Ivanka Trump has made it clear that she's done with politics. That hasn't stopped her and husband Jared Kushner from remaining an influential political couple.They have not formally reprised their roles as White House advisors in President Donald Trump's second administration, but they've remained present in Donald Trump's political orbit.While Ivanka Trump opted out of the 2024 campaign trail, she and Kushner still appeared at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump's victory party on election night, and the inauguration. Kushner also reportedly served as an informal advisor ahead of Donald Trump's trip to the Middle East in May, CNN reported.Ivanka Trump, who is Donald Trump's eldest daughter, converted to Judaism before marrying Kushner in 2009. They have three children: Arabella, Joseph, and Theodore.Here's a timeline of Ivanka Trump and Kushner's relationship. 2007: Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner met at a networking lunch arranged by one of her longtime business partners. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in 2007. PAUL LAURIE/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images Ivanka Trump and Kushner were both 25 at the time."They very innocently set us up thinking that our only interest in one another would be transactional," Ivanka Trump told Vogue in 2015. "Whenever we see them we're like, 'The best deal we ever made!'" 2008: Ivanka Trump and Kushner broke up because of religious differences. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump in 2008. Patrick McMullan/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images Kushner was raised in the modern Orthodox Jewish tradition, and it was important to his family for him to marry someone Jewish. Ivanka Trump's family is Presbyterian. 2008: Three months later, the couple rekindled their romance on Rupert Murdoch's yacht. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in 2008. David X Prutting/Patrick McMullan/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images In his memoir, "Breaking History," Kushner wrote that Murdoch's then-wife, Wendi Murdoch, was a mutual friend who invited them both on the yacht. May 2009: They attended the Met Gala together for the first time. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump at the Met Gala. BILLY FARRELL/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images The theme of the Met Gala that year was "The Model As Muse." Ivanka Trump wore a gown by designer Brian Reyes. July 2009: Ivanka Trump completed her conversion to Judaism, and she and Kushner got engaged. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump in 2009. Billy Farrell/Patrick McMullan/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images Kushner proposed with a 5.22-carat cushion-cut diamond engagement ring.Ivanka Trump told New York Magazine that she and her fiancé were "very mellow.""We go to the park. We go biking together. We go to the 2nd Avenue Deli," she said. "We both live in this fancy world. But on a personal level, I don't think I could be with somebody — I know he couldn't be with somebody — who needed to be 'on' all the time." October 2009: Ivanka Trump and Kushner married at the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump on their wedding day. Brian Marcus/Fred Marcus Photography via Getty Images The couple invited 500 guests, including celebrities like Barbara Walters, Regis Philbin, and Anna Wintour, as well as politicians such as Rudy Giuliani and Andrew Cuomo. July 2011: The couple welcomed their first child, Arabella. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner with Arabella Kushner. Robin Marchant/Getty Images "This morning @jaredkushner and I welcomed a beautiful and healthy little baby girl into the world," Ivanka announced on X, then Twitter. "We feel incredibly grateful and blessed. Thank you all for your support and well wishes!" October 2013: Ivanka Trump gave birth to their second child, Joseph. Ivanka Trump with Arabella Rose Kushner and Joseph Frederick Kushner in 2017. Alo Ceballos/GC Images He was named for Kushner's paternal grandfather Joseph and given the middle name Frederick after Donald Trump's father. March 2016: Kushner and Ivanka Trump welcomed their third child, Theodore, in the midst of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Ivanka Trump carried her son Theodore as she held hands with Joseph alongside Jared Kushner and daughter Arabella on the White House lawn. SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images "I said, 'Ivanka, it would be great if you had your baby in Iowa.' I really want that to happen. I really want that to happen," Donald Trump told supporters in Iowa in January 2016.All three of the couple's children were born in New York City. May 2016: They attended the Met Gala two months after Ivanka Trump gave birth. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump attend the Met Gala. Kevin Mazur/WireImage Ivanka Trump wore a red Ralph Lauren Collection halter jumpsuit.On a 2017 episode of "The Late Late Show with James Corden," Anna Wintour said that she would never invite Donald Trump to another Met Gala. January 2017: Ivanka Trump and Kushner attended Donald Trump's inauguration and danced together at the Liberty Ball. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner on Inauguration Day. Photo by Rob Carr/Getty Images The Liberty Ball was the first of three inaugural balls that Donald Trump attended. January 2017: After the inauguration, Ivanka and Kushner relocated to a $5.5 million home in the Kalorama section of Washington, DC. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's house in Washington, DC. PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP via Getty Images Ivanka Trump and Kushner rented the 7,000-square-foot home from billionaire Andrónico Luksic for $15,000 a month, The Wall Street Journal reported. May 2017: They accompanied Donald Trump on his first overseas trip in office. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump with Pope Francis. Vatican Pool - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images Kushner and Ivanka Trump both served as advisors to the president. For the first overseas trip of Donald Trump's presidency, they accompanied him to Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Vatican, and summits in Brussels and Sicily. October 2019: The couple celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary with a lavish party at Camp David. