Friday, January 30, 2026
What is Statute Labor? What is Statutory Labor?
Statute labor (or statutory labor) historically refers to a system of forced or mandatory unpaid labor imposed by law, often requiring citizens to work on public projects like roads as a form of taxation.
In a modern context, this term is rarely used, though it broadly relates to labor regulated by government statutes.
Key aspects often associated with statutory or mandatory work include:
Historical Context: Historically, it was a requirement for residents to perform a certain number of days of labor on public infrastructure, such as road maintenance, in lieu of paying taxes.
Public Service: It was often organized at the local or municipal level.
Modern Equivalence: It has largely been replaced by taxation systems where money, rather than physical labor, is used to fund public works.
Note: In some contexts, the term "statutory employee" is used to describe a worker who is treated as an employee by law for tax purposes even if they are an independent contractor.
- Statute labor.
- Statutory labor.
Thursday, January 29, 2026
The Wilderness Road
Wikipedia: The Wilderness Road.
The Wilderness Road was one of two principal routes used by colonial and early national era settlers to reach Kentucky from the East. Although this road goes through the Cumberland Gap into southern Kentucky and northern Tennessee, the other (more northern route) is sometimes called the "Cumberland Road" because it started in Fort Cumberland in Maryland. Despite Kentucky Senator Henry Clay's advocacy of this route early in the 19th century, the northern route was selected for the National Road, connecting near Washington, Pennsylvania into the Ohio Valley of northern Kentucky and Ohio.
The Wilderness Road was one of two principal routes used by colonial and early national era settlers to reach Kentucky from the East. Although this road goes through the Cumberland Gap into southern Kentucky and northern Tennessee, the other (more northern route) is sometimes called the "Cumberland Road" because it started in Fort Cumberland in Maryland. Despite Kentucky Senator Henry Clay's advocacy of this route early in the 19th century, the northern route was selected for the National Road, connecting near Washington, Pennsylvania into the Ohio Valley of northern Kentucky and Ohio.
In 1775, Daniel Boone blazed a trail for the Transylvania Company from Fort Chiswell in Virginia through the Cumberland Gap. It was later lengthened, following Indian trails, to reach the Falls of the Ohio at Louisville. The Wilderness Road was steep, rough and narrow. It could be traversed only on foot or horseback. By contrast, wagons could travel along the National Road route (originally the Braddock Road blazed by the competing Ohio Company and George Washington circa 1750), particularly after the improvements.
Despite the adverse conditions, thousands of families used the Wilderness Road. In 1792, the new Kentucky legislature provided money to upgrade the road. In 1796, an improved all-weather road was opened for wagon and carriage travel. The road was abandoned around 1840 (construction on the National Road after Vandalia, Illinois also stopping owing to the Panic of 1837 and early railroad construction), although modern highways follow much of its route.
- History of turnpikes and canals in the United States.
- History of turnpikes and canals in the United States.
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Ex-CIA Official on What Xi Jinping's Purge of Top Chinese General Reveals
What is Xi Jingping's official title?
As of January 2026, Xi Jinping’s primary official titles, which establish him as the paramount leader of China, are General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), and President of the People's Republic of China (PRC). He holds all three positions concurrently.
As of January 2026, Xi Jinping’s primary official titles, which establish him as the paramount leader of China, are General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), and President of the People's Republic of China (PRC). He holds all three positions concurrently.
Key details regarding his leadership titles:
- General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party: As the leader of the ruling party, this is his most significant title, which he has held since November 2012.
- Chairman of the Central Military Commission: This title makes him the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
- President of the People's Republic of China:This is his head-of-state title, held since March 2013.
- "Core Leader": An honorary, elevated title highlighting his authority within the party.
Due to holding numerous leadership positions, he is often referred to in international media as the ""chairman of everything"".
The right of self preservation
From the Texas Declaration of Independence:
When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.
- What is the right of self preservation?
The right of self-preservation is the idea that every person has a fundamental right to protect their own life and bodily integrity—even when doing so conflicts with other rules or obligations. It’s one of the deepest concepts in political philosophy, constitutional law, and criminal law.
- What does this mean? The inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands.
This sentence means that ultimate political authority rests with the people themselves—and when institutions fail, they are morally justified in acting directly based on fundamental principles of justice and legitimacy.
- What does this mean? Civil society is dissolved into its original elements.
It means that the organized social order breaks down, and people are no longer acting mainly as members of institutions (citizens, workers, voters, jurors, church members, etc.). Instead, they revert to their basic, pre-political condition as individuals or small groups.
When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.
- What is the right of self preservation?
The right of self-preservation is the idea that every person has a fundamental right to protect their own life and bodily integrity—even when doing so conflicts with other rules or obligations. It’s one of the deepest concepts in political philosophy, constitutional law, and criminal law.
- What does this mean? The inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands.
This sentence means that ultimate political authority rests with the people themselves—and when institutions fail, they are morally justified in acting directly based on fundamental principles of justice and legitimacy.
- What does this mean? Civil society is dissolved into its original elements.
It means that the organized social order breaks down, and people are no longer acting mainly as members of institutions (citizens, workers, voters, jurors, church members, etc.). Instead, they revert to their basic, pre-political condition as individuals or small groups.
Henry Morgan: Privateer
- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
What is a privateer?
Dear ChatGPT: Provide a list of British privateers active from the 1500s to the 1700s.
What is a letter of marque?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11
Congress shall have the power:
. . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
2305:
- Article of Confederation.
- - ChatGPT: Provide an outline of the Articles of Confederation.
- Defects of the Article of Confederation.
- Outline of U.S. Constitution.
- The States within the United States Constitutional System.
2306:
- Principles in the Texas Declaration of Independence.
- The backgrounds and interests of the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence.
- The States within the United States Constitutional System.
- Evolution of Constitutions in Texas.
- Outline of 1876 Constitution.
- Amendments.
- Current Texas Constitution.
More from the Houston Chronicle:
- Greg Abbott halts future use of H-1B visas at Texas state agencies and universities.
- Rift between Houston's Lina Hidalgo, John Whitmire remains as pair host dueling freeze updates.
- Harris County extends early voting by two days for CD18 runoff election.
- Who are the top donors to Harris and Montgomery county officials? Here's the top 5 in each county.
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
From the Houson Chronicle: UH removed its student government. Can they budget $25M in student fees?
