The chaos engulfing France is a preview of what Democrats want for America, Sen. Eric Schmitt warned, contrasting the unrest with new manufacturing jobs and a federal crime crackdown in Missouri that he credits to cooperation with the Trump administration.

"You see what’s happening in France. That’s exactly what they want here, the DSA Democrats," the Missouri Republican told Fox News Digital.

His warning comes as riots, fires and looting have swept France after protests over rising living costs and strained public services turned violent, prompting curfews in parts of Paris and other cities.

"I think the Democrat Party at this point is sort of post-American and anti-Western civilization," Schmitt said.

VIOLENT FAR-LEFT RIOTS IN FRANCE ARE 'CHILLING WARNING' FOR AMERICANS AT HOME, MIKE JOHNSON SAYS

With control of the House "up for grabs," Schmitt argued, Republicans need to make the stakes clear while showing voters what they have delivered.

INSIDE THE HOUSE GOP'S 4-WEEK BATTLE PLAN TO SAVE ITS MAJORITY

Asked what a Democratic House would mean for Trump’s agenda, Schmitt accused Democrats of obstructing Republican efforts on immigration, permitting reform and regulations.

'SQUAD' DEMOCRAT FORMALLY INTRODUCES BILL TO ABOLISH ICE, BORDER PATROL AND DISMANTLE DHS

He warned that Democratic control could jeopardize funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and revive what he described as the political weaponization of government under former President Joe Biden.

But Schmitt also argued Republicans need to give voters a reason to support them, pointing to jobs and public safety as areas where he says cooperation with the Trump administration is paying off.

KEY AMERICAN INDUSTRY SEEING BLUE-COLLAR JOBS BOOM AS TRUMP'S RE-SHORING POLICIES PAY OFF

In Missouri, he highlighted Boeing’s selection to build the Air Force’s F-47 and the Navy’s next-generation F/A-XX fighter as a potentially transformative investment in American manufacturing.

Boeing secured the Navy contract in September after winning the Air Force program last year.

BERNIE SANDERS ADMITS DEMOCRATS FAILED WORKING-CLASS VOTERS ON ECONOMICS, DRIVING THEM TO DONALD TRUMP

Schmitt, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the programs would mean 7,000 direct jobs, with additional opportunities for suppliers and surrounding businesses.

"It means that the goal we’ve been fighting for, which is that St. Louis is the defense tech capital of the United States of America, is coming true," he said.

TRUMP SAYS POLLS 'DON'T ACCOUNT FOR ONE THING,' AS HE PLEDGES TO DEFEAT COMMUNISTS 'ONCE AND FOR ALL'

Schmitt said he worked with Trump and administration officials to help land the programs, describing them as "generational opportunities" for Missouri workers.

"You think of the good-paying jobs that’s going to mean for generations to come, it’s just a game changer," he said.

He also tied the aircraft programs to the broader competition with China, saying the next generation of fighters would help meet military demands in the Pacific.

On public safety, Schmitt pointed to Operation Show Me Justice, an ATF-led enforcement surge that resulted in 435 arrests and the seizure of 166 firearms in St. Louis, according to the Justice Department.

Authorities also seized 81 kilograms of drugs and more than $1.25 million linked to suspected illegal gun and drug transactions during the operation, which officials announced had concluded Oct. 15.

Schmitt said his conversations with administration officials have carried a straightforward request for his hometown.

TRUMP’S LAW-AND-ORDER BLITZ MARKS ONE YEAR WITH EYE-POPPING HAUL OF SUSPECTS, GUNS IN BLUE CITY

"St. Louis, we need your help," he said.

The former Missouri attorney general described the toll of violence on families, including grandparents cleaning up broken glass and parents burying their children.

"We don’t need to accept this," he said. "We just don’t need to accept the idea that violent crime needs to be in the headlines every single day."

He pledged the effort would continue beyond the surge.

"This isn’t a one-and-done deal. There are more resources coming," Schmitt said.

OMAR'S NEW LEGISLATION TARGETING ICE SPARKS OUTRAGE WHEN THE INTERNET SEES WHAT'S IN IT: 'UN-AMERICAN'

For families wanting to send children safely to school, visit a park or attend a Cardinals game downtown, he said the goal is a better quality of life.

"I think the message is help is on the way, and there are real tangible results now, not just rhetoric, not just empty promises," Schmitt said.

"We’re not letting up."

Schmitt’s third major priority is modernizing St. Louis Lambert International Airport, an effort he linked to the region’s aerospace growth and aviation history.

His Modern Skies Act would fund improvements to air traffic control technology, towers and airport terminals. He said midsize airports need help securing investments that larger hubs can more readily finance.

"St. Louis is the gateway to the West," he said. "It deserves a world-class airport."

The proposal remains a legislative push rather than a guaranteed funding award for Lambert. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said during an October visit that airport funding would be competitive.

For Schmitt, those priorities form part of the argument Republicans need to make as voters weigh control of Congress.

He cast the election as "common sense versus crazy," but cautioned that Republicans cannot assume their supporters will show up.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"I just don’t think you can take anything for granted," Schmitt said. "I think we have to fight for every vote and tell an important story."

"I think if we do that, we’re gonna hold on to the Senate, and the House is up for grabs."

• Meta's AI agent, Muse, is unprofitable due to "very high compute costs," CEO Mark Zuckerberg says.
• Meanwhile, Meta expects Reality Labs, its AI glasses division, to lose $15 billion next year.
• The social media giant has a plan to fix that.