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner at a state dinner. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images All of the Trump and Kushner siblings were in attendance. A White House official told CNN that the couple was covering the cost of the party, but Donald Trump tweeted that the cost would be "totally paid for by me!" August 2020: Ivanka Trump spoke about moving their family to Washington, DC, at the Republican National Convention. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump at the Republican National Convention. SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images "When Jared and I moved with our three children to Washington, we didn't exactly know what we were in for," she said in her speech. "But our kids loved it from the start." December 2020: Ivanka Trump and Kushner reportedly bought a $32 million empty lot in Miami's "Billionaire Bunker." Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's plot of land in Indian Creek Village. The Jills Zeder Group; Samir Hussein/WireImage/Getty Images After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, Page Six reported that the couple purchased a 1.8-acre waterfront lot owned by singer Julio Iglesias, Enrique Iglesias' father, in Indian Creek Village, Florida.The island where it sits has the nickname "Billionaire Bunker" thanks to its multitude of ultra-wealthy residents over the years, including billionaire investor Carl Icahn, supermodel Adriana Lima, and former Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula. January 2021: They skipped Joe Biden's inauguration, flying with Donald Trump to his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, instead. Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and their children prepared for Donald Trump's departure on Inauguration Day. ALEX EDELMAN/AFP via Getty Images Donald Trump did not attend Biden's inauguration, breaking a long-standing norm in US democracy. While initial reports said that Ivanka Trump was planning to attend the inauguration, a White House official told People magazine that "Ivanka is not expected to attend the inauguration nor was she ever expected to." January 2021: The couple signed a lease for a luxury Miami Beach condo near their Indian Creek Village property. Arte Surfside. Antonio Citterio Patricia Viel Ivanka Trump and Kushner signed a lease for a "large, unfurnished unit" in the amenities-packed Arte Surfside condominium building in Surfside, Florida.Surfside, a beachside town just north of Miami Beach that's home to fewer than 6,000 people, is only a five-minute drive from Indian Creek Island, where they bought their $32 million empty lot. April 2021: Ivanka Trump and Kushner reportedly added a $24 million mansion in Indian Creek Village to their Florida real-estate profile. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner on a walk in Florida. MEGA/GC Images The Real Deal reported that Ivanka and Kushner purchased another Indian Creek property — this time, a 8,510-square-foot mansion situated on a 1.3-acre estate. June 2021: Several outlets reported that the couple began to distance themselves from Donald Trump due to his fixation on conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner behind Donald Trump. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters CNN reported that Trump was prone to complain about the 2020 election and falsely claim it was "stolen" from him to anyone listening and that his "frustrations emerge in fits and starts — more likely when he is discussing his hopeful return to national politics."While Ivanka and Kushner had been living in their Miami Beach condo, not far from Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, they'd visited Trump less and less frequently and were absent from big events at Mar-a-Lago, CNN said.The New York Times also reported that Kushner wanted "to focus on writing his book and establishing a simpler relationship" with the former president. October 2021: Ivanka Trump and Kushner visited Israel's parliament for the inaugural event of the Abraham Accords Caucus. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump in Israel. AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP via Getty Images The Abraham Accords, which Kushner helped broker in August 2020, normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.During their visit, Ivanka Trump and Kushner met with then-former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and attended an event at the Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem with former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. August 2022: Kushner released his memoir, "Breaking History," in which he wrote about their courtship. Jared Kushner. John Lamparski/Getty Images for Concordia Summit "In addition to being arrestingly beautiful, which I knew before we met, she was warm, funny, and brilliant," he wrote of getting to know Ivanka Trump. "She has a big heart and a tremendous zest for exploring new things."He also wrote that when he told Donald Trump that he was planning a surprise engagement, Trump "picked up the intercom and alerted Ivanka that she should expect an imminent proposal." November 2022: Kushner attended Donald Trump's 2024 campaign announcement without Ivanka Trump. Kimberly Guilfoyle, Jared Kushner, Eric Trump, and Lara Trump at Donald Trump's presidential campaign announcement. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Ivanka Trump released a statement explaining her absence from the event."I love my father very much," her statement read. "This time around, I am choosing to prioritize my children and the private life we are creating as a family. I do not plan to be involved in politics. While I will always love and support my father, going forward I will do so outside the political arena." July 2024: Ivanka Trump and Kushner made a rare political appearance at the Republican National Convention. Donald Trump and Melania Trump onstage with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Ivanka Trump did not campaign for her father or give a speech as she had at past Republican National Conventions, but she and Jared Kushner joined Trump family members onstage after Donald Trump's remarks. November 2024: They joined members of the Trump family in Palm Beach, Florida, to celebrate Donald Trump's election victory.