- Click here for the full article.
The controversy involves the Student Fees Advisory Committee, which UH students view as their most direct way to affect change on campus. It sets the budget for millions of dollars in student fees each year, funding campus services like health care, veteran support and career advising.
While previous debates have centered on subsidies for athletics, the committee became a flash point again last year after UH administrators dissolved the Student Government Association, which state statute holds responsible for making student appointments to the advisory committee.
Instead of waiting for a new student government this spring, UH officials convened a group of current and former student leaders to conduct interviews and appoint new members to the advisory panel, a university spokesperson said.
That work-around got the attention of state Rep. Penny Morales Shaw, D-Houston. She wrote a letter to UH Chancellor Renu Khator on Nov. 25, saying she worried that the appointments were improper and "undermined student authority."
"The statute reflects the Legislature's belief that students should have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting the more than $25 million in annual student service fees at UH," Morales Shaw wrote. "While I deeply respect UH's autonomy in managing its affairs, I want to ensure we're on the same page regarding the statutory requirements for student representation."
State Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, also wrote a letter to the student chair of the committee, urging her not to sign the 2027 budget recommendations until it was clear UH was following the law. The student chair did not respond to requests for comment.
"If this statutory requirement was not fulfilled, any subsequent budget recommendation could be rendered legally questionable and potentially subject to administrative challenge or legislative inquiry," Dutton wrote on Nov. 18.
What are rare earth minerals?
From AI Overview:
Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 chemically similar, soft, heavy metallic elements (15 lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium) crucial for high-tech, green energy, and defense applications. Despite their name, they are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust but difficult to find in concentrated, economically mineable deposits.
Key Aspects of Rare Earth Minerals
The 17 Elements: These include Lanthanum (La), Cerium (Ce), Praseodymium (Pr), Neodymium (Nd), Promethium (Pm), Samarium (Sm), Europium (Eu), Gadolinium (Gd), Terbium (Tb), Dysprosium (Dy), Holmium (Ho), Erbium (Er), Thulium (Tm), Ytterbium (Yb), Lutetium (Lu), Scandium (Sc), and Yttrium (Y).
Common Sources: Key ores include bastnäsite, monazite, and xenotime, which are often found mixed with thorium or uranium.
Why They Are Important: Known as "industrial vitamins," they are essential for permanent magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines (45% of demand), smartphones, defense systems, lasers, and consumer electronics.
Production: Although found worldwide, extraction is difficult and environmentally intensive, with China controlling approximately 70% of global mining and 87% of refined production as of 2023.
Properties: They possess unique magnetic, phosphorescent, and electrochemical properties.
They are not actually "rare," but they are rarely found in high-concentration deposits, making extraction challenging and costly.
Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 chemically similar, soft, heavy metallic elements (15 lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium) crucial for high-tech, green energy, and defense applications. Despite their name, they are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust but difficult to find in concentrated, economically mineable deposits.
Key Aspects of Rare Earth Minerals
The 17 Elements: These include Lanthanum (La), Cerium (Ce), Praseodymium (Pr), Neodymium (Nd), Promethium (Pm), Samarium (Sm), Europium (Eu), Gadolinium (Gd), Terbium (Tb), Dysprosium (Dy), Holmium (Ho), Erbium (Er), Thulium (Tm), Ytterbium (Yb), Lutetium (Lu), Scandium (Sc), and Yttrium (Y).
Common Sources: Key ores include bastnäsite, monazite, and xenotime, which are often found mixed with thorium or uranium.
Why They Are Important: Known as "industrial vitamins," they are essential for permanent magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines (45% of demand), smartphones, defense systems, lasers, and consumer electronics.
Production: Although found worldwide, extraction is difficult and environmentally intensive, with China controlling approximately 70% of global mining and 87% of refined production as of 2023.
Properties: They possess unique magnetic, phosphorescent, and electrochemical properties.
They are not actually "rare," but they are rarely found in high-concentration deposits, making extraction challenging and costly.
Monday, January 26, 2026
Sunday, January 25, 2026
From the Houston Chronicle: Oil money flows into Texas Railroad Commission campaigns. The largest donors might surprise you
Three elected officials lead the Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates oil and gas fields, pipelines, utilities and mining operations.
Oil money flows into their campaigns, but the largest oil companies weren’t the largest donors. Lesser-known oil companies and some outside the industry have contributed more over time, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis.
To identify companies linked to donations during the review period (July 2000 through December 2025) we looked at contributions they made directly as well as those made by their employees and executives. The list may not be complete, which is why we used the terminology “at least.”
The donors and their interests brfore the RRC:
-Midland Energy.
-Ryan LLC.
-Energy Transfer.
-NGL Energy Partners.
-Double Eagle.
-Perry Homes.
-Hunt Consolidated.
-Hilcorp.
-Williams Brothers Construction.
From ChatGPT: Describe the regulatory decisions made by the Texas Railroad Commission since 2000.
- 1) Shale-era drilling & completion controls (well integrity + fracking transparency)
- 2) Produced-water disposal, induced seismicity, and injection oversight
- 3) Gas flaring: Rule 32 permitting and scrutiny
- 4) Pipeline safety modernization (especially late-2010s into 2020)
- 5) Gas system reliability after Winter Storm Uri (2021–2022)
- 6) Environmental protection: oilfield waste rules overhaul (effective July 1, 2025)
- 7) Plugging, cleanup, and “orphan well” scale-up (2020s, accelerating recently)
- 8) Carbon capture & storage: Class VI primacy (major 2025 decision)
Oil money flows into their campaigns, but the largest oil companies weren’t the largest donors. Lesser-known oil companies and some outside the industry have contributed more over time, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis.
To identify companies linked to donations during the review period (July 2000 through December 2025) we looked at contributions they made directly as well as those made by their employees and executives. The list may not be complete, which is why we used the terminology “at least.”
The donors and their interests brfore the RRC:
-Midland Energy.
-Ryan LLC.
-Energy Transfer.
-NGL Energy Partners.
-Double Eagle.
-Perry Homes.
-Hunt Consolidated.
-Hilcorp.
-Williams Brothers Construction.
From ChatGPT: Describe the regulatory decisions made by the Texas Railroad Commission since 2000.