Meta says some of its biggest cash incinerators could finally start turning profits.

The social media giant, which generated over 97% of its quarterly revenue from ads, has faced persistent questions from investors about the lack of profitability in its AI and hardware initiatives.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg addressed those concerns head-on during its third-quarter earnings call on Wednesday.

Zuckerberg said that Muse, the AI assistant it launched last month, is unprofitable since it's "very compute intensive to run." Meta expects to start turning that around next year by massively improving Muse's efficiency.

"If compute efficiency continues improving quickly for another few years, which we think is highly likely, then Muse will be highly profitable over multiple years," he said.

Meta plans to make money from Muse by taking a small transaction fee off of purchases it drives, Zuckerberg said at Meta's Connect conference last month.

Zuckerberg added that Muse, which launched only in the US and Canada, wasn't launched globally due in part to the amount of compute it requires. (Meta's North American users are generally its most lucrative.)

Zuckerberg also struck a positive note about its cash-hemorrhaging Reality Labs division, which makes products like Meta Ray-Bans and virtual reality glasses.

Meta expects Reality Labs to narrow its losses to about $15 billion in 2027, down from the $18 to $19 billion it expects to lose this year. The division should start trending toward profitability next year, as Meta's AI systems make it more useful, Zuckerberg said.

"I continue to believe that the path to delivering holographic experience, of bringing together the physical and digital worlds and everyday glasses, will come through VR first," Zuckerberg said.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter securely on Signal at charlesrollet.12 or +1-628-282-2811. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

O presidente do Colégio de Presidentes dos Tribunais Regionais Eleitorais (Coptrel), desembargador Carlos Roberto Silva, explicou nesta quarta-feira (21), à Agência Brasil, que os dados foram erradamente comparados com os da eleição de 2024. Segundo a assessoria de imprensa do TSE, houve uma falha dos Tribunais Regionais Eleitorais (TREs) ao alimentar o sistema da Justiça.

Notícias relacionadas:

• ONU aponta falta de isenção da Meta em eleição brasileira.
• TSE estuda desativar canais políticos no WhatsApp 48h antes da eleição.
• Local de votação ainda pode mudar; consulte de novo antes de ir à urna.

"Esse número de 4.352 seções alteradas é irreal. Não ocorreram alterações de locais em 4.352 seções do 1º para o 2º turno no Brasil inteiro. Foi uma verificação equivocada desse dado. Esse dado de 4,3 mil seções alteradas é de 2024 para 2026", afirmou o desembargador.

Número correto

A Justiça Eleitoral atualizou para 343 o número de seções eleitorais que tiveram seu local modificado entre o primeiro e o segundo turno das eleições, que ocorrerá no próximo domingo (25). Na terça-feira (20), o sistema registrava 441 seções que teriam mudado de local, quantidade que caiu novamente na atualização desta quarta.

Como novas mudanças podem ocorrer até o dia da votação no próximo domingo (25), a Justiça Eleitoral recomenda que o eleitor confira o local de votar antes de sair para ir à urna.

O eleitor deve conferir o local de votação apenas nos canais oficiais da Justiça Eleitoral, seja no botão “onde votar” do aplicativo e-Título, ou nos portais do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) e dos TREs. Um dos canais é por meio deste link, clicando no botão “Onde votar”.

Ao abrir a sessão plenária do TSE na terça-feira, o presidente do Tribunal, ministro Kássio Nunes Marques, explicou que o sistema inicia a primeira semana após o primeiro turno com o mesmo número de mudanças ocorridas desde a eleição de 2024.

"Há uma necessidade de revisitação de toda a situação anterior ao primeiro turno. Então, ele [o número] vem, muito provavelmente, e é o que está acontecendo, caindo", disse.

Marques pontuou que, enquanto o sistema ELO, usado para sistematizar os dados estatísticos da Justiça Eleitoral, ainda indicava 38 locais de votação alterados em Minas Gerais, o TRE estadual calculava apenas 17 endereços modificados.

"No caso do Piauí, no sistema ELO, constam 18, mas o TRE já nos comunicou que apenas quatro locais de votação foram alterados", acrescentou.

As mudanças nos locais de votação são definidas pelos juízes de cada cartório eleitoral. Esse juiz informa ao TRE a necessidade de mudança, seja por problemas climáticos ou de estrutura dos prédios. Em seguida, o TRE repassa o dado ao TSE pelo sistema ELO.

Kássio Nunes Marques disse ainda que os dados atuais representam uma redução, em 2026, de 85% no número de urnas alteradas entre o primeiro e o segundo turnos, se comparado com a eleição de 2022.

Mudanças rotineiras

O presidente do TRE de Santa Catarina, Carlos Roberto Silva, explicou que mudanças em locais de votação fazem parte da rotina da Justiça Eleitoral, ocorrendo todos os anos.  

"Os juízes eleitorais divulgam, por todos os meios de comunicação, quando isso acontece e colocam avisos nos locais antigos, onde houve a mudança. Há sempre uma faixa avisando o novo local. Não há prejuízo aos eleitores, não há nenhuma situação de insegurança, é rotina", afirmou.

O desembargador acrescentou que todos os meios de comunicação locais são avisados quando há uma mudança.

"Além de colocar os avisos, o rádio fica divulgando constantemente. É um aviso muito efetivo, de uma forma que não há notícias de que eleitores tenham deixado de votar porque houve, eventualmente, essa alteração, que, repito, é uma rotina em todas as eleições", completou o desembargador.