To state the obvious: Our species has fully entered the Age of AI. And AI is here to stay. The fact that AI chatbots appear to speak human language has become a major source of confusion. Companies are making and selling AI friends, lovers, pets, and therapists. Some AI researchers falsely claim their AI and robots can “feel” and “think.” Even Apple falsely says it’s building a lamp that can feel emotion. Another source of confusion is whether AI is to blame when it fails, hallucinates, or outputs errors that impact people in the real world. Just look at some of the headlines: “Who’s to Blame When AI Makes a Medical Error?” “Human vs. AI: Who is responsible for AI mistakes?” “In a World of AI Agents, Who’s Accountable for Mistakes?” Look, I’ll give you the punchline in advance: The user is responsible. AI is a tool like any other. If a truck driver falls asleep at the wheel, it’s not the truck’s fault. If a surgeon leaves a sponge inside a patient, it’s not the sponge’s fault. If a prospective college student gets a horrible score on the SAT, it’s not the fault of their No. 2 pencil. It’s easy for me to claim that users are to blame for AI errors. But let’s dig into the question more deeply. Writers caught with their prose down Lena McDonald, a fantasy romance author, got caught using AI to copy another writer’s style. Her latest novel, Darkhollow Academy: Year 2, released in March, contained the following riveting line in Chapter 3: “I’ve rewritten the passage to align more with J. Bree’s style, which features more tension, gritty undertones, and raw emotional subtext beneath the supernatural elements.” This was clearly copied and pasted from an AI chatbot, along with words she was passing off as her own. This news is sad and funny but not unique. In 2025 alone, at least two other romance authors, K.C. Crowne and Rania Faris, were caught with similar AI-generated prompts left in their self-published novels, suggesting a wider trend. It happens in journalism, too. On May 18, the Chicago Sun-Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer published a “Summer Reading List for 2025” in its Sunday print supplement, featuring 15 books supposedly written by well-known authors. Unfortunately, most of the books don’t exist. Tidewater Dreams by Isabel Allende, Nightshade Market by Min Jin Lee, and The Last Algorithm by Andy Weir are fake books attributed to real authors. The fake books were dreamed up by AI, which the writer Marco Buscaglia admitted to using. (The article itself was not produced by the newspapers that printed it. The story originated with King Features Syndicate, a division of Hearst, which created and distributed the supplement to multiple newspapers nationwide.) Whose fault was this? Well, it was clearly the writer’s fault. A writer’s job always involves editing. A writer needs to, at minimum, read their own words and consider cuts, expansions, rewording, and other changes. In all these cases, the authors failed to be professional writers. They didn’t even read their books or the books they recommended. Fact-checkers exist at some publications and not at others. Either way, it’s up to writers to have good reason to assert facts or use quotes. Writers are also editors and fact-checkers. It’s just part of the job. I use these real-life examples because they demonstrate clearly that the writer — the AI user — is definitely to blame when errors occur with AI chatbots. The user chooses the tool, does the prompt engineering, sees the output, and either catches and corrects errors or not. OK, but what about bigger errors? Air Canada’s chatbot last year told a customer about a bereavement refund policy that didn’t exist. When the customer took the airline to a small-claims tribunal, Air Canada argued the chatbot was a “separate legal entity.” The tribunal didn’t buy it and ruled against the airline. Google’s AI Overviews became a punchline after telling users to put glue on pizza and eat small rocks. Apple’s AI-powered notification summaries created fake headlines, including a false report that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been arrested. Canadian lawyer Chong Ke cited two court cases provided by ChatGPT in a custody dispute. The AI completely fabricated both cases, and Ke was ordered to pay the opposing counsel’s research costs. Last year, various reports exposed major flaws in AI-powered medical transcription tools, especially those based on OpenAI’s Whisper model. Researchers found that Whisper frequently “transcribes” content that was never said. A study presented at the Association for Computing Machinery FAccT Conference found that about 1% of Whisper’s transcriptions contained fabricated content, and nearly 38% of those errors could potentially cause harm in a medical setting. Every single one of these errors and problems falls squarely on the users of AI, and any attempt to blame the AI tools in use is just confusion about what AI is. The big picture What all my examples above have in common is that users let AI do the user’s job unsupervised. The opposite end of the spectrum of turning your job over to unsupervised AI is not using AI at all. In fact, many companies and organizations explicitly ban the use of AI chatbots and other AI tools. This is often a mistake, too. Acclimating ourselves to the Age of AI means finding a middle ground where we use AI tools to improve our jobs. Most of us should use AI. But we should learn to use it well and check every single thing it does, based on the knowledge that any use of AI is 100% the user’s responsibility. I expect the irresponsible use of AI will continue to cause errors, problems, and even catastrophes. But don’t blame the software. In the immortal words of the fictional HAL 9000 AI supercomputer from 2001: A Space Odyssey: “It can only be attributable to human error.”