- 1) Shale-era drilling & completion controls (well integrity + fracking transparency)
- 2) Produced-water disposal, induced seismicity, and injection oversight
- 3) Gas flaring: Rule 32 permitting and scrutiny
- 4) Pipeline safety modernization (especially late-2010s into 2020)
- 5) Gas system reliability after Winter Storm Uri (2021–2022)
- 6) Environmental protection: oilfield waste rules overhaul (effective July 1, 2025)
- 7) Plugging, cleanup, and “orphan well” scale-up (2020s, accelerating recently)
- 8) Carbon capture & storage: Class VI primacy (major 2025 decision)
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Dear ChatGPT: Describe the backgrounds and interests of the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence.
- Click here for the full answer.
The 59 signers of the Texas Declaration were not a cross-section of Texas society. They were overwhelmingly:
Anglo-American immigrants
Politically experienced
Economically invested in land and slavery
Closely tied to U.S. legal and political traditions
They largely represented the settler elite, not the broader population of Texas (which included Tejanos, Indigenous peoples, enslaved Africans, and poor laborers).
1. Regional Origins & Migration Background
Predominantly from the United States
Most signers were born in Southern U.S. states:
Virginia
Tennessee
Kentucky
North and South Carolina
Georgia
A smaller number came from Northern states, but still within the U.S. constitutional tradition.
Implication:
They brought with them expectations of:
English common law
Written constitutions
Local self-government
Individual property rights
This made them hostile to Mexican civil law traditions and centralized authority.
2. Education & Professional Backgrounds
Overrepresentation of Professionals
Many signers were:
Lawyers
Judges
Former legislators
Newspaper editors
Military officers
Notable examples include:
Sam Houston – former U.S. congressman and governor of Tennessee
Lorenzo de Zavala – former vice president of Mexico, one of the few Tejano signers
Implication:
These men were skilled in constitutional argument, not spontaneous rebels. The Declaration is legally sophisticated and modeled closely on the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
3. Economic Interests
Land Speculation
Many signers were:
Empresarios
Surveyors
Land speculators
Large landholders
Independence promised:
Clearer land titles
Protection from Mexican legal challenges
Expansion of Anglo settlement
Slavery & Plantation Agriculture
Most signers either:
Owned enslaved people
Intended to
Mexico had abolished slavery (1829) and later attempted enforcement in Texas.
Implication:
Independence was closely tied to preserving a slave-based economic system, especially cotton production tied to U.S. markets.
4. Religion & Culture
Predominantly:
Protestant (Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian)
Mexico required:
Official Catholicism (at least formally)
Implication:
Cultural alienation reinforced political resistance. Many signers viewed Mexican religious requirements as incompatible with Anglo-American liberty.
5. Political Ideology & Grievances
Core Beliefs
The signers generally favored:
Federalism over centralism
Written constitutions
Jury trials
Local governance
Militia traditions
Major Grievances Listed in the Declaration
Suspension of the 1824 Mexican Constitution
Rule by military dictators (especially Santa Anna)
Lack of trial by jury
Restrictions on immigration from the U.S.
Threats to slavery and property rights
These grievances reflect elite legal and economic priorities, not mass democratic ones.
6. Who Was Largely Excluded?
Notably underrepresented or excluded:
Indigenous nations (Comanche, Apache, etc.)
Enslaved people (≈30% of population)
Most Tejanos
Poor Anglo laborers
Women
Exception:
Lorenzo de Zavala represents a Mexican federalist tradition, not indigenous or popular resistance.
From Brookings: How different states are approaching AI
- What is the Brookings Institute?
- Click here for their website.
- Click here for the article.
The race to implement AI has now shifted to the states and, at present, 34 states are studying AI, including 24 states that have created a group to study AI and another 10 states have delegated the task to a standing committee. In addition, according to tracking by the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation,1 47 states have introduced2 AI-related legislation in 2025. New York has introduced the most legislation, but Texas has passed the most (see Table 1). As such, we believe the time has come to analyze the state of the states as it relates to AI, and this is our first of a multi-part series of papers on the topic.
. . . Analysis of the 2025 data show roughly two-thirds (173) of state AI bills were introduced by Democrats, compared to about one-third (84) by Republicans. Only three—in Minnesota, New Jersey, and Tennessee—were bipartisan efforts. Overall, Democrats have been more proactive in pushing AI governance, consistent with their broader tech-regulation tendencies. Republicans have also put forward many AI bills, often on issues like banning certain harmful uses of AI or promoting innovation. Election deepfake bans and child pornography, for example, saw bipartisan interest. On the other hand, sweeping regulatory bills (imposing strict obligations on AI developers or businesses) have mostly come from Democrats in states like California, New York, and New Jersey. Republican-led states often favored lighter-touch approaches, with Texas failing to pass a high percentage of its proposed bills.
We first analyzed a few of the major themes in the 2025 bills:
-Nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII)/Child sexual abuse material (CSAM): 53 bills introduced and 0 currently signed into law
-Elections: 33 bills introduced and 0 currently signed into law
-Generative AI transparency: 31 bills introduced and 2 currently signed into law
-Automated decision-making technology (ADMT)/High-risk AI: 29 bills introduced and 2 currently signed into law
-Government use: 22 bills introduced and 4 currently signed into law
-Employment: 13 bills introduced and 6 currently signed into law
-Health: 12 bills introduced and 2 currently signed into law
Some states introduced comprehensive AI governance bills, covering broad obligations for AI developers or government use, while others focused on narrow sector-specific or issue-specific bills. For instance, Colorado’s “Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence” bill created a wide-ranging regime for “high-risk” AI systems, requiring developers and users of such AI to implement transparency, monitoring, and anti-discrimination measures. In contrast, in 2024, California started to pursue a patchwork of many targeted laws addressing things like election deepfakes, AI-generated content warnings, digital replicas of performers (including one bill for deceased performers), and training-data disclosure, rather than one overarching framework. It is worth noting that California originally pursued a comprehensive approach, but it was vetoed by the governor. As a result, California reverted to the more piecemeal approach. These different approaches are noted by analysts as a major difference between state strategies. Also, some smaller states have primarily symbolic or exploratory bills (e.g., creating AI task forces or study commissions rather than imposing rules).
Which countries recognize the independence of Texas after 1836?
From AI Overview:
After 1836, several countries recognized the Republic of Texas, including the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Russia, and the Republic of Yucatán, with France being the first European nation to do so, all recognizing Texas to bolster its sovereignty against Mexico, which refused to acknowledge its independence until the U.S. annexation in 1845**.