O presidente do TRE catarinense acrescentou que a tendência é que ocorra o mínimo de novas alterações de locais até o próximo domingo.

"Alterações [ainda] são possíveis. Imagine que, nos próximos dias, em algumas regiões do Brasil, ocorra uma chuva de granizo intensa que estrague o telhado de uma escola. É possível, mas em casos muito excepcionais", completou.

Nos últimos dias, têm circulado diversas mensagens em grupos de WhatsApp ou nas redes sociais com links não oficiais sobre locais de votação que não são confiáveis. O eleitor não deve consultar o local de votação em links que não sejam os oficiais da Justiça Eleitoral.

The Atlanta Dream and Golden State Valkyries left the court for the national anthem before the first two games of the WNBA Finals. Now Riley Gaines is arguing that those decisions should carry consequences when athletes seek to represent the United States internationally.

Gaines initially weighed in while sharing OutKick’s video of the Game 2 anthem absence.

"It’s my personal opinion that if you kneel for the flag and what it represents, you shouldn’t be able to represent the USA at the Olympics," Gaines wrote on X.

DREAM, VALKYRIES SKIP NATIONAL ANTHEM IN WNBA FINALS GAME 2 DESPITE RULEBOOK REQUIREMENT

In a statement to OutKick, Gaines expanded her argument to players who leave the court to avoid the anthem.

"The American flag and our national anthem do not represent whichever political party or administration happens to be in power. They represent the American people, our shared identity, the freedoms we enjoy, and the generations of men and women who fought, sacrificed and died to preserve those freedoms," Gaines said.

"Players who leave the court specifically to avoid the national anthem are making a deliberate statement. They are free to do so, of course. Free speech includes the freedom to withhold respect."

"But I’m of the mind that choice has consequences when the same athletes later seek the honor of representing the United States on the international stage."

Neither Finals team nor the WNBA has answered OutKick’s questions about the anthem absences. Nor has the NBA, whose commissioner, Adam Silver, is helping lead the search for the WNBA’s next commissioner.

NBA STAYS SILENT ON WNBA FINALS TEAMS SKIPPING NATIONAL ANTHEM IN GAMES 1 AND 2

Gaines said patriotism does not require blind allegiance to a political party or pretending America is without flaws. But she argued that athletes seeking to represent the country should be judged on how they treat its anthem.

"If an athlete treats standing for the anthem as optional or objectionable during the WNBA season, it is reasonable to question whether they are prepared to accept the full weight of representing the country when the spotlight is global," she said.

Former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones called Tuesday for players from both teams to lose their eligibility to represent the United States in Olympic basketball.

Jones wrote that those players "should be ineligible to play on the U.S. Women’s Olympic Basketball Team."

Atlanta’s Team USA connection includes Angel Reese and Rhyne Howard

Reese and Howard were both named to Team USA’s 2026 Women’s World Cup roster. The Dream announced their selections in August, noting that they became the first two players in franchise history selected together for the United States at a five-on-five Women’s World Cup or Olympics.

Golden State had no players on that U.S. World Cup roster, but Valkyries head coach Natalie Nakase served as a U.S. assistant coach. Golden State star Gabby Williams represents France.

Both Reese and Howard stood for the national anthem while representing the United States at September’s FIBA Women’s World Cup.

AMERICA'S WOMEN'S BASKETBALL EPIC REACHES CLIMAX WITH NATIONAL UNITY ON THE LINE IN FIBA WORLD CUP FINAL

But representing the United States internationally comes with an extra responsibility to show respect for the country at home.

And that responsibility doesn't disappear when the USA jersey comes off and the WNBA jersey goes on. Staying off the court while the anthem plays during the WNBA Finals falls short of the standard we should expect from athletes entrusted with representing this country.

Sage Steele warns anthem absences could drive fans away

Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele also criticized the league in a social media video.

Steele accused the WNBA’s players, coaches and leadership of disrespecting the country by leaving the court for the anthem.

"So are they free to express themselves the way they want? Absolutely. But there’s a cost to it," Steele said.

"And I just hope they realize that this constant lack of respect is going to turn fans away forever. They’re not going to come back, and it’s going to be their own fault," Steele added.

Players are free to express themselves, but as Steele noted, that freedom can come with a price. We're not calling for the players to be jailed.

The First Amendment limits the government’s power to restrict speech, but it doesn’t require fans to support those choices or critics to stay quiet. We have the right to express our disapproval, too.

WNBA rulebook calls for an anthem lineup

Both Finals teams were off the floor during the anthem before Saturday’s opener and Monday’s Game 2 at Chase Center. In both games, the players returned within seconds of the performance ending.

The WNBA’s 2026 official rulebook includes a provision calling for players, coaches and trainers to stand and line up in a dignified posture along the sidelines or foul line during the national anthem.

OUTKICK IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE FOX NEWS APP: CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

OutKick contacted the WNBA and both teams after Game 1, followed up Sunday and again Tuesday. The inquiries sought explanations for the absences, clarification of the league’s anthem requirements and the teams’ plans for Game 3 on Wednesday night in Atlanta.

Those questions remain unanswered.

For Gaines, the responsibility goes beyond a WNBA pregame routine.

"Wearing the USA jersey is not a private entitlement that comes with athletic success. It is a public responsibility," she said.