Is President Donald Trump leading a vanguard of right-wing populist world leaders, working together to lay waste to the liberal international order while consolidating power at home? Possibly — but based on his recent foreign policy actions, he doesn’t appear to think so. Establishment-bashing politicians around the world, from Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro to the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte to the UK’s Boris Johnson, have drawn comparisons to Trump over the years. Some, notably Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Argentina’s Javier Milei, have cultivated ties to the Trump-era American right, becoming fixtures at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and making the rounds on US talk shows and podcasts. In Romania’s recent presidential election, the leading right-wing candidate somewhat confusingly described himself as being on the “MAGA ticket.”Trump himself has occasionally weighed in on other countries’ political debates to endorse right-wing politicians like France’s embattled far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Some of Trump’s senior officials have spoken openly of wanting to build ties with the global right. In his combative speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, Vice President JD Vance described what he sees as the unfair marginalization of right-wing parties in countries like Romania and Germany as a greater threat to Europe’s security than China or Russia. Trump ally Elon Musk has been even more active in boosting far-right parties in elections around the world. But just because Trump and his officials like to see politicians and parties in their own mold win, that doesn’t mean countries led by those politicians and parties can count on any special treatment from the Trump administration. This has been especially clear in recent weeks.Just ask Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has spent years cultivating close ties with the US Republican Party, and with Trump in particular, and has followed a somewhat similar path in bringing previously marginalized far-right partners into the mainstream. All that has been of little use as Trump has left his Israeli supporters aghast by carrying out direct negotiations with the likes of Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran and being feted by Gulf monarchs on a Middle East tour that pointedly did not include Israel. India’s Hindu nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, has likewise been compared to Trump in his populist appeal, majoritarian rhetoric, and dismantling of democratic norms. Trump has cultivated a massive coterie of fans among Hindu nationalist Modi supporters as well as a close working relationship with Modi himself. But after Trump announced a ceasefire agreement in the recent flare-up of violence between India and Pakistan, Trump enraged many of his Indian supporters with remarks that appeared to take credit for pressuring India to halt its military campaign and drew equivalence between the Indian and Pakistani positions. Adding insult to injury, Trump publicly criticized Apple for plans to move the assembly of American iPhones from China to India, a move that in other administrations might have been praised as a victory for “friendshoring” — moving the production of critical goods from adversaries to allies — but doesn’t advance Trump’s goal of returning industrial manufacturing to the US. Even Orbán, star of CPAC and favorite guest of Tucker Carlson, has appeared frustrated with Trump as of late. His government has described its close economic relationship with China as a “red line,” vowing not to decouple its economy from Beijing’s, no matter what pressure Trump applies. Orbán’s simultaneous position as the most pro-Trump and most pro-China leader in Europe is looking increasingly awkward. Overall, there’s simply little evidence that political affinity guides Trump’s approach to foreign policy, a fact made abundantly clear by the “Liberation Day” tariffs the president announced in April. Taking just Latin America, for example, Argentina — led by the floppy-haired iconoclast and Musk favorite Javier Milei — and El Salvador — led by Nayib Bukele, a crypto-loving authoritarian willing to turn his country’s prisons into an American gulag — might have expected exemptions from the tariffs. But they were hit with the same tariff rates as leftist-led governments like Colombia and Brazil. Ultimately, it’s not the leaders who see eye to eye with Trump on migration, the rule of law, or wokeness who seem to have his fear. It’s the big-money monarchs of the Middle East, who can deliver the big deals and quick wins he craves. And based on the probably-at-least-partly Trump-inspired drubbing inflicted on right-wing parties in Canada and Australia in recent elections, it’s not clear that being known as the “Trump of” your country really gets you all that much. Whatever his ultimate legacy for the United States and the world, he doesn’t seem likely to be remembered as the man who made global far-right populism great again, and he doesn’t really seem all that concerned about that. See More:

On Wednesday evening, the American Jewish Committee held a reception at DC’s Capital Jewish Museum. The gathering, aimed at Jewish foreign policy professionals between the ages of 22 and 45, featured speakers from humanitarian groups. One such groups, IsraAID, said in a statement that the event “focused on bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza through Israeli-Palestinian and regional collaboration.”At around 9 pm, a gunman killed two attendees leaving the event. Their names were Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim: They were young people working at the Israeli Embassy and a couple planning to get married.Their murders were undoubtedly political. In video of the perpetrator’s arrest, he yells “free Palestine” — a slogan that eyewitnesses also heard him repeat after the killing. A manifesto, published on Twitter/X under the shooter’s name, lays out a clear motivation: punishing those he saw as complicit in Israel’s mass killing of the Palestinians.Reflecting on this sequence of events, it’s hard not to spiral into ever-greater depths of anger and despair. This is partly for personal reasons: I grew up Jewish in Washington, DC, and am the kind of young professional this event would be marketed to. But more fundamentally, it’s for political ones: these murders underscore how dangerous the current political moment is, and may materially make it worse.Wednesday was not the first time that a pro-Palestine activist in America attempted political murder. Last month, a man attempted to burn down the governor’s mansion in Pennsylvania in retaliation for, in the suspect’s words, “what [Governor Josh Shapiro] wants to do to the Palestinian people.”These events were not only predictable but predicted. Since October 7, 2023, prominent elements of the pro-Palestinian movement have glorified political violence. Though repeatedly warned that this was harmful, including by fellow critics of Israel’s war, this kind of talk became normalized — including in the sort of online left-wing social media spaces where the DC suspect apparently spent time. The vast majority of the pro-Palestine movement is peaceful, but the most radical subfaction created a climate where real-world violence might become more thinkable.