Key Recognizers:
- United States: Officially recognized Texas in March 1837.
- France: First European nation to recognize Texas in 1839, establishing diplomatic ties.
- United Kingdom (Great Britain): Followed France in recognizing Texas.
- Belgium: Also recognized Texas's independence.
- Netherlands: Recognized Texas as an independent republic.
- Republic of Yucatán: A neighboring Mexican state that also recognized Texas.
- Russia: Recognized Texas as independent from 1836 until annexation, though diplomatic activity was minimal.
Context:
- Texas sought recognition from these nations to pressure Mexico into acknowledging its independence and to establish trade relations. Mexico, however, viewed Texas as a rebellious province and never recognized its independence, leading to conflict that culminated in the Mexican-American War after Texas's annexation by the U.S. in 1845.
From the Texas Tribune:
Federal court focuses on informant in appeal of Texas death row inmate’s conviction.
Terms:
- 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- City of Amarillo.
- Randall County District Attorney’s Office.
- Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Texas counties, auto industry push back on proposed ID restrictions on car registration tied to immigration.
Terms:
- Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.
- Texas Independent Automobile Dealers Association.
- Republican state Rep. Brian Harrison of Midlothian.
- Bexar County.
- Travis County tax office
- Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector Celia Israel
- Texas United Auto & Community Alliance
- Texas Register: December 26, 2025.
Federal judge upholds West Texas A&M drag show ban, short-circuiting student group’s appeal.
Terms:
- federal judge.
- U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
- a limited public forum.
- Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
- Supreme Court precedent
- expressive conduct
- Texas A&M University System.
Terms:
- 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- City of Amarillo.
- Randall County District Attorney’s Office.
- Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Texas counties, auto industry push back on proposed ID restrictions on car registration tied to immigration.
Terms:
- Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.
- Texas Independent Automobile Dealers Association.
- Republican state Rep. Brian Harrison of Midlothian.
- Bexar County.
- Travis County tax office
- Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector Celia Israel
- Texas United Auto & Community Alliance
- Texas Register: December 26, 2025.
Federal judge upholds West Texas A&M drag show ban, short-circuiting student group’s appeal.
Terms:
- federal judge.
- U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
- a limited public forum.
- Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
- Supreme Court precedent
- expressive conduct
- Texas A&M University System.
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Describe OpenAI's lobbying strategy in local governments in Texas
Click here for the full answer.
OpenAI’s local-government “lobbying” strategy in Texas is less about working every city hall one-by-one, and more about (1) smoothing big infrastructure projects at the county/city level and (2) making it easy for local governments to buy OpenAI-related services through statewide/co-op procurement channels, while the company’s formal registered lobbying footprint shows up mostly at the state level.
1) Use state-level leverage to shape the local playing field
2) “Procurement-first” instead of “ordinance-first”
3) Infrastructure siting: negotiate locally where the real money is
4) Work through intermediaries (resellers, integrators, “AI marketplaces”)
5) Likely “watch-outs” they plan around (because locals care)
What you can infer about OpenAI’s Texas-local strategy from the evidence we do have
-They are in the state lobbying system (suggesting top-down policy influence).
-They prioritize procurement channels locals already trust (DIR/co-op).
-They engage locally hardest where they must: mega-infrastructure siting + incentives + energy/community plans.
If you want, I can also map this into a “local targets” checklist (city managers, EDCs, county judges/commissioners courts, MPO/COG procurement, municipal utilities/co-ops) and the documents you’d pull to verify activity (abatement agreements, development corporation minutes, DIR purchase orders, municipal lobby registries).
Dear CHatGPT: Describe OpenAI's lobbying strategy in Texas
Click here for the full answer.
OpenAI’s Texas lobbying strategy (based on what’s publicly visible) looks like a “broad-cover, early-engagement” play: hire registered Texas lobbyists, track and shape statewide AI rules, and align with Texas’ big priorities (economic development, state procurement, education pilots, and infrastructure/data centers).
1) Build a formal Texas presence fast (and keep it compliant)
-What that signals: OpenAI isn’t treating Texas as “flyover policy.” It’s treating it as a core statehouse where rules and procurement decisions can materially affect the company.
2) Use multiple lobbyists with wide issue coverage (not a single narrow bill fight)
-What that signals: this is consistent with a strategy of:
--covering multiple committees and “touch points” (tech, judiciary, homeland security, education, procurement, energy/infra), and
--staying positioned for fast-moving amendments late in session.
3) Shape the statewide “rules of the road” for AI (especially government + high-impact use cases)
-Likely lobbying posture here (pattern-based, not mind-reading):
--push for risk-based / narrower scope vs. sweeping liability,
--protect model/provider flexibility (safe harbors, preemption-ish language where possible)
--steer toward agency rulemaking + guidance rather than hard prohibitions,
--ensure compliance obligations are workable for vendors selling to Texas agencies.
4) Pair policy with “Texas value props”: jobs, compute, grid, and public-sector modernization
-Why it matters for lobbying: In Texas, “AI policy” quickly becomes:
--data center permitting / local incentives / Chapter 313-style successors,
--grid reliability / interconnection / demand response,
--state procurement rules (DIR contracting, agency AI policies), and
--security concerns (especially around foreign tech).
5) Expand “friendly demonstrations” in education and government workflows
-What that signals: lobbying and government affairs can reinforce adoption by:
--emphasizing data controls and compliance,
--positioning products as efficiency tools (teacher/admin burden, agency paperwork)
--building relationships with agency CIOs, education leaders, and procurement channels.
OpenAI’s Texas lobbying strategy (based on what’s publicly visible) looks like a “broad-cover, early-engagement” play: hire registered Texas lobbyists, track and shape statewide AI rules, and align with Texas’ big priorities (economic development, state procurement, education pilots, and infrastructure/data centers).
1) Build a formal Texas presence fast (and keep it compliant)
-What that signals: OpenAI isn’t treating Texas as “flyover policy.” It’s treating it as a core statehouse where rules and procurement decisions can materially affect the company.
2) Use multiple lobbyists with wide issue coverage (not a single narrow bill fight)
-What that signals: this is consistent with a strategy of:
--covering multiple committees and “touch points” (tech, judiciary, homeland security, education, procurement, energy/infra), and
--staying positioned for fast-moving amendments late in session.