Para divulgar suas informações financeiras, o candidato do PL quer que Lula também divulgue os dados de Marco Aurélio Santana Ribeiro, ex-chefe de gabinete do presidente, os registros de entrada da empresária Roberta Luchsinger no Palácio do Planalto, os sigilos de José Ferreira da Silva, o Frei Chico, irmão de Lula, entre outras condições.

Notícias relacionadas:

• TSE: Lula autoriza quebra de sigilo bancário se Flávio fizer o mesmo.
• Lula e Flávio fazem primeiro debate das eleições na TV Band.

Segundo o candidato do PL, o pedido de Lula é uma "verdadeira aberração jurídica". Para Flávio, o candidato à reeleição poderia divulgar seus extratos sem enviar o caso ao TSE.

As petições de Flávio e Lula foram encaminhadas ao ministro André Mendonça, relator do caso.

Top Democrats and allied organizations filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration over their attempts to stymie the midterm elections, including by removing voters from state rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., were among the plaintiffs who filed the suit against Trump, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The 44-page complaint takes aim at recent demands from DHS — notably in Nevada and California — that states review lists compiled by federal officials of alleged noncitizen voters.

As the complaint notes, state officials have disputed the accuracy of those lists.

The lawsuit points to Trump’s Truth Social threat earlier this week threatening that election officials in LA County “will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” if they count the votes of alleged noncitizens. It cites another from U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Aaron Reitz, who said in a social media post on Monday that he would “hunt” and “prosecute” anyone who violates federal election law.

“DOJ’s recent actions confirm that Defendants have settled on a course of intimidating state election officials with threats of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than adhering to state law and distributing ballots to registered voters,” states the complaint, filed 13 days before the midterms.

The filing alleges the administration’s efforts to wrest control of elections from the states, combined with federal officials’ threats toward local and state officials, violate the Voting Rights Act and constitutional principles that prevent the federal government from forcing states to enact, administer or enforce federal laws.

In addition to Schumer and Jeffries, the plaintiffs include the Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez, a registered California voter who the lawsuit says became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago but fears he could be falsely labeled as a noncitizen and “unlawfully targeted” as a result.

The defendants also include Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has said he would “absolutely” consider taking the issue to the Supreme Court; and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has said his department will penalize states that do not cooperate with the federal government’s demands. The plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and to block them from continuing those actions.

“None of this is lawful,” the complaint states. “The Executive Branch enjoys no authority to superintend state voter list maintenance, to supplant state determinations of who is qualified to vote, or to dictate who gets a ballot or whose ballot gets segregated — Congress has kept that responsibility with the States, subject only to a narrow civil enforcement power the administration has declined to invoke during its recent efforts.”

The lawsuit represents the latest challenge to the administration’s efforts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls, which federal courts have also unanimously struck down. Democrats and elections experts have said these efforts could undermine trust in the upcoming elections. But federal officials have persisted, including by filing a lawsuit against California election officials last week.

Trump administration officials slammed the allegations included in the latest lawsuit.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud,“ adding, “The Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”

DOJ spokesperson Kirsten Pels said “election integrity is a top priority” for the administration, adding, “Every action the Department has taken to protect the integrity of this year’s elections is grounded in the law and being litigated in open court. Ensuring that only eligible citizens vote and that every lawful ballot is counted a requirement of federal law.”

A spokesperson for DHS called the lawsuit “another political stunt by Democrats.”

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg, an Obama appointee who presided over the first lawsuit challenging the deportation and imprisonment of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. During an emergency hearing in March 2025, Boasberg ordered that no additional flights to El Salvador could take off; Trump subsequently called him a “Radical Left Lunatic.”

Boasberg was also the subject of a judicial misconduct complaint filed by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff in July 2025, based on his alleged comments during a panel conversation at the annual Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, Boasberg predicted that the administration “would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’” The chief judge of the 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, dismissed that complaint earlier this year.

Lisa Rubin and Selena Kuznikov contributed to this report.

CORRECTION (Oct. 21, 2026, 10:31 p.m. ET):
A previous version of this article misrepresented a statement from White House spokesperson Lauren Bis. Bis claimed that “Democrats and the media” dismiss concerns about voter fraud, but she did not herself dismiss voter fraud concerns.

The post Democrats sue Trump for ‘intimidating’ state election officials appeared first on MS NOW.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito further distanced themselves from their Supreme Court colleagues on Wednesday when they were the only two jurists to note their objections to the court’s refusal to let the Trump administration immediately enforce its preferred policy on gender-affirming care in prison.

The court’s unsigned order contained no explanation from the majority or the dissenting duo. Still, it’s the latest data point showing Thomas and Alito backing the administration even when their fellow GOP appointees — including President Donald Trump’s own three appointees — decline to do so.

Wednesday’s order follows last month’s Supreme Court rejection of Trump’s desired mail-ballot restrictions for the midterm elections. That loss led the president to lash out at the court, including his own appointees, while calling Thomas and Alito “legends.”

Asked during a recently published CBS News interview about a Wall Street Journal study showing that Alito sided with Trump more than any of his colleagues, the justice said he’s “not trying to decide cases to help President Trump.”

Whatever his or Thomas’ intentions, their latest actions spotlight their dynamic of voting for the president’s position when other justices don’t. Their votes come ahead of the rapidly approaching Election Day in less than two weeks, with voters set to determine which party will control Senate confirmation of justices for the near future.