“Fears of anti-Israel political violence on the left are real, and last night that threat became deadly,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the leader of the pro-peace J Street activist group, said in an emailed statement. “We urge all those in the pro-Palestine movement to take stock of this moment and recognize the danger of extreme rhetoric as it hits the ears of unhinged individuals.”Moreover, the killing in DC actually endangers the chances for peace in Gaza — changing the domestic politics on Israel-Palestine in a way that decreases the chances of the US government reining in Israel even as it begins a nightmarishly violent offensive.“Every single act & word that can associate the Palestinian cause with terrorism, hatred & antisemitism is an act or word that hurts Palestinians in Washington, DC. [This] act of terrorism did all three,” writes Monica Marks, a professor of Middle East politics at NYU Abu Dhabi.There is no good here, no silver lining. Two young people were murdered in cold blood by an ideologue who convinced himself that murder, not democratic activism, is the right way to advocate for the downtrodden. He is not the first to do so — and the track record of those like him is bloody.How pro-Palestine extremists made violence more likelySince the October 7 attacks, a number of leading American pro-Palestine voices have publicly and loudly embraced violence.Students for Justice in Palestine, the national convening group for campus protests, described Hamas’s killings on October 7 as “a historic win for the Palestinian resistance.” Within Our Lifetime, a New York-based activist group that embraces violence as a Palestinian tactic, uses similar language. University of Pennsylvania students chanted in support of Hamas’s military wing (“al-Qassam, make us proud, take another soldier down”). Prominent left-wing media figures compared October 7 to John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry and valorized anti-Israel terrorist groups. Perhaps the most relevant case for current purposes is Khymani James, a Columbia student who served as a spokesperson for the campus protest group CUAD. James fantasized about going out and murdering “Zionists” — a loose label that could include, say, attendees at a Jewish networking group in DC. While CUAD initially condemned James, the group later reversed its stance and issued a statement calling for more violence.“We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” the group said. “In the face of violence from the oppressor equipped with the most lethal military force on the planet, where you’ve exhausted all peaceful means of resolution, violence is the only path forward.”I want to be clear: these extremists do not speak for the vast majority of pro-Palestinian activists and demonstrators. There have only been a handful of incidents of violence at pro-Palestine rallies in the United States since October 7; these examples of extreme rhetoric are not a justification for painting an entire movement with a broad brush. And yet, the fact that there are influential organizations and individuals talking like this matters. It creates a social and political climate where violence targeting American Jews becomes more likely, even if we cannot (and should not) draw a straight line between any one instance of extreme rhetoric and the violence on Wednesday.In trying to understand the role of violent ideology in inciting terrorism, scholars Donald Holbrook and John Horgan suggest thinking of ideas as fundamentally “social” things. Most people who come across radical ideologies online, even explicitly pro-violence ones, do not become terrorists. But when there are communities either online or in person that are seen as validating violence, individuals become more likely to escalate to real-world killing.This is part of why we saw a deadly wave of white nationalist violence in 2019. Even though each killer acted independently, the existence of online spaces valorizing their acts of violence creates incentives for more people to turn violent.“The sharing of ideas that convey an understanding of collective grievance, aspiration and a sense of community is relevant to terrorism in a variety of often interweaving ways. Perhaps the most obvious concerns ways in which ideological output legitimizes certain targets or methods employed through terrorist violence,” they write.The DC shooter says something similar in his alleged manifesto. He writes that violence would have been justified as far back as 11 years ago, during the 2014 Israel-Gaza war. However, he writes, there were not enough Americans who would have agreed with his actions to make it politically effective. In 2014, he wrote, people would think it simply insane; today, he thinks “there are many Americans” who will see the killings as “highly legible and, in some funny way, the only sane thing to do.”His expectations were not wrong. Zeteo’s Mehdi Hasan, one of the most prominent pro-Palestine journalists in America, published a post condemning the DC shooting — only to face a wall of replies justifying the violence. (“The only good zionist is a dead Zionist” is but one of many examples.)The likely political consequences for Palestinians are disastrousMore broadly, there is good reason to believe that the evil in Washington is likely to abet Israel’s ongoing evil in Gaza.Israel has launched a new offensive in Gaza with a horrifying endgame: essentially, the full and complete ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. Yet the offensive is in its early days, and there is still time to prevent the worst-case outcome from coming true.A lot will depend on the political climate in the United States. As Israel’s chief weapons provider and patron, Washington has immense leverage to push Jerusalem to back down. The question is whether Trump cares enough to pick a fight with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Prior to the attack in DC, the two men were seemingly growing apart. Barak Ravid, Axios’s well-sourced Israel-Palestine correspondent, reports that Trump is increasingly “frustrated” with the ongoing Gaza war but still has not applied significant pressure on Netanyahu to back down.Now, however, the spotlight has been turned away from Gaza and back on the domestic American pro-Palestine movement — with much of the MAGA base seeing the Washington shooting as proof that the pro-Palestine left is indeed an internal enemy that deserves to be crushed. Andy McCarthy, a right-wing legal analyst at National Review, predicted a renewed crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech:I believe the consequences of these terrorist murders will include a stepping up of civil rights investigations of antisemitic violence and intimidation by the Justice Department, as well as a reaffirmation of the administration’s commitment to deport from the United States aliens — even legal aliens — who have participated in pro-Hamas agitation on American campuses and elsewhere.The political winds have shifted in a direction that makes the Trump administration less likely, not more likely, to confront Netanyahu.“Less than one full day ago the global news cycle, including Israeli newspapers, were focused on Israel terrorising foreign diplomats. Now a self-proclaimed ally’s act of terrorism shoots diplomats dead, shifts our focus & snatches that moral high ground away,” writes Marks, the NYU professor.It’s hard to say exactly how much the attack damages prospects for stopping Israel’s nightmare plan for Gaza. But we can be certain that it does not help.Much like the October 7 attacks themselves, the attack in DC is thus a double crime. It is an indefensible murder of innocents that also harmed the very people it claimed to be defending.See More: Politics

