Politics with AI - nothing is sacred in Washington anymore, and it is extremely dangerous
In the U.S. Congress, staffers and lobbying groups are now having entire bills written by ChatGPT and Claude, and the lawyers in the House of Representatives can barely keep up with cleaning up the mess. Eight current and former staffers say the congressional legal office is being flooded with texts full of errors, sloppy wording, and language that sometimes does not even work legally. Staffers in lawmakers’ offices and political activists open ChatGPT or Claude and have the actual legislative text generated for them. What is supposed to save time is sometimes doing exactly the opposite.
One consultant who trained congressional staffers to use the technology says lawyers now spend more time fixing these texts than they would have spent writing the legislation themselves. But in a law, every single word can determine who gets money, who has to pay, and who a rule even applies to. Wade Ballou, the former head of the legal office, gives a simple example: a tax deduction, a tax credit, a tax exemption, and a direct government grant are four completely different things. Artificial intelligence can quickly turn one into something that sounds right but means something entirely different under the law. It gets even more dangerous with seemingly harmless definitions. If a bill defines a “state” only as one of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Native American reservations can suddenly be excluded from a federal program. Attorney and technology expert Ari Hershowitz also warns that automatically generated bills frequently cite the wrong sections of the U.S. Code. In his view, pushing mistakes like that into American law is a guaranteed way to create thousands more. And these are exactly the texts now landing on the desks of an office that was already operating at its limit. Sixty-one lawyers and 19 additional staffers drafted more than 30,000 bills during the previous Congress, almost three times as many as were actually introduced.
During the first 60 days of the current Congress, the office received 5,623 requests, 72 percent more than two years earlier. Warren Burke, the head of the legal office, warned back in March that text produced outside the office, whether by a person or a computer, takes substantially more time to review and correct. The next problem is obvious: if that review takes too long, lawmakers may start introducing automatically generated legislation directly. At that point, a bad draft is no longer just extra work for lawyers. It can become a bill that lawmakers actually vote on. So far, no bill voted on by either chamber has been identified as having been written entirely by artificial intelligence. That is hardly reassuring, because almost nobody in Washington talks publicly about using it. One congressional staffer described the subject as taboo. In June, Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida came under criticism after submitting a description of an amendment generated by Claude. She later said the actual amendment itself had been written by a human. While lawmakers and lobbyists are free to use commercial AI systems, the congressional legal office itself does not have unrestricted access to them. The lawyers are therefore expected to fix errors produced by tools they themselves cannot always use. The office has now created its own working group and plans to begin using artificial intelligence for legal research.
The whole thing shows just how absurdly far Washington has already gone. Laws decide questions of freedom, taxes, war, social benefits, and the powers of the government, and some of those texts are now being typed into a prompt box and spit back out by a machine. Anyone who thinks responsibility can be accelerated this way is confusing speed with actual work. A bad newspaper article can be corrected. A bad law can follow people for years. We already saw how far this can go with New York attorney Michael Furt, who was caught using artificial intelligence in court filings and then used AI again in the written explanation where he was supposed to explain why he had used it in the first place. What looked like a bad lawyer story there has now reached the place where American law is written. And there it is no longer funny. It is extremely dangerous.
Britain’s new prime minister was messaging a fake Trump insider
Britain’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, exchanged messages for a period of time with someone pretending to be one of Donald Trump’s closest advisers. The unknown person claimed to be White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Burnham eventually became suspicious himself, but by then several messages had already gone back and forth. It is still unclear how long the exchange lasted or what exactly they discussed.
One person involved has tried to play the incident down, describing it as nothing more than a few meaningless exchanges. It apparently was not quite that meaningless, however, because the British Embassy in Washington was concerned enough to raise the matter directly with the White House. One possibility that was examined was whether Wiles’ phone had been compromised. The American side denies that happened in this particular case. The problem is that Washington has already seen incidents exactly like this. U.S. officials and businesspeople had previously received strange messages from someone also pretending to be Susie Wiles. An investigation was opened in the United States over those contacts. Wiles herself had acknowledged at the time that her phone had been hacked. That turns an embarrassing mix-up into a security problem, because the person targeted this time was not some staffer. It was the new head of the British government.
Anyone who can convincingly pose as the U.S. president’s closest aide can potentially gain access to conversations that would be extremely valuable to foreign governments and intelligence services. Even a few messages can be enough to confirm contacts or draw out political assessments. The fact that Burnham eventually realized something was wrong does not change the fact that the false contact happened in the first place. It is still unknown who was behind the identity or what they were trying to achieve. It also remains unclear whether other politicians communicated with the same person. The case shows how little it can take for a familiar name to open a door even at the highest political level. Washington and London will now have to determine whether this was simply someone bluffing or whether there was something more behind the messages.