Alito said he’s staying on the court at least through this court term, even if Democrats win back Senate control. Thomas has likewise not signaled that he is stepping down imminently. If he stays on the court through the next term, he will become the longest-serving justice ever. In their late 70s, Thomas and Alito are the two eldest members of the current court, but they aren’t very old by the court’s historical standards.

Yet if Trump has an opportunity to appoint their successors or any other justices before he leaves office in 2029, their latest votes underscore why he will likely model his next selection(s) on them, rather than on the justices he has put on the bench thus far, who have backed him in a series of significant cases but not all of them.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Supreme Court’s split on gender care highlights Alito and Thomas as pro-Trump outliers appeared first on MS NOW.

• Anthropic has its answer to AI agents like Meta's Muse and OpenAI's Dots.
• Claude Duet, built on Anthropic's flagship model, has entered the personal agent frenzy.
• Karan Ahuja, a recent departee from Meta, led Claude Duet's development.

Anthropic is joining the personal AI agent craze.

The company announced the new app Claude Duet on Wednesday, billed as a "proactive agent" that can run in the background, surface tasks to a user, and handle a variety of work. The tool is in research preview for now with a waitlist, meaning it won't immediately compete for the larger market with other new agents like Meta's Muse and OpenAI's Dots.

Still, the announcement ramps up the pressure on those companies — Anthropic says it built Duet around its flagship Opus 5.5 model, which was released in late September and has already become one of the industry's most popular. Recent model breakthroughs have made AI better at handling work on its own, spurring a rush to build these "always-on" personal agents.

"It can have the discernment and judgment around when to be proactive, when to act on your behalf," said Mike Krieger, a co-lead of Anthropic's Labs team, said in a Duet launch video.

The tool, Anthropic says, will send users a brief each morning about what's happening on their connected apps, and message them when something needs attention. Like other companies' offerings, it runs outside a user's computer, sends notifications, and asks for approval on certain tasks.

Anthropic announced Duet on the day of Meta's earnings report and used the opportunity to mention a new poach from Mark Zuckerberg's company. Karan Ahuja led product management for Meta Superintelligence Labs until July, according to his LinkedIn, before starting at Anthropic in August and leading Duet's development.

He wrote on X that he's been using Duet to build Duet, and said the team "built it for professionals and small business owners juggling a lot at work and at home."

Ahuja also wrote that Anthropic is letting people into Duet from the waitlist "as quickly as possible."

The news didn't go unnoticed at Meta. Alexandr Wang, who heads Meta Superintelligence Labs, posted a meme about Duet's similarity to Muse.

Anthropic is fast approaching a giant initial public offering, which could value the company at as much as $2 trillion. Like other AI players, the company navigates a high-wire competition to win over users, secure computing power, build state-of-the-art models, and deliver AI-native products.

The data firm Apptopia estimates that Muse had more than 14 million installations as of Wednesday. It found that Claude users who installed the Muse app were using Claude more than before, though still for fewer minutes per day than they spent on the Meta product.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at scouncil@businessinsider.com, or over text, Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 415-757-8198. Use a personal email address, a non-work WiFi network, and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

By any fair measure, Donald Trump’s second term has been brutal for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a variety of reasons. At the heart of the problem is the president’s stated determination not merely to brazenly politicize federal disaster aid, but to destroy the agency altogether, for reasons he has struggled to explain.

In May 2025, then-acting FEMA chief Cameron Hamilton testified before Congress that it would be in the public’s interest if FEMA continued to exist. He was fired the next day, because Hamilton’s line was at odds with Trump’s stated position, which is that FEMA should be destroyed and states left to their own devices.

A year later, after quite a few acting FEMA administrators had come and gone, the president made an unexpected move: He brought Hamilton back for a second stint, and the Senate confirmed him soon after.

I can’t help but notice that Hamilton’s position is far more in line with the White House’s than it was early last year. Politico reported:

The Trump administration’s disaster chief told state officials Tuesday they must increase their financial reserves and emergency capabilities to handle most disasters on their own, without federal help.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Cameron Hamilton gave unprecedented detail at a conference in Little Rock, Arkansas, about the administration’s long-planned shift of disaster responsibilities to states.

“Every state must have the appropriate financial reserves” and other abilities “to ensure that recovery efforts can start immediately and not necessarily be held up simply because of the federal [disaster] declaration process,” Hamilton said, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by Politico.

“A future that I hope we would shoot for is one where we wouldn’t require as many disasters because the capability of states is so high and so substantial,” Hamilton added, referring to presidential authorizations of federal disaster aid.

Whether the current FEMA chief is allowed to say so or not, the Trump-backed model that Hamilton endorsed will not and cannot work. State and local governments simply do not have the wherewithal — financial resources, personnel, equipment, etc. — to respond to major disasters. It’s why FEMA was created in the first place: The federal government can marshal effective responses before and after a crisis in ways others cannot.

As Politico’s report added, Eric Holdeman, a longtime emergency management official, wrote on LinkedIn on Monday in response to Hamilton’s memo, “There are many states with [minuscule] emergency management offices and budgets. There are states with slim rainy-day funds and no capacity to make up for a lack of federal disaster recovery funds — without RAISING TAXES!”

Holdeman added, “Reducing the number of federal disaster declarations will be difficult and its implementation will be impossible! All Presidents, not just the one we have today, will ignore such a policy when it becomes politically expedient to do so.”

Nevertheless, in the leaked audio recording of Hamilton’s comments, the FEMA administrator said to expect changes to get underway in earnest “in the next six months.”