3) Shape the statewide “rules of the road” for AI (especially government + high-impact use cases)
-Likely lobbying posture here (pattern-based, not mind-reading):
--push for risk-based / narrower scope vs. sweeping liability,
--protect model/provider flexibility (safe harbors, preemption-ish language where possible)
--steer toward agency rulemaking + guidance rather than hard prohibitions,
--ensure compliance obligations are workable for vendors selling to Texas agencies.
4) Pair policy with “Texas value props”: jobs, compute, grid, and public-sector modernization
-Why it matters for lobbying: In Texas, “AI policy” quickly becomes:
--data center permitting / local incentives / Chapter 313-style successors,
--grid reliability / interconnection / demand response,
--state procurement rules (DIR contracting, agency AI policies), and
--security concerns (especially around foreign tech).
5) Expand “friendly demonstrations” in education and government workflows
-What that signals: lobbying and government affairs can reinforce adoption by:
--emphasizing data controls and compliance,
--positioning products as efficiency tools (teacher/admin burden, agency paperwork)
--building relationships with agency CIOs, education leaders, and procurement channels.
Monday, January 19, 2026
DearChatGPT: Describe OpenAI's lobbying strategy
- Click here for the full answer.
OpenAI has significantly expanded its federal lobbying activities since launching formal efforts in late 2023. It now employs in-house lobbyists with congressional experience and retains major law firms to engage lawmakers, executive agencies, and key committees. This investment reflects the stakes around legislation that could affect how AI is regulated, how training data is treated under copyright law, and how AI infrastructure is incentivized.
_____
Regulatory & Legislative Goals
Copyright and training data rules: OpenAI pushes for interpretations (e.g., classification of AI training on copyrighted material as fair use) that would shield its development practices from liability and align with its business model.
Federal AI rules and preemption: OpenAI advocates for federal preemption of state AI laws, arguing that a unified federal framework will prevent a patchwork of state regulations that could hinder innovation.
AI safety & accountability bills: It engages on legislation like the Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act, AI Foundation Model Transparency Act, the Artificial Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act, and the NO FAKES Act — bills that touch on transparency, safety, and how AI is governed.
_____
Beyond direct lobbying, OpenAI figures are involved in electoral influence efforts, most notably through the Leading the Future super PAC network, which has raised tens of millions to support pro-AI candidates and counter critics of rapid AI development. Greg Brockman (OpenAI’s President) is among the backers of this initiative.
This reflects a strategy to help shape the composition of Congress in ways that are sympathetic to its regulatory and industrial priorities — especially ahead of key moments like the 2026 midterms.
From Insight into Academia: Texas Ends ABA Accreditation Requirement for Law Schools
Texas has become the first state in the nation to formally sever its reliance on the American Bar Association (ABA) for determining which law school graduates are eligible to sit for the bar exam, a move that places the state at the center of a broader political and legal debate over higher education oversight.
In a recent order, the Texas Supreme Court announced it will no longer require graduation from an ABA-accredited law school for admission to the Texas bar. Instead, the court will establish and maintain its own list of approved law schools—ending a 42-year arrangement under which the ABA effectively served as the gatekeeper for legal licensure in the state.
The court’s order did not directly explain why it was abandoning ABA accreditation, which Texas had relied on since 1983. However, the justices said the new framework is intended to provide “stability, certainty and flexibility” for law schools by relying on “a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” according to the order. A spokesperson for the court declined to elaborate further.
The decision arrives amid sustained pressure on the ABA from President Donald Trump and his administration, particularly over the organization’s diversity and inclusion standards. In April, Trump publicly labeled the ABA’s diversity requirement for law schools “unlawful” and directed the U.S. Department of Education to consider whether the ABA should retain its status as the federal government’s official law school accreditor. That diversity standard has been suspended since February.
The ABA responded cautiously to Texas’ move. Jenn Rosato Perea, the organization’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said in a statement that the order “reinforces the authority that the Supreme Court of Texas has always had over the licensure of J.D. graduates.” She added that the ABA will “continue to prove our value as an accreditor” and work with states and institutions to preserve lawyers’ ability to practice across state lines.
While the Texas Supreme Court now holds sole authority over law school approval within the state, the order emphasizes continuity. All currently ABA-accredited law schools remain approved, and the court said it intends to preserve reciprocity—allowing Texas graduates to practice elsewhere and graduates from other states to practice in Texas. The justices also left open the possibility of relying on another multi-state accrediting body in the future.
Still, the long-term implications are uncertain. . . .
For more on the subject:
- Texas Supreme Court ruling.
- Following Texas, Florida Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers.
- The Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
- Wikipedia: American Bar Association.
- ChatGPT: What is the American Bar Association?
- ChatGPT: Describe the current ideological controversy concerning the American Bar Association.
- ChatGPT: What role has the American Bar Association played in accrediting law schools?
In a recent order, the Texas Supreme Court announced it will no longer require graduation from an ABA-accredited law school for admission to the Texas bar. Instead, the court will establish and maintain its own list of approved law schools—ending a 42-year arrangement under which the ABA effectively served as the gatekeeper for legal licensure in the state.
The court’s order did not directly explain why it was abandoning ABA accreditation, which Texas had relied on since 1983. However, the justices said the new framework is intended to provide “stability, certainty and flexibility” for law schools by relying on “a set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” according to the order. A spokesperson for the court declined to elaborate further.
The decision arrives amid sustained pressure on the ABA from President Donald Trump and his administration, particularly over the organization’s diversity and inclusion standards. In April, Trump publicly labeled the ABA’s diversity requirement for law schools “unlawful” and directed the U.S. Department of Education to consider whether the ABA should retain its status as the federal government’s official law school accreditor. That diversity standard has been suspended since February.
The ABA responded cautiously to Texas’ move. Jenn Rosato Perea, the organization’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said in a statement that the order “reinforces the authority that the Supreme Court of Texas has always had over the licensure of J.D. graduates.” She added that the ABA will “continue to prove our value as an accreditor” and work with states and institutions to preserve lawyers’ ability to practice across state lines.
While the Texas Supreme Court now holds sole authority over law school approval within the state, the order emphasizes continuity. All currently ABA-accredited law schools remain approved, and the court said it intends to preserve reciprocity—allowing Texas graduates to practice elsewhere and graduates from other states to practice in Texas. The justices also left open the possibility of relying on another multi-state accrediting body in the future.
Still, the long-term implications are uncertain. . . .