Europe’s harvests are collapsing - heat and drought hit farmers with full force
European agriculture is in the middle of a severe harvest crisis. Repeated heat waves, barely any rain, and dried-out soil are now hitting almost the entire continent, and French farmers are openly describing the situation as unprecedented. In France, the zucchini harvest fell by 25 percent, lettuce by 35 percent, peas by 40 percent, and broccoli by as much as 60 percent. Artichoke losses range from 50 percent to total crop failure depending on the region. More than 1,300 vegetable growers in Brittany are now demanding immediate help. Temperatures regularly above 86 degrees Fahrenheit and sometimes reaching 95 stopped the growth of many plants, while hot winds pulled even more moisture from the soil. Normally, one less affected growing region can make up for losses somewhere else.
This year, even that is no longer working because nearly all of France’s major production regions have been hit at the same time. Corn is being hit especially hard. France, Europe’s largest grain producer, expects a harvest of around 9 million tons, 35 percent less than in 2025. The country has not seen a corn harvest that small since 1980. Part of the decline is because farmers have switched to crops such as sunflowers, but the heat also struck corn during especially sensitive stages of growth. The bill is now arriving in livestock farming as well. Dairy cows begin suffering heat stress at around 77 degrees Fahrenheit, and many farms are reporting milk production down 10 to 15 percent. At the same time, winter feed is running short because the hay harvest is around 30 percent below the long-term average. Even egg production is taking a major hit. After large numbers of birds died during the June heat, France is now producing around one million fewer eggs every day. Italy is dealing with drought across roughly 60 percent of its agricultural land. Corn, rice, soybeans, vegetables, and fruit have all dropped sharply, milk production is down 20 percent, and damage to the sector has already topped 3 billion euros.
In the Po Valley, where roughly 80 percent of Italy’s rice is grown, farmers are for the first time watering their fields only once a week just to make it through the season. Spain is seeing similar numbers. Grain production fell 35 percent in Castile and León, 49 percent in the Madrid region, and 24 percent in Andalusia. Spanish winemakers expect wine production to fall by 20 percent this year. France has responded with 145 million euros in immediate aid and is promising additional support in the 2027 budget. Romania shows just how far the effects of the drought now reach. Low water levels in the Danube forced both reactors at the country’s only nuclear power plant offline at the same time for the first time since the plant began operating. What starts in Europe’s fields no longer ends at the price of vegetables. The heat is hitting food production, livestock farming, and now even the energy supply, and this summer is showing how little reserve is left when several regions dry out at the same time.
ICE wants to insure local police against lawsuits - the government pays for the risk
ICE is working on a new layer of protection for local police officers who make arrests on behalf of the immigration agency. Under a plan published Friday, state and local officers would be able to buy professional liability insurance covering personal exposure of up to $500,000. ICE would reimburse them up to $250 a year, roughly what the insurance is expected to cost. The coverage could pay legal fees, settlements, and possible judgments if officers are sued over their work. The backdrop is Donald Trump’s massive expansion of the so-called 287(g) program.
Read also our article: Investigations reveal: Bounty list - How ICE pays local police for arrests, even involving children
Nearly 1,600 agencies in 32 states now have agreements with ICE. Officers trained under those agreements can question people about their immigration status, make arrests, and initiate immigration proceedings. Arrests by these local ICE partners rose to an average of around 3,000 per month during the first two months of this year. Under Joe Biden in 2024, the monthly average was around 250. Trump has already put serious money behind the program. Police departments receive funding for salaries, vehicles, and equipment, with agencies in Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia among the most heavily involved.
But another concern is growing among sheriffs and police chiefs: who pays if an ICE arrest involves an illegal search, a wrongful arrest, or excessive force? A local government’s normal insurance policy does not automatically cover this kind of work. Pennsylvania’s municipal insurance pool recently excluded proactive immigration enforcement from coverage. Butler County therefore had to buy additional insurance for 13 deputies participating in the program at an annual cost of $20,000. Federal money is expected to cover the bill. ICE now wants to remove exactly that obstacle nationwide. David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, sees it as another shield against personal accountability and warns that ICE is going further and further to make sure officers face almost no financial risk even when Americans’ civil rights may have been violated.