If there’s a Democratic Congress next year, it’s a safe bet that the administration will get meaningful pushback long before such plans are implemented. Watch this space.

The post FEMA chief tells states they shouldn’t count on disaster aid under Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

As Donald Trump’s administration bows to Russia in disturbing ways, top MAGA influencers in the “America First” movement are getting in on the Russophilia by increasingly wedding themselves to leaders and nations that are effectively under Vladimir Putin’s thumb.

And a newly announced conference in Serbia is a prime example.

On Monday, the Conservative Political Action Conference revealed plans to hold a convention in Belgrade in November. Other recent CPAC conventions abroad have effectively served as authoritarian pep rallies, and the Serbia gathering seems like it will be no different. CPAC is touting an appearance by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who has earned the moniker “Little Putin” for his deference to the Russian strongman.

It’s notable that this convention was announced amid reporting, including from MS NOW’s David Rohde, about former Trump campaign officials’ advocacy on behalf of pro-Putin Serbian nationalists.

Vučić is comparable to Trump in that he is viewed by some as a Putin stooge who has opposed sanctions on Russia and effectively aided the Kremlin’s efforts to destabilize the European Union. And, like Trump, he has been the standard-bearer for an increasingly illiberal political party, one that has sought to manipulate electoral systems in its favor.

Given all of this, it’s no wonder why MAGA world adores Serbia’s current leadership: This is a movement broadly infatuated with authoritarianism. But it’s noteworthy that, much like with Russia, even some conservatives are wary of Serbia’s antidemocratic backsliding.

Ahead of Serbia’s parliamentary elections this weekend, a bipartisan group of seven senators — including Republicans from Iowa, Mississippi and North Carolina — issued a warning about Vučić’s party.

“Unfortunately, both Serbian and international election observers found serious infringements to the integrity of the previous parliamentary elections in 2022. We are now seeing similarly troubling signs ahead of the October 25 vote,” the senators said in a statement. “Reports of unlawful wiretapping of opposition members and attempts to discredit and undermine election observation missions are deeply concerning, and Serbian authorities must ensure a level playing field for all parties and open access to the polls for all citizens.”

It’s telling of the MAGA movement’s broad disdain for democracy that one of its most prominent activist groups is openly choosing to associate with such a party. And it speaks to a movement that seems more obsessed with expanding its influence in foreign lands than addressing the numerous crises their dear leader has created for Americans at home.

The post Republicans are taking CPAC to Serbia as the party bows to Putin appeared first on MS NOW.

School resource officers (SROs) in Texas referred tens of thousands of elementary and middle schoolers for prosecution for relatively minor misconduct over the last decade, a news investigation found.

An analysis by The New York Times and the San Antonio Express-News reported that, as the number of SROs in Texas grew, children in Texas ages 10 to 13 were referred to prosecution for misbehaving in school more than 47,000 times since 2014. A referral doesn't necessarily result in charges being filed, but each one represents a minor being taken into police custody and put in contact with the criminal justice system, which can have long-lasting educational, emotional, and financial impacts for students and their families.

"Most of the students were accused of minor offenses, like making threats, using cannabis vapes or lashing out at classmates or teachers," the papers reported. "Few caused serious physical harm."

Among the examples cited by the Times and Express-News were an 11-year-old who bumped into a school counselor, a 10-year-old who said he saw someone on campus with a weapon, and a 10-year-old who kicked an assistant principal after his cellphone was taken away. 

In one case, a 12-year-old girl who refused to go to the principal's office was handcuffed, arrested, and driven to the school police headquarters. "When she would not put her hand on a fingerprint machine, officers twisted her opposite arm behind her back until she screamed and complied, according to body camera footage," the outlets reported.

The analysis found that referrals of children 10 to 13 increased by a greater percentage than referrals of older students. (Children under 10 cannot be prosecuted under Texas law; many other states don't set a minimum age for delinquency.)

The two outlets published another joint investigation in May on how SROs in Texas schools have used heavy-handed tactics, including Tasers and pepper spray, against students over seemingly minor misconduct.

The findings mirror other recent studies. A report published in July by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa found that, while SROs were placed in Iowa schools to keep students safe from violence, the threat they most commonly dealt with was illicit vaping.

The number of police in schools nationally dramatically increased in recent years, growing by 23 percent at high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools between 2018 and 2021, largely under the justification of stopping mass shootings and handling violent situations.

Organizations like the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) say that carefully selected, well-trained officers act as a filter and decrease arrests by building strong relationships within the school with staff and students.

Civil liberties groups and disability advocates have long argued that increases in school police and zero-tolerance policies for petty disturbances have fueled the "school-to-prison" pipeline and led to disproportionate enforcement against minorities and students with disabilities. Those groups have been aided by viral news stories of police arresting and assaulting school children.

Following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and national calls for police reform, several major school districts across the country ended their SRO programs. 

However, several states that experienced horrific school shootings, like Florida and Texas, moved in the opposite direction, passing laws that required police officers or armed guardians in public schools.

A 2020 Reason investigation described how Florida schools had become a high-stakes experiment in policing after Florida more than doubled the number of SROs across the state following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. A study published in 2020 found that after the increase, the number of Florida school arrests—which had been declining for years—suddenly started to rise. There was also a sharp increase in the use of physical restraint against students.

A 2021 working paper by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, which billed itself as the broadest and most rigorous examination at the school level of how SROs impact student outcomes, found that while SROs "do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools," they did not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.

