t go far enough. Writing in Law and Liberty, Lenore Ealy argued that Murray gave short shrift to the concerns of social conservatives. And that liberal America “created for itself a soft despotism” where people from various “identity groups” wield power to silence “men and women unwilling to subsume their identity in the will of the State.” Rolling back the state is not far enough, Ealy says — there needs to be a revolution in “cultural mores” that beats back identity liberalism.By the People remains useful as an unusually clear explanation of how widely shared premises on the establishment right led the country to Trumpist perdition.It is striking that, even before Trump, the idea that the modern American state was fundamentally illegitimate was such a prevalent view among conservative activists and intellectuals. The question was not whether the right must always defer to the democratic process, but how far it might have to go to get around it.In Trump’s second term, we are seeing the fruits of this vision. In many ways, you can draw a straight line between the basic premises of By the People and Trump’s assault on the federal government. The mechanisms are very different, but the ends are strikingly similar.During the 2024 election, Elon Musk became the billionaire anti-government donor Murray dreamed of, contributing “a few hundred million dollars” to the Trump campaign. His alignment with Trump got him appointed the head of a government-slashing committee that we now know as DOGE; once in power, he and his allies attempted to gut the functioning of various different federal agencies (to various degrees of success).Elon Musk at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2025 in Maryland. Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesDOGE was not an effective cost-cutting mechanism. Nor has it turned up significant evidence of fraud. What it has accomplished, rather, is make federal agencies less capable of implementing duly authorized regulations. Effectively, it’s done what Murray wanted from the opposite end: decreasing the scope of the regulatory state not by resistance from the bottom, but a top-down effort to strip its capabilities. (Nor is Musk alone in this; look at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s firing of large chunks of America’s public health officials).The legal authority for all of this is dubious at best. Trump and DOGE have simply asserted the power to mass-fire employees and redirect congressionally appropriated funds, even though there are good reasons to believe that they do not have the legal authority to do either. Like Murray, they do not see the law as morally binding. These aren’t just simple parallels. The influence of ideas like By the People’s helps us understand why a conservative movement that once claimed to stand for the constitutional order has become comfortable with Trump wrecking it.The essential idea of Murray’s book, and much of pre-Trump conservatism, was that the federal government had become hostile to founding American ideals: that the administrative state represents an unconstitutional cancerous growth on a brilliant governing framework.“We have overseen and sanctioned the growth of an administrative system that concentrates the power to make laws and the power to enforce them in the hands of a vast and unaccountable administrative apparatus that finds no comfortable home in our constitutional structure,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a 2015 concurrence. “The end result may be trains that run on time (although I doubt it), but the cost is to our Constitution and the individual liberty it protects.”If you take this position, thinly veiled comparisons to fascism and all, then the fact that Trump and Musk have frequently exceeded legal boundaries starts to look a lot less problematic. Through this lens, the administration is trying to rescue the Constitution’s original design from a liberalism that has corrupted it. Any legal violations along the way are offenses against a political order that at present does not deserve citizens’ allegiance. In February, the news outlet NOTUS asked Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) about the lawfulness of the Trump/Musk agenda. Tillis conceded that it “runs afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense.” However, he added, “nobody should bellyache about that” — because “it’s not uncommon for presidents to flex a little bit on where they can spend and where they can stop spending.”Thom Tillis is not a firebreather: He’s a purple state senator widely seen as a moderate. That he would take such a permissive position on what even he admits is lawbreaking shows the corrosive influence of Murray-style thinking on the right today.By the People, on its own, may be a mostly forgotten book. But it remains useful as an unusually clear explanation of how widely shared premises on the establishment right led the country to Trumpist perdition.This story was adapted for the On the Right newsletter. New editions drop every Wednesday. Sign up here.Correction, May 21, 9:20 am ET: A previous version of this story misdescribed Trump’s 2015 descent down the golden escalator at Trump Tower.See More:

In case you haven't heard, Fortnite — the megahit video game from Epic Games that's stuffed with characters from every media franchise imaginable, not to mention real celebrities — has become a cause célèbre after it introduced Darth Vader as an in-game boss. This was no ordinary homage to the "Star Wars" villain. It uses "conversational AI" to recreate the iconic voice of the late actor James Earl Jones, allowing gamers to chat with the Sith Lord and ask him pretty much any question they want.Though it's resulted in plenty of light-hearted fun, gamers, being gamers, immediately set to work tricking the AI into swearing and saying slurs.But that's only the beginning of the controversy, if you can believe it. On Monday, the Screen Actor's Guild blasted Epic Games for its AI Vader stunt and filed an unfair labor complaint against the developer with the National Labor Relations Board, arguing that Epic's use of AI violated their agreement by replacing human performers without notice."Fortnite's signatory company, Llama Productions, chose to replace the work of human performers with AI technology," SAG-AFTRA said in a statement. "Unfortunately, they did so without providing any notice of their intent to do this and without bargaining with us over appropriate terms." SAG-AFTRA is still on strike against the video game industry, though actors are still allowed work on Fortnite and some other exempted projects, . Voice actors, in general, have struggled to win the same protections against AI as other performers in other fields. It's easier and far cheaper to fake someone's voice and pass it off as real than it is to mimic a visual performance.For this stunt, Epic used Google's Gemini 2.0 model to generate the wording of Vader's responses, and ElevenLabs' Flash v2.5 model for the audio.Whatever your thoughts on the ethics of resurrecting a dead actor's voice with AI, no theft is involved with Epic's AI Vader  — just, if SAG is to be believed, dubious labor practices. It was created in collaboration with Jones' estate, according to an Epic press release featuring a statement from the family. Jones, shortly before he passed away, signed a contract with Disney allowing the AI startup Respeecher to clone his voice. That's all fine with SAG-AFTRA. It doesn't necessarily have a problem with actors — or their estates — licensing AI replicas of themselves. "However, we must protect our right to bargain terms and conditions around uses of voice that replace the work of our members," the union wrote, "including those who previously did the work of matching Darth Vader's iconic rhythm and tone in video games."We'll have to see what the labor board and Epic make of SAG-AFTRA's claims. In the meantime, it's pretty jarring to see an AI version of Jones' legendary Vader performance out in the wild and answering silly questions in a video game.More on AI: Even Audiobooks Aren't Safe From AI SlopShare This Article