For more on the subject:
- Texas Supreme Court ruling.
- Following Texas, Florida Drops ABA Oversight of Lawyers.
- The Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
- Wikipedia: American Bar Association.
- ChatGPT: What is the American Bar Association?
- ChatGPT: Describe the current ideological controversy concerning the American Bar Association.
- ChatGPT: What role has the American Bar Association played in accrediting law schools?
Sunday, January 18, 2026
State and Local News from the Houston Chronicle
- Greg Abbott's campaign has $106M as he seeks record fourth term and to turn Harris County 'deep red'.
Gov. Greg Abbott has more than $105.7 million in the bank as he seeks a record fourth term in office — 100 times the amount raised so far by state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, the frontrunner in the Democratic race to challenge him.The governor has vowed to spend “most of it” in Harris County, a Democratic stronghold Abbott has vowed to turn “dark red.”
The sum stands out, even for Abbott, who is known as a prolific fundraiser. The $106 million war chest is $40 million more than what the governor had at the same point in 2022, when he faced Democrat Beto O’Rourke, and three-quarters the total he had raised by the final weeks of that campaign.
- Eight Democrats vie for chance to face off against lone Republican candidate in district clerk race.
Eight Democrats will battle it out in the March primaries for a chance to succeed Harris County District Clerk Marilyn Burgess, who announced in September she would not be seeking reelection. Whoever gets a majority of the vote will face off against the lone Republican candidate and presumptive nominee in the November election.
The district clerk is an administrative position primarily tasked with record-keeping operations for the county's 67 district courts. Among the clerk's responsibilities are managing court filings and motions, collecting court fees and fines, and ensuring judicial transparency and public access to court proceedings.
- Some Texas counties run without a treasurer. Can Harris County operate without one?
The county treasurer position is considered obsolete by some officials, and has been abolished in 10 counties. Republican Commissioner Tom Ramsey, who added the item to the Jan. 8 agenda, said he was a longtime supporter of abolishing the county treasurer's office.
“For many years, I have supported eliminating the county treasurer’s Office and consolidating its functions within the county auditor’s office, given the overlap in responsibilities," Ramsey said in a statement. "Until any structural change occurs, it is the County’s responsibility to ensure the statutory duties of the Treasurer’s Office are being fully and appropriately carried out. That is why I requested the discussion on last week’s agenda.”
A flurry of legislation throughout the 1980s saw the office abolished in nine counties, the largest of which being Bexar County. More than 30 years later, Galveston County followed suite and abolished the position in 2023. Critics of the county treasurer, such as Republican Galveston County Judge Mark Henry, argue the office is an antiquated position that has long outlived its usefulness.
Thursday, January 15, 2026
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Deat ChatGPT: How did Josip Broz Tito gain power?
- Who is this?
- Click here for the full response.
What legitimate and illegitimate means did he use?
Legitimate Means (Widely Defensible at the Time)
1. Armed Resistance Against Occupation
- Tito led the most effective anti-Axis resistance movement in Yugoslavia.
- Continuous fighting against Nazi and Fascist forces gave him earned legitimacy as a national liberator.
- His forces liberated large areas before Allied or Soviet troops arrived.
Why legitimate: Resistance to foreign occupation is widely recognized as lawful and morally justified.
2. Building a Multi-Ethnic Coalition
- Tito promoted “brotherhood and unity” among Yugoslavia’s ethnic groups.
- Unlike rivals (e.g., Chetniks), Partisans avoided explicit ethnic exclusivity.
- This broadened popular support in a deeply divided society.
Why legitimate: Inclusive coalition-building aligned with Yugoslavia’s social reality and wartime survival.
3. Creation of Parallel Governance (AVNOJ)
- Tito established local councils, courts, tax systems, and administration in liberated areas.
- The AVNOJ functioned as a proto-parliament and government.
- This mirrored how many revolutionary governments emerge during civil wars.
Why legitimate: Effective governance and territorial control are classic sources of political legitimacy.
4. Allied Recognition
- Britain, the U.S., and the USSR formally shifted support to Tito by 1943–44.
- Tito became Yugoslavia’s internationally recognized authority before the war ended.
Why legitimate: External recognition is a major criterion of state legitimacy in international law.
Illegitimate Means (Coercive, Repressive, or Undemocratic)
These actions violated democratic norms, civil liberties, and due process, especially after the Axis threat had passed.
1. Suppression of Political Rivals
- Non-communist resistance groups were disarmed, absorbed, or destroyed.
- Chetniks and other opponents were labeled collaborators—sometimes accurately, sometimes opportunistically.
Why illegitimate: Political pluralism was eliminated rather than negotiated.
2. Postwar Political Purges and Executions
- Tens of thousands were killed or imprisoned in postwar reprisals (1945–46).
- Trials were often summary or absent.
- Targets included former officials, landowners, clergy, and suspected opponents.
Why illegitimate: Collective punishment and lack of due process violate rule-of-law standards.
3. Manipulated Elections (1945)
- Elections were held, but:
- - Opposition parties were banned or intimidated
- - Media was controlled
- - Results were predetermined
- - The monarchy was abolished under these conditions.
Why illegitimate: Elections lacked meaningful competition or freedom.
4. Control of Information and Security Services
- Tito created a powerful internal security apparatus (OZNA/UDBA).
- Surveillance, censorship, and political policing became routine.
Why illegitimate: Governance relied on coercion rather than consent.
From the Houston Chronicle:
- Fort Bend Rep. Gary Gates passed a bill that helped his business. Now he’s suing to be sure it sticks.
- - HB 21: Relating to housing finance corporations; authorizing a fee.
- - Local Government Code: Section 394.004.
- - What is a Housing Finance Corporation?
- - Houston Housing Finance Corporation.
- - Harris County Housing Finance Corporation.
- Hundreds of private schools are being shut out of Texas' voucher program.
- - SB 2: Relating to the establishment of an education savings account program.
- - Cognia.
- - Texas Private School Association.
- - What is an education savings account?
- Harris County leaders denounce Gov. Greg Abbott's 'baseless attack' to take over elections.
- - HB 21: Relating to housing finance corporations; authorizing a fee.
- - Local Government Code: Section 394.004.
- - What is a Housing Finance Corporation?
- - Houston Housing Finance Corporation.
- - Harris County Housing Finance Corporation.
- Hundreds of private schools are being shut out of Texas' voucher program.