Another study by researchers at the University of Maryland and the firm Westat, who studied several dozen middle and high schools in California, found that increasing the number of SROs led to both immediate and persistent increases in the number of drug and weapon offenses and the number of suspensions and expulsions of students.

The post Texas School Police Referred Tens of Thousands of Children to Prosecutors for Minor Misbehavior appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On a Tuesday morning in February 2025, federal agents descended upon Ayala's Mini Market, a convenience store in Glendale, Arizona, that offered check cashing, money transfer, shipping, and cellphone repair services along with standard items such as groceries, snacks, sodas, and cigarettes. The agents, who worked for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), seized three computers, five cellphones, and business records, plus about $460,000 in cash and checks. They did not say why.

Twenty months later, the store's owner, Mario Ayala, still has not received a definitive answer to that question. Nor has the government told him what it plans to do with his property or how he can try to get it back. That Kafkaesque situation is unconstitutional, Ayala's lawyers at the Institute for Justice argue in a motion and memorandum they filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The motion seeks the return of the property seized from Ayala's business, saying there is no legitimate reason for the government to keep it.

"The government can't take your stuff, disappear, and then never explain itself," says Institute for Justice attorney Betsy Sanz. "For over a year and a half, the government has been holding Mario's money and property. This prolonged seizure violates the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The government cannot hold onto your property indefinitely without explanation so it can eventually take it permanently using civil forfeiture."

The raid on Ayala's store happened while he was visiting his ailing father in Mexico, who died a couple of months later. After Ayala's wife and son called to tell him what had happened, he rushed back to Arizona, where he tried to figure out why his business had been targeted by the IRS and the DHS. That was harder than you might think.

Ayala "has heard nothing from the government since they raided his business and seized his property," Sanz and her colleagues note in their memorandum. When the agents left, they told Ayala's son that "the business would receive a letter within thirty days," the memorandum says, but "no letter came," and the government "has not told Mario why it took his property or why it refuses to return it."

The agents left a one-page inventory of the property they took, including the computers, cellphones (two of which belonged to Ayala's customers), documents, and currency, although it did not specify the amount of money. They also left the first page of a warrant signed by a federal magistrate judge, which contained no information about the crime they were investigating or the property they were authorized to seize. It referred to attachments that might have clarified those points, but the attachments were missing.

Ayala still has not seen those attachments. But on the same day the agents raided his store, they also searched 18 other businesses in the Phoenix area, all of which offered money services. Judging from the warrants served on three of those other businesses, which were signed by the same magistrate judge at the same time on the same day as the warrant for Ayala's Mini Market, the legal justification for the searches was suspected violations of 31 USC 5324, which makes it a felony to "structure" a financial transaction with the intent of "evading" federal reporting requirements.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires that financial institutions report cash transactions involving more than $10,000 to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Although that mandate is aimed at money laundering, someone can be guilty of structuring even without evidence of any other crime if he deliberately tries to avoid triggering a FinCEN report by breaking up a transaction into amounts below the threshold. As far as Ayala can tell, the search of his store was based on nothing more than suspicion of structuring.

If so, Ayala's lawyers argue, the IRS agents who participated in the raid violated a 2019 federal law that bars the agency from seizing money when structuring is the only suspected crime. Congress passed that law in response to IRS forfeiture abuses highlighted by the Institute for Justice. "For the IRS to legally seize property based on a structuring offense, it must also have an added suspicion of some other criminal act," Sanz et al. note. "Yet the IRS seized Mario's property, apparently on the sole suspicion of a structuring violation."

That is not the only legal problem with the seizure. Assuming the government plans to seek forfeiture of Ayala's money based on an alleged connection to criminal activity, it missed a crucial deadline. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) requires the federal government to notify property owners of attempted forfeitures within 60 days of the seizure. That deadline passed a year and a half ago, and Ayala still has received no such notice.

"This notice is crucial because it informs a property owner that the government intends to forfeit his property and triggers his ability to respond by filing a claim or administrative petition," Ayala's lawyers note. If the government fails to meet that requirement, CAFRA says, it "shall return the property."

The government can seek extensions of the CAFRA deadline "only if there is reason to believe that notice may have an adverse result," such as "endangering the life or physical safety of an individual," "flight from prosecution," "destruction of or tampering with evidence," "intimidation of potential witnesses," or "otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial." None of those conditions applies in this case, Sanz et al. say, and their client "is unaware of the government seeking any such extension here."

Another possible rationale for keeping Ayala's property is that the government needs it as evidence in a criminal investigation. But his lawyers argue that the seized items "have no independent evidentiary value."

The government "cannot claim that it is holding the cash as evidence of the suspected structuring offense, because the government—in the usual course—does not continue to hold the physical cash it seizes but rather promptly deposits it," the memorandum says. "To prove the suspected offense here, the government would present evidence documenting the amounts and frequency of transactions and evidence that the defendant intentionally evaded reporting requirements. No fact the government must prove to establish a structuring offense becomes more or less provable by the government's continued possession of Mario's money."

Although "the checks and business documents that the government seized from Mario may at first have had some evidentiary value," Sanz et al. say, it could have long since returned the originals and kept copies. As for the computers and cellphones, "the government has had ample time to extract and copy" any relevant information.

While the benefits of keeping Ayala's property seem highly dubious, the cost to him has been severe. The seizure of the checks and currency wreaked havoc with his business model, which relies on money received for transfers to cash checks, which in turn are scanned and used to pay the companies that handle the transfers.