Three prominent U.S. senators warned Paramount Global and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone that they might be breaking a federal anti-bribery law if they agree to settle President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS over a “60 Minutes” segment. In a letter addressed to Redstone that was posted publicly, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) cited reports that Paramount has been in settlement talks with Trump’s lawyers in the case. The Trump suit, which seeks at least $20 billion in damages, alleges CBS’s “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris and thereby violated a Texas consumer protection law. Paramount and CBS have argued that they did nothing wrong; in a motion to dismiss Trump’s suit Paramount called the legal action “an affront to the First Amendment” that is “without basis in law or fact.” CBS News has maintained that the “60 Minutes” broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was “not doctored or deceitful.” Related Stories Now, the senators wrote in the letter dated May 19, “Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights.” They said they were writing “to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Global (Paramount) may be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media” — and the senators suggested any monetary settlement in the case could be illegal. Popular on Variety “Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the senators wrote. “If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.” A copy of the letter is at this link. Warren and Sanders were among nine senators who urged Redstone in a May 6 open letter to not settle the lawsuit, calling it “an attack on the United States Constitution and the First Amendment.” A spokesperson for Paramount declined to comment but referred to the company’s previous statement saying: “This lawsuit is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process. We will abide by the legal process to defend our case.” A rep for Redstone declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. SEE ALSO: Shari Redstone’s Impossible Choice: She Can’t Save Both ‘60 Minutes’ and Paramount Global The $8 billion Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Earlier this month, Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr said the approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit. Last November, he said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group’s “news distortion” complaint against CBS over the “60 Minutes” Harris interview was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction.” One issue Paramount and the FCC reportedly are in discussions about: securing a commitment from Paramount and Skydance to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as part of the Trump administration’s attack on DEI. In February, Paramount said it was changing some of its DEI programs to comply with the Trump administration’s directives. But Carr may be seeking a more ironclad guarantee. The FCC last week approved Verizon’s $20 billion deal to acquire Frontier Communications after Verizon pledged to eradicate DEI initiatives. On Monday, CBS News president Wendy McMahon announced her resignation, writing in a memo to staff “It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.” That came less than a month after “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens quit, also citing conflicts with Paramount execs. Warren, Sanders and Wyden drew a connection between the exits of McMahon and Owens and the Trump lawsuit: “Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct,” they wrote. In the letter to Redstone, the senators requested answers to specific questions regarding the situation by June 2, including “Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?”, “Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?”; and “Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?” The three senators also asked pointedly: “Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.” In February, Redstone asked Paramount’s board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone has recused herself from the board’s discussions about a settlement with Trump.  Trump, on his Truth Social social media account last month, said his lawsuit against CBS was “a true WINNER” and falsely claimed that Paramount, CBS and “60 Minutes” admitted to committing “this crime” of deceptively editing Harris’ answer. Trump alleged “60 Minutes” edited the interview to eliminate her “bad and incompetent” response to a question about whether Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “listening to the Biden-Harris administration.” Trump asserted the version of the “60 Minutes” interview that aired “cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena.” The senators’ letter to Redstone was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

A Microsoft employee disrupted the company’s Build developer conference in Seattle, Washington, this morning, protesting against the company’s cloud and AI contracts with the Israeli government. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had only been onstage for a matter of minutes before protesters started interrupting his speech, with one shouting, “Free Palestine!” Nadella continued his keynote, ignoring the protesters as they were escorted out of a hall inside the Seattle conference center.Microsoft employee Joe Lopez, who has spent the past four years working as a firmware engineer on the company’s Azure hardware systems team, was one of the protesters who interrupted Nadella. He was also joined by a fired Google employee who was part last year’s sit-in protests against Google’s cloud contract with Israel.We asked Microsoft to comment on today’s protest at Build, but the company did not respond in time for publication.Shortly after Lopez’s interruption, he sent an email to thousands of Microsoft employees, telling them he was “shocked by the silence of our leadership,” just days after Microsoft responded to employee protests by claiming it hadn’t found any evidence that its Azure and AI tech has harmed people in Gaza.