- - SB 2: Relating to the establishment of an education savings account program.
- - Cognia.
- - Texas Private School Association.
- - What is an education savings account?
- Harris County leaders denounce Gov. Greg Abbott's 'baseless attack' to take over elections.
Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Dear ChatGPT: What political conflict exists in Texas over what elementary school students should be taught about government?
There is an active political conflict in Texas about what elementary school students should be taught about government, history, and related civic topics, with sharp disagreements between conservative state leaders and many educators, parents, historians, and civil liberties advocates about how social studies — including government — should be framed in early grades.
Key elements of this conflict include:
- Click here for the full answer.
On this day - more or less - in history:
1833 – United States President Andrew Jackson writes to Vice President elect Martin Van Buren expressing his opposition to South Carolina's defiance of federal authority in the Nullification Crisis.
1847 – The Treaty of Cahuenga ends the Mexican–American War in California.
1893 – U.S. Marines land in Honolulu, Hawaii from the USS Boston to prevent the queen from abrogating the Bayonet Constitution.
1847 – The Treaty of Cahuenga ends the Mexican–American War in California.
1893 – U.S. Marines land in Honolulu, Hawaii from the USS Boston to prevent the queen from abrogating the Bayonet Constitution.
From Axios:
- House votes to revive Affordable Care Act subsidies.
A Democrat bill to revive enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years passed in the House Thursday with the help of 17 Republicans.
Although the subsidy extension is expected to die in the Senate, the vote does put pressure on the upper chamber to try to come to a bipartisan agreement that likely would include GOP-backed changes to the aid.
Driving the news: The House approved a "clean" three-year extension of the subsidies, without any changes.
The effort, led by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), came to a vote after four House Republicans in December signed a Democratic discharge petition to force the matter, going around Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
GOP leadership opposes the extension of the subsidies, arguing they are wasteful spending that benefits insurance companies.
While a bipartisan group of senators is discussing a compromise measure that could include new limits on the subsidies, like eliminating $0 premiums, Democratic leaders in the upper chamber are still pushing for the clean extension.
Between the lines: President Trump has not been heavily engaged in the congressional discussions, leaving Republicans on the hill to try to work out their differences without much guidance from the White House.
The Senate on Thursday voted in favor of blocking President Trump from taking further military action in Venezuela without congressional approval after the U.S. captured the country's leader, Nicolás Maduro.
Why it matters: Enough Republicans broke with Trump to advance the war powers resolution — a rare and notable rebuke of the president — even as most of the GOP stands behind the operation in Venezuela.
The Senate voted 52-47 in favor of the measure, led by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Five Republicans — Paul, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri — joined Democrats in backing the measure.
Senate Republicans last year rejected similar resolutions blocking Trump's campaign of airstrikes against alleged drug boats off the coast of Venezuela. More than 100 people have been killed in those strikes.
What's next: Thursday's vote was procedural but indicates there's enough support in the Senate to pass the resolution, which is expected to happen next week.
It would then still need to be considered by the House.
The White House has said Trump would veto the measure.
From the Texas Tribune:
- Texas proposes 13,000% licensing fee hike on retailers who sell hemp-derived THC.
Late last month, the Texas Department of State Health Services published a set of proposed rules to tighten regulations on consumable hemp products, including establishing a minimum purchasing age of 21, along with age verification requirements and mandatory product recalls, which are measures that the hemp industry supports. However, two of the proposed rules that have caused the most heartburn among advocates and businesses are new testing requirements and increases in licensing fees. Manufacturer licenses would increase from $250 to $25,000 per facility per year and retail registrations from $150 to $20,000 per location per year, an increase of over 13,000%.
- A blossoming Texas medical marijuana industry adds new businesses, products and patients.
After lawmakers blunted expansion for years, Texas’ medical marijuana industry is slated to see more marijuana operators coming online, current ones opening more facilities and more Texans enrolling in the program this year.
In September, Texas officially rolled out the most significant expansion of its medical marijuana program, the Texas Compassionate Use Program, since its launch in 2015. The expansion adds new qualifying conditions such as chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and terminal illness. It also added more treatment options like prescribed inhalers, higher THC limits, and better dispensary access across the state. The expansion will also increase the number of marijuana distributors from three to 15.
Lawmakers enacted these changes after distributors in the program said strict state regulations on THC amounts, locations, cultivation, and more hampered the program’s growth and, in fact, contributed to them losing patients to cheaper, more accessible, and diverse hemp products.
“What made TCUP expensive in the past was the fact that you had this niche program with a huge regulatory burden on top of it. Now, as you expand the program, the cost of regulation becomes a smaller percentage, and therefore the marginal cost of products will come down over time,” said Nico Richardson, CEO of Texas Original, a Central Texas medical marijuana company.
Texas state health officials have proposed raising licensing fees by as much as 13,000% for some hemp businesses, among a slate of changes that many industry members and advocates say will shutter small operations in favor of large out-of-state companies.
Supporters of this change say this is necessary to strengthen oversight on an industry that they say has grown out of control.Late last month, the Texas Department of State Health Services published a set of proposed rules to tighten regulations on consumable hemp products, including establishing a minimum purchasing age of 21, along with age verification requirements and mandatory product recalls, which are measures that the hemp industry supports. However, two of the proposed rules that have caused the most heartburn among advocates and businesses are new testing requirements and increases in licensing fees. Manufacturer licenses would increase from $250 to $25,000 per facility per year and retail registrations from $150 to $20,000 per location per year, an increase of over 13,000%.
- A blossoming Texas medical marijuana industry adds new businesses, products and patients.
After lawmakers blunted expansion for years, Texas’ medical marijuana industry is slated to see more marijuana operators coming online, current ones opening more facilities and more Texans enrolling in the program this year.
In September, Texas officially rolled out the most significant expansion of its medical marijuana program, the Texas Compassionate Use Program, since its launch in 2015. The expansion adds new qualifying conditions such as chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and terminal illness. It also added more treatment options like prescribed inhalers, higher THC limits, and better dispensary access across the state. The expansion will also increase the number of marijuana distributors from three to 15.
Lawmakers enacted these changes after distributors in the program said strict state regulations on THC amounts, locations, cultivation, and more hampered the program’s growth and, in fact, contributed to them losing patients to cheaper, more accessible, and diverse hemp products.