"The search and seizure of Mario's property upended his business," the memorandum says. "He had to keep his business closed until March 1, 2025, to replace the seized computers and to figure out how they could keep the business open. He took $50,000 of his own money out of the bank so that he could keep cashing customers' checks. When that ran out, the business had to stop cashing checks for a long time, losing customers."

Ayala "also had to come up with $112,097.20 to pay the money transmitters to cover the balance that had accrued while he was away," his lawyers add. "Since all the cash and cashed-but-unscanned checks had been seized, Mario needed to pay this money to the transmitters on his own. Though he did ultimately pay back all the money transmitters over the following month, the consequences of the raid damaged Mario's business relationship with one of the money transmitters he had formerly worked with, InterMex. Today, the business can no longer offer InterMex as an option for money transfers."

Ayala's business "is now finally stable, but it is still not doing as well as it was before the raid," Sanz et al. say. "Mario has changed the way he runs his business because of the raid. He now scans every customer's cashed check to send it to the money transmitters as soon as it is cashed, rather than collecting [checks] and scanning them together as they previously did. He constantly worries that his business will be targeted again."

In the 20 months since the raid, the government has not filed a forfeiture action or even notified Ayala that it intends to do so. Nor has it filed any criminal charges related to the seizure, as far as Ayala knows. "The government has no lawful reason to retain
Mario's property," his lawyers say, "and this Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to order its return."

The motion relies on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which says "a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which includes Arizona, has adopted four criteria for granting such a motion: whether the government "displayed a callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the movant," whether "the movant has an individual interest in and need for the property he wants returned," whether "the movant would be irreparably injured by denying return of the property," and whether "the movant has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance."

All of those factors count in Ayala's favor, Sanz et al. argue. Ayala's interest in the property and the injury he is suffering are clear, as is the absence of any other remedy. As for the first criterion, "the government can neither forfeit Mario's property nor justify holding it as evidence, so its continued retention is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the memorandum says. "And its nearly 20 months of silence, without any notice or any forum in which to contest the seizure, offends due process. At every turn, the government has 'callous[ly] disregarded' Mario's constitutional rights."

Ayala immigrated to the United States from Mexico in 1991 and struggled for years to make a go of his business, which was successful enough at the time of the raid that he planned to open a new location devoted to cellphone repair. That plan is now on hold because of the financial difficulties caused by the seizure.

"This business is my American Dream, and the government took years of my hard work without telling me what I did," Ayala says. "This raid hurt me and my family. I hope this lawsuit gets my money back and helps make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else."

The post The Feds Took $460,000 From This Arizona Convenience Store Owner and Never Explained Why appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Most Americans probably understand that politics can be an ugly business. As long as there have been campaigns, there have been candidates and parties trying to appeal to voters’ worst instincts by aiming for the gutter.

But once in a while, a campaign ad comes along that manages to disgust a wide variety of decent people, regardless of party or ideology. MS NOW reported:

In a new, unaired attack ad against Amy Acton, the Democrat running for governor of Ohio, her estranged mother speaks directly to the camera to accuse her of lying about her past.

“Don’t vote for people who lie,” says Donna Arthur — who married a man whom Acton accused of sexually abusing her as a child — in the video.

The campaign team for Vivek Ramaswamy, Acton’s Republican rival, confirmed to The Associated Press that it produced the ad and plans to spend $4 million airing it, apparently indifferent to the condemnations.

“It’s not surprising that Vivek Ramaswamy has stooped to such a despicable low as to attempt to turn the sexual abuse Amy endured at 12 years old from our birth mother’s husband into a political talking point,” Acton’s brother, Philip Stearns, said in a statement.

“After he was arrested and Amy and I were removed from their custody, our birth mother stayed married to Amy’s rapist until he died,” Stearns added. “This desperate, disgusting attack reveals exactly who Vivek Ramaswamy is at his core — a pathetic excuse for a man who is willing to hurt anyone as long as it gets him what he wants.”

Plenty of Republicans also slammed the vile attack, including former GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley, who said via social media that Ramaswamy is “a bad guy.”

One day later, however, JD Vance traveled to Ohio, in large part in the hopes of boosting Ramaswamy, who’s trailed Acton in several recent statewide polls, with time running out in the election cycle. Any chance the vice president might take the high road on the year’s most offensive attack ad?

Evidently not.

On Wednesday morning, Vance, himself an Ohio Republican, initially said the propriety of the ad (or lack thereof) was “not really my concern.” But he didn’t stop there.

“I have to admit that I’m a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans across the country who are whining more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America,” the vice president said.

In other words, Vance isn’t disgusted by the ad, which features a woman who sided with her alleged rapist husband over her own daughter, whom she calls a “liar”; Vance is disgusted by Republicans who have a problem with that ad.

Soon after, the vice president headlined a rally and went even further, insisting that the commercial “calls it out like it is.” Vance went on to accuse Acton of somehow controlling independent news organizations, adding that Ramaswamy has never complained about any of the criticisms he’s faced — which might be credible if anyone had ever targeted the GOP nominee with an ad this abhorrent.

We’ll see soon enough whether the commercial ends up backfiring on Ramaswamy, who almost certainly wouldn’t have pursued such an attack if he thought he was likely to win the gubernatorial race. But in the meantime, Vance just faced a test of his personal character, and he flunked.

The post JD Vance is ‘disgusted,’ not by Ramaswamy’s vile ad but by its bipartisan critics appeared first on MS NOW.