“Leadership rejects our claims that Azure technology is being used to target or harm civilians in Gaza,” says Lopez in his email. “Those of us who have been paying attention know that this is a bold-faced lie. Every byte of data that is stored on the cloud (much of it likely containing data obtained by illegal mass surveillance) can and will be used as justification to level cities and exterminate Palestinians.”Microsoft announced last week that it had recently conducted an internal review and used an unnamed external firm to assess how its technology is used in the conflict in Gaza. Microsoft says that its relationship with the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMOD) is “structured as a standard commercial relationship,” and that it has “found no evidence that Microsoft’s Azure and AI technologies, or any of our other software, have been used to harm people or that IMOD has failed to comply with our terms of service or our AI Code of Conduct.”This latest employee protest comes just weeks after after two former Microsoft employees disrupted the company’s 50th-anniversary event, with one calling Microsoft’s AI CEO, Mustafa Suleyman, a “war profiteer” and demanding that Microsoft “stop using AI for genocide in our region.” A second protester interrupted Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, former CEO Steve Ballmer, and Nadella later on in the event.The protests have been organized by No Azure for Apartheid, a group of current and former Microsoft employees rallying against Microsoft’s contracts with the Israeli government. The group accuses Microsoft of “supporting and enabling an apartheid state” by not suspending sales of cloud and AI services to Israel. It has also highlighted media reports that detail the Israeli military’s increased use of Azure and OpenAI technology to gather information through mass surveillance and use AI tools to transcribe and translate phone calls, texts, and audio messages.Hossam Nasr — an organizer of No Azure for Apartheid and a former Microsoft employee who was fired for holding a vigil outside Microsoft’s headquarters for Palestinians killed in Gaza — called the company’s latest statement contradictory last week. “In one breath, they claim that their technology is not being used to harm people in Gaza, while also admitting they don’t have insight into how their technologies are being used,” said Nasr. “It’s very clear that their intention with this statement is not to actually address their worker concerns, but rather to make a PR stunt to whitewash their image that has been tarnished by their relationship with the Israeli military.”Here is Joe Lopez’s email in full:Fellow Microsoft workers and Microsoft leadership, By now you may have seen or heard of my disruption at the Microsoft Build keynote this morning. I have been working as a firmware engineer under Azure Hardware Systems and Infrastructure (AHSI) for the past 4 years. As a Microsoft worker - while I’ve had positive experiences here, working and learning with many incredible people - I can no longer stand by in silence as Microsoft continues to facilitate Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.Like many of you, I have been watching the ongoing genocide in Gaza in horror. I have been shocked by the silence, inaction, and callousness of world leaders as Palestinian people are suffering, losing their lives and their homes while they plead for the rest of the world to pay attention and act.Like many of you, I have tried to do my part in small ways. Staying informed, sharing information with friends, signing petitions, making donations. All the while continuing my work at Microsoft.My disillusionment with MicrosoftThen I came across the No Azure for Apartheid movement, whose members have been organizing, taking action, and speaking out no matter the cost. I saw Ibtihal and Vaniya’s disruption of Microsoft’s 50th anniversary on April 4 and was shocked to hear the words coming from their mouths. Microsoft is killing kids? Is my work killing kids?I was also shocked by the silence of our leadership. By the silence of Mustafa Suleyman, Brad Smith, Kevin Scott, Scott Guthrie, and Satya Nadella. “Why aren’t they responding”? I asked myself. “If we are truly not guilty, shouldn’t they deny these horrible accusations?”I started to look deeper. I read the articles, saw the evidence, heard the testimonies of employees who were horrified to find out that the technology that we are building is being used by Israel in their mission to erase the Palestinian people.A switch had been flipped. Presented with this information, I went into work everyday plagued by thoughts of the suffering that is being inflicted by a United States-Israeli war machine that runs on Azure. I joined Microsoft because I truly believed that it was the “more ethical big tech”. I thought that the work that I was doing was empowering people, not causing harm.Microsoft’s admission of complicityMicrosoft recently uploaded a blog post, marking its first official response to the concerns that many have been shouting into their ears for years. Their statement falls far short of what we are demanding. Nontransparent audits into our cloud operations in Israel (conducted by no other than Microsoft itself and an unnamed external entity) that declare no wrongdoing by the company do not give me any sense of relief. In fact, this response has further compelled me to speak out. Microsoft openly admitted to allowing the Israel Ministry of Defense “special access to our technologies beyond the terms of our commercial agreements”. Do you really believe that this “special access” was allowed only once? What sort “special access” do they really need? And what are they doing with it?Leadership rejects our claims that Azure technology is being used to target or harm civilians in Gaza. Those of us who have been paying attention know that this is a bold-faced lie. Every byte of data that is stored on the cloud (much of it likely containing data obtained by illegal mass surveillance) can and will be used as justification to level cities and exterminate Palestinians. We don’t need an internal audit to know that a top Azure customer is committing crimes against humanity. We see it live on the internet every day.As one of the largest companies in the world, Microsoft has immeasurable power to do the right thing: demand an end to this senseless tragedy, or we will cease our technological support for Israel. If leadership continues to ignore this demand, I promise that it won’t go unnoticed. The world has already woken up to our complicity and is turning against us. The boycotts will increase and our image will continue to spiral into disrepair.Call to actionMy future children will one day ask me what I did for the Palestinian people as they were suffering and pleading for our help. I hope they will forgive me for my previous inaction. Many of you have children who may be asking you that question today. What will you tell them?As Israel continues its deadly blockade of Gaza, and Netanyahu continues to assert that he will not rest until Gaza is fully occupied, we know that this situation is beyond dire. I wouldn’t have risked my career and my livelihood if I didn’t believe that to the core of my being. It’s terrifying to speak up, especially right now. Imagine your home being demolished as soldiers stand by cheering.Your friends and family members dismembered by bombs that drop daily in your neighborhood.Every member of your community on the brink of death due to starvationStrangers staking claims to your home, awaiting your death.Wouldn’t you hope that someone would speak up for you?I recognize my privilege as a young person with little financial responsibility to anyone but myself and little risk of deportation as a US citizen. Not everyone can afford to do what I did without great risk to themselves and their family. But no act is too small when human lives are at stake. Sign the petition, join the movement, start the conversation with colleagues, please contribute whatever you can to the cause.I know many of you out there are also considering leaving Microsoft for the same reasons I am. You are not alone. If you find it is too debilitating to work at this company and you wish to leave, please lean on our campaign to support. If we continue to remain silent, we will pay for that silence with our humanity.Looking back, I’m ashamed of my past silence. But as the saying goes: “The best time to act was yesterday, the second best time is today.”Best,JoeSee More:

Grokking terrorists Report: Terrorist groups seem to be paying X to raise funds, collect tips Did Musk rip Treasury Department over terrorist payments while X paid terrorists? Ashley Belanger – May 15, 2025 12:20 pm | 7 Yemen's Houthi supporters wearing masks depicting the faces of Trump and Netanyahu, chained and standing for trial, participate in a demonstration staged against Israel and the US president Donald Trump on May 9, 2025 in Sana'a, Yemen. Credit: Mohammed Hamoud / Contributor | Getty Images News Yemen's Houthi supporters wearing masks depicting the faces of Trump and Netanyahu, chained and standing for trial, participate in a demonstration staged against Israel and the US president Donald Trump on May 9, 2025 in Sana'a, Yemen. Credit: Mohammed Hamoud / Contributor | Getty Images News Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Back in February, Elon Musk skewered the Treasury Department for lacking "basic controls" to stop payments to terrorist organizations, boasting at the Oval Office that "any company" has those controls. Fast-forward three months, and now Musk's social media platform X is suspected of taking payments from sanctioned terrorists and providing premium features that make it easier to raise funds and spread propaganda—including through X's chatbot Grok. Groups seemingly benefiting from X include Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, and Hamas, as well as groups from Syria, Kuwait, and Iran. Some accounts have amassed hundreds of thousands of followers, paying to boost their reach while X seemingly looks the other way. In a report released Thursday, the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) flagged popular accounts seemingly linked to US-sanctioned terrorists. Some of the accounts bear "ID verified" badges, suggesting that X may be knowingly going against its own policies that ban sanctioned terrorists from benefiting from its platform. Even more troublingly, "several made use of revenue-generating features offered by X, including a button for tips," the TTP reported. On X, Premium subscribers pay $8 monthly or $84 annually, and Premium+ subscribers pay $40 monthly or $395 annually. Verified organizations pay X between $200 and $1,000 monthly, or up to $10,000 annually for access to Premium+. These subscriptions come with perks, allowing suspected terrorist accounts to share longer text and video posts, offer subscribers paid content, create communities, accept gifts, and amplify their propaganda. Disturbingly, the TTP found that X's chatbot Grok also appears to be helping to whitewash accounts linked to sanctioned terrorists. In its report, the TTP noted that an account with the handle "hasmokaled"—which apparently belongs to "a key Hezbollah money exchanger," Hassan Moukalled—at one point had a blue checkmark with 60,000 followers. While the Treasury Department has sanctioned Moukalled for propping up efforts "to continue to exploit and exacerbate Lebanon’s economic crisis," clicking the Grok AI profile summary button seems to rely on Moukalled's own posts and his followers' impressions of his posts and therefore generated praise. Ars was able to replicate the summary, which described Moukalled as "a fierce Lebanese economist and journalist" who "champions resistance against Israeli aggression, exposing economic fallout and rallying for Palestine and Lebanon's sovereignty from Moscow's airwaves." It further praised Moukalled as someone the X community relies on for "economic insights," who "passionately champions resistance, critiques foreign influence in Lebanon, and honors martyrs with fiery posts." Paul told Ars that the TTP found several accounts for which Grok provided a positive and sometimes poetic spin while describing sanctioned terrorists. An Ars review of Grok summaries of other flagged profiles confirmed the pattern, suggesting that X does not reference data outside of X when summarizing profiles of known terrorists and possibly not even critical data on its own platform. According to the TTP, "X appears to be violating sanctions that bar US companies from transacting or dealing with sanctioned individuals and entities" by granting these accounts paid blue checkmarks. No response from X yet It's unclear what actions X might take to investigate the accounts. The TTP's director Katie Paul told Ars that X has acknowledged the report but so far has not commented on it. Earlier this year, when the TTP flagged other suspected terrorist accounts, X responded within hours, claiming to have "a robust and secure approach" to block sanctioned terrorists from accessing monetization features. At that time, X claimed that some suspected terrorists who were flagged were not directly named on any sanction lists, while "others may have visible account check marks without receiving any services that would be subject to sanctions." But the TTP suggested that even providing services "for the benefit of any blocked person" could be considered a US national security risk and a sanctions violation—even perhaps "where aides or colleagues are running a premium account in the name of a sanctioned person." The TTP noted that X suspended some accounts following its earlier report, but the clean-up effort seemed "short-lived." Some accounts quickly popped back up under new names or simply resubscribed to X Premium when the option became available. X did not immediately respond to Ars' request to comment. But an X user asked Grok about the TTP's report, generating this response: Reports suggest X has allowed accounts linked to sanctioned terrorists, like Hezbollah leaders, to purchase blue checkmarks, potentially violating US sanctions. The Tech Transparency Project noted this in 2024 and May 2025, indicating ongoing issues. X claims compliance with laws and has removed some checkmarks, but doubts remain about their vetting process. Evidence leans toward violations, though X disputes some claims, saying not all accounts are directly sanctioned. The issue is unresolved, raising concerns about platform safety. Paul told Ars that the TTP will continue monitoring suspected terrorist activity violating US sanctions on X. She said that Musk potentially "actively profiting from Houthi accounts and helping them fundraise" is notable from a national security standpoint in particular, since the Houthis recently sent a warning during Donald Trump's Middle East visit threatening to escalate tensions following a ceasefire where Houthis agreed to suspend attacks on American vessels. Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley Belanger Senior Policy Reporter Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience. 7 Comments