“What made TCUP expensive in the past was the fact that you had this niche program with a huge regulatory burden on top of it. Now, as you expand the program, the cost of regulation becomes a smaller percentage, and therefore the marginal cost of products will come down over time,” said Nico Richardson, CEO of Texas Original, a Central Texas medical marijuana company.
Monday, January 12, 2026
Dear ChatGPT: Provide a list of the internation organizations President Trump wants the United States to withdraw from.
- Click here for the full answer.
Non-United Nations International Organizations (35)
- Colombo Plan Council
- Commission for Environmental Cooperation
- Education Cannot Wait
- European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats
- Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories
- Freedom Online Coalition
- Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund
- Global Counterterrorism Forum
- Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
- Global Forum on Migration and Development
- Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research
- Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
- International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
- International Cotton Advisory Committee
- International Development Law Organization
- International Energy Forum
- International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies
- International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
- International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law
- International Lead and Zinc Study Group
- International Renewable Energy Agency
- International Solar Alliance
- International Tropical Timber Organization
- International Union for Conservation of Nature
- Pan American Institute of Geography and History
- Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation
- Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia
- Regional Cooperation Council
- Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
- Science and Technology Center in Ukraine
- Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
- Venice Commission of the Council of Europe
From the New York Times: Trump Withdraws the U.S. From More International Organizations
An example of unilateral presidential power.
- Click here for it.
President Trump withdrew the United States on Wednesday from dozens of international organizations intended to foster multinational cooperation, cutting ties with a wide range of prominent forums addressing international security, law, trade, economics and human rights.
. . . An executive order, signed by Mr. Trump on Wednesday, follows a broader vision of American foreign policy that shuns the consensus of nations and building coalitions, focusing almost solely on projecting American power and dominance.
But Mr. Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from international bodies stands out even when compared with the actions of other regional and world powers that are skeptical of international agreements on democracy, climate or human rights. Biden administration officials had argued that a withdrawal from those bodies would create a vacuum for U.S. rivals to exploit.
For example, China and Russia are both members of the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the International Energy Forum and the International Renewable Energy Agency, as well as the U.N.’s International Law Commission, Peacebuilding Commission, Alliance of Civilizations and the Register of Conventional Arms. The United States withdrew from all of them on Wednesday.
Many of the organizations listed in Mr. Trump’s executive order also do not appear to require direct membership from nations, but the move seemed to signal more broadly that the Trump administration was likely to refuse to cooperate with them.
Mr. Trump has already pulled the United States out of many significant U.N. organizations, including UNESCO, the U.N.’s cultural agency; the World Health Organization; and the U.N. Human Rights Council.
- Click here for more from ChatGPT:
Friday, January 9, 2026
What national, state, and local laws outline the proper use of deadly force by law enforcement?
- Here is answer generated by ChatGPT.
The basics:
No single nationwide statute exclusively governs police use of deadly force. Instead, it is governed by:
- Constitutional standards (Supreme Court)
- Federal agency policies (for federal officers)
- State criminal statutes
- Local law-enforcement agency policies
Together these layers define when deadly force is lawful, placing emphasis on reasonable belief of imminent threat, necessity, and de-escalation.
Key Legal Principles Across These Layers
Objective Reasonableness: Derived from the Fourth Amendment / Graham v. Connor: courts judge an officer’s use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering totality of circumstances.
Imminent Threat Requirement: Deadly force is justified only when an officer reasonably believes there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.
Necessity and De-escalation: Many states and agency policies require that deadly force be necessary—officers should use lesser force or de-escalation if possible.
Warnings When Feasible: Policies often require warnings before deadly force is applied when it can be safely given (e.g., “Police, don’t move!”).
The basics:
No single nationwide statute exclusively governs police use of deadly force. Instead, it is governed by:
- Constitutional standards (Supreme Court)
- Federal agency policies (for federal officers)
- State criminal statutes
- Local law-enforcement agency policies
Together these layers define when deadly force is lawful, placing emphasis on reasonable belief of imminent threat, necessity, and de-escalation.
Key Legal Principles Across These Layers
Objective Reasonableness: Derived from the Fourth Amendment / Graham v. Connor: courts judge an officer’s use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering totality of circumstances.
Imminent Threat Requirement: Deadly force is justified only when an officer reasonably believes there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.
Necessity and De-escalation: Many states and agency policies require that deadly force be necessary—officers should use lesser force or de-escalation if possible.
Warnings When Feasible: Policies often require warnings before deadly force is applied when it can be safely given (e.g., “Police, don’t move!”).
Sunday, January 4, 2026
Jack Goldsmith: On the Legality of the Venezuela Invasion
Who is Jack Goldsmith?
- Click here for the article.
As I have argued before, there are few if any effective legal constraints on unilateral presidential uses of force. Everyone has an opinion about what those limits should be. Academics and politicians regularly maintain that this and that presidential use of force is unlawful, even though the legal framework for analysis, especially under domestic law, is contested.
That means that in practice the only normative legal framework for presidential war powers that matters derives from executive branch precedents and legal opinions. The Justice Department, if asked, easily could have drafted an opinion based on these precedents and opinions to justify the invasion of Venezuela.
Below is my quickly written explanation for this conclusion, but of course the analysis is preliminary since there is much we do not yet know.
Here is his conclusion:
In sum, it would not be terribly hard for the Justice Department to write an opinion in support of the Venezuela invasion even if the military action violates the U.N. Charter.
To repeat, that does not mean that the action is in fact lawful—and it pretty clearly isn’t under the U.N. Charter. It only means that the long line of unilateral executive branch actions, supported by promiscuously generous executive branch legal opinions, support it. As I wrote in connection with the Soleimani strike: “our country has—through presidential aggrandizement accompanied by congressional authorization, delegation, and acquiescence—given one person, the president, a sprawling military and enormous discretion to use it in ways that can easily lead to a massive war. That is our system: One person decides.”
This is not the system the framers had in mind, and it is a dangerous system for all the reasons the framers worried about. But that is where we are—and indeed, it is where we have been for a while.
Follow the link above for more - I'll touch in this over the semester.
But he suggests that in reality, presidents can justify whaever they want.
If you want more, check these out from the same author:
- OLC’s Meaningless 'National Interests' Test for the Legality of Presidential Uses of Force.
- The Middle East and the President’s Sweeping Power Over Self-Defense.
- The Soleimani Strike: One Person Decides.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)