The sheriffs, as expected, see it differently. Justin Smith, executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association, calls the idea promising and says fear of lawsuits is one reason some agencies have so far stayed away from working with ICE. ICE already tries to give its local partners legal protection. The agreements state that officers carrying out authorized ICE functions are acting under federal authority. If they are sued, they can also ask the U.S. Department of Justice to represent them, although DOJ makes the final decision. The new insurance would now cover what remains of the personal risk.
That creates a system in which Washington pays for the training, helps cover salaries and equipment, massively expands arrests, and now wants to put money on the table if those same operations produce lawsuits. ICE is waiting until Thursday for feedback from the insurance industry. When the program would begin and how much it would ultimately cost taxpayers remain unknown.
Scandal in the Oval Office - Trump calls CNN reporter “Fake News”
Donald Trump clashed with CNN reporter Kristen Holmes in the Oval Office on Monday. It started with a simple follow-up question about North Korea. Trump had just defended his decision to scale back joint military exercises with South Korea and again pointed to his good relationship with Kim Jong Un. Holmes then asked whether Kim had personally asked Trump to scale the exercises back.
Holmes: “Did he ask you to scale back those exercises?”
Trump: “Quiet. You’re very disrespectful in front of this young man, okay?”
Trump was referring to 16-year-old lifeguard Ryder Williams, who was being honored in the Oval Office that day. Trump then asked the reporter:
Trump: “Who are you with?”
Holmes: “I’m with CNN.”
Trump: “Fake News!”
Holmes tried to explain that she was simply following up on the previous question.
Trump: “You’re a loud, boisterous person. You’re Fake News. Be quiet. Be quiet. Be quiet. You’re a fake reporter and you report Fake News.”
Holmes: “I was just trying to find out whether you spoke with Kim Jong Un.”
Trump never answered the actual question. Holmes wanted to know whether his decision on the military exercises came after a direct request from Kim Jong Un. Instead of answering, Trump attacked the reporter personally, asked who she worked for, and then called her a “fake reporter.” The confrontation happened during an event that was supposed to honor a 16-year-old for rescuing a child. Shameful.
Trump turns back to Kim Jong Un - while the Iran war keeps him trapped
Reporter: “What do you say to those who say you are prioritizing the interests of our adversary North Korea over our longtime partners?” - Trump: “Kim Jong Un has always treated me with great respect … I’m making things safer.” (August 17, 2026)
Donald Trump is turning back to Kim Jong Un at the exact moment he cannot find a way out of the war with Iran. On Sunday, he publicly praised the North Korean leader again and ordered Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to reduce the American role in joint military exercises with South Korea. A day later, even the Pentagon still did not know exactly how that order would be carried out. Trump says the move is about his relationship with Kim and his anger at Seoul for refusing to support the United States in the Iran war. On top of that is a dispute over $350 billion in investments Washington expects from South Korea. Trump is now openly using the joint defense relationship as leverage against an ally while accommodating a country with a growing nuclear arsenal. And that has a history that is uncomfortable for Trump.
During his first term, he met Kim three times in person, declared that the two had a great relationship, and promised that North Korea’s nuclear program would be dismantled quickly. The opposite happened. By some estimates, North Korea now possesses around 60 nuclear weapons and missiles believed capable of reaching the United States. In other words, exactly the combination Trump once promised to eliminate. The second summit in Vietnam collapsed after Kim refused to dismantle facilities outside the Yongbyon nuclear complex. Trump went home without a deal. Now he is posting photos of himself with Kim again and writing: “Kim Jong Un and I get along GREAT!” On Monday he followed that with another joking post showing Kim on the phone asking: “Hey Donald, we cool … right?” Trump may see that as personal diplomacy, but the record from those earlier meetings remains unchanged. North Korea did not disarm. It built up more weapons. At the same time, Trump is fighting a war against Iran that was originally justified by the goal of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. His attention is now increasingly focused on the Strait of Hormuz, while large quantities of Iranian uranium remain buried beneath the rubble of facilities hit by American strikes and nobody knows exactly how much can still be recovered.
The contrast between the two countries could hardly be greater. Iran was on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power and was attacked. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, can threaten U.S. territory, and receives friendly messages from Trump. Scholar Robert Litwak calls it an incredible story of two so-called rogue states: the United States is at war with Iran while accommodating a nuclear-armed North Korea. Trump himself sees no contradiction. In the Oval Office on Monday, he said he was making the situation “much safer.” Kim had always treated him with great respect, he said, he understands Kim and Kim understands him. Trump made exactly the same claims about personal trust seven years ago without producing disarmament. Experts now even question whether Kim has any interest at all in giving up his nuclear weapons. North Korea is supporting Russia militarily in the war against Ukraine, continues to threaten South Korea, and sees its nuclear arsenal as insurance against attack. The Iran war is likely to strengthen that belief. Anyone in Pyongyang watching Washington bomb a country without a deployable nuclear weapon is hardly being given a reason to surrender their own. Trump is still trying to reach Kim again through personal closeness. At the same time, he is punishing South Korea over its Iran policy and over investments that are not arriving quickly enough for him. Senator Jack Reed calls the decision senseless and rushed and accuses Trump of punishing an ally for personal reasons.
Former government adviser Victor Cha sees two completely different approaches: with North Korea, Trump is pragmatically seeking negotiations with an existing nuclear power, while with Iran he is demanding virtually everything or nothing. The same question hangs over both cases. Trump already tried once to end a nuclear program through personal meetings and failed. Now he is stuck in an Iran war with no clear end in sight and once again reaches for the familiar photo with Kim Jong Un. The story that ended without disarmament the first time is beginning again for Trump.
Supreme Court rejects Trump again - $5 million verdict against him is now final
Supreme Court rejects Trump again - $5 million verdict against him is now final Donald Trump has failed in yet another attempt to wipe away the $5 million judgment in the E. Jean Carroll case. On Monday, the Supreme Court also rejected his request to reconsider its earlier decision. Trump’s lawyers wanted the justices to take the case after all. That is not going to happen. The Supreme Court had already declined to hear his appeal in June. Trump paid the $5 million shortly afterward. His side then tried once more to get the justices to reopen the matter.
Read also our articles: What Remains When the Statement Becomes the Crime - The U.S. Justice System at the Edge
83 Million Dollars, a President, and a Court System That Keeps Delaying
Trump Keeps Fighting Carroll Verdict - Now the Supreme Court Is Supposed to Help Again
Trump Fails in Appeals Court - $83 Million Judgment to E. Jean Carroll Upheld
A President Facing the End of Excuses – Trump Loses Appeal in the E. Jean Carroll Case
Requests like this are granted only extremely rarely, and Trump did not get a second chance either. That leaves the verdict of a New York jury in place. In 2023, the jury found that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her. Carroll testified that what began as a friendly encounter turned into a violent attack. Trump continues to deny the allegations. His denial in 2022 also became part of the case because the jury found that it defamed Carroll. Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said after the latest decision that the unanimous verdict against Trump is now final and can no longer be challenged in any court.
The Carroll cases are still not completely over for Trump. A second and much larger judgment remains before the Supreme Court. That case involves roughly $83 million over additional defamatory statements about Carroll. Trump and now the U.S. Department of Justice are asking the court to throw that judgment out. Their argument is that Trump was serving as president when he made the statements in 2019 and should therefore be protected from being sued over them. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that appeal. The justices have now permanently closed one Carroll case while the second, worth many times more, remains open. That is especially uncomfortable for Trump because the $5 million judgment is no longer merely paid. It is now effectively finished in court as well. His lawyers exhausted the path all the way to the Supreme Court and were turned away a second time. The jury’s finding remains in place: Trump is liable for sexually abusing Carroll and for defaming her.
Update on our article: Women Smuggle Video Out of ICE Detention, Beatings, Medical Emergencies and Missing Children
We will keep you updated. Right now, there is an intensive effort to determine whether the women’s cases can be connected to the case of Dana Ricketts. Ricketts also spoke publicly from inside the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile about abuse and already has an active federal case against ICE before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana: Ricketts v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 6:26-cv-01690. At the same time, the allegations against Lieutenant Kansas Green and Sergeant Rosa Guillory are being reviewed. Those allegations include sexual abuse, medical neglect, retaliation, and claims that medication was withheld. The question now is whether statements, events, and responsibilities across the different cases can be substantiated and whether they form a common legal connection. As of now, the women are no longer in solitary confinement. That does not mean the matter is over. Quite the opposite. Now begins the part where it has to be determined who knew what, who ordered which measures, and whether complaints were deliberately suppressed or punished.
At the same time, together with attorneys and civil rights organizations, we are reviewing the chances of securing the women’s release and requesting the complete case files so we can determine exactly what immigration violations they are actually accused of. One thing is already striking: in roughly 90 percent of the cases reviewed so far, no such violations have been found. That is exactly why access to every individual file matters - because only there can we see what actually exists against these women and what is merely being claimed.
