REASON – Free Minds & Free Markets | This, That and The Other

This week, President Donald Trump called on Congress to reauthorize a provision of federal law that allows the government to spy on noncitizens but can easily be used against citizens, as well. Lawmakers, including previously skeptical Republicans, have fallen in line and now support it. "Section 702 is a key provision of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers, to acquire foreign intelligence information," according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Government agents can then easily comb through any of that data, without needing to get a warrant at any point in the process. It also includes a built-in sunset clause, meaning the law will automatically be repealed unless Congress votes to reauthorize it every few years. It was last reauthorized in 2024, and it's up for renewal again, or else it will sunset on April 20. Some lawmakers want changes before agreeing to renew, while others, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.), want to pass a temporary extension that renews the law as-is. Trump agrees with Johnson. "When used properly, FISA is an effective tool to keep Americans safe," he posted this week on Truth Social. "I have called for a clean 18-month extension." This was quite a shift from his previous position on the topic. "KILL FISA," he wrote in 2024, "IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS." Of course, just two days after that post, Trump told reporters, "I'm not a big fan of FISA, but I told [Republicans], 'do what you want.'" On this subject, Trump had it right when he was posting in all caps. "The statute's defenders have always emphasized that it is not directed at Americans," writes Patrick G. Eddington of the Cato Institute. "That reassurance elides the fact that when an American communicates with a foreign person whose communications are being collected, the American's side of the conversation is captured too. Dubbed 'incidental collection,' the practice is not incidental but a predictable, systematic, and—from the government's perspective—valuable byproduct of the program." With that sort of information in hand, it's all too easy for the feds to use it. "FBI searches of Americans' data are up," Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted this month. Between December 2024 and November 2025, the FBI conducted… [TheTopNews] Read More.

From Chief Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.) yesterday in Does 1 & 2 v. Patel: Plaintiffs are two former Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents who allege that they were summarily dismissed from the FBI in October and November 2025 in retaliation for their assignment to "Arctic Frost," a federal investigation into a suspected conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. Asserting that the terminations violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, they seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement and expungement of their personnel records. They now move to proceed pseudonymously, contending that public identification would expose them and their families to immediate risk of doxing, harassment, and physical harm and would also significantly impair their ability to perform sensitive law-enforcement work if reinstated. The Court will grant the Motion, subject to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned. See [Local Civil Rule] 40.7(f) (providing that Chief Judge shall "hear and determine … motion[s] to file a pseudonymous complaint")…. Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. That requirement reflects the "presumption in favor of disclosure [of litigants' identities], which stems from the 'general public interest in the openness of governmental processes,' and, more specifically, from the tradition of open judicial proceedings." A party moving to proceed pseudonymously thus "bears the weighty burden of both demonstrating a concrete need for such secrecy, and identifying the consequences that would likely befall it if forced to proceed in its own name." … Plaintiffs have demonstrated that their interest in anonymity outweighs the public's interest in disclosure of their identities. [P]seudonymity [is favored] when identifying a plaintiff would expose information whose disclosure could threaten the plaintiff's safety. As this Court recognized in a recent analogous case, FBI agents "have a longstanding and legitimate interest in preserving the confidentiality of their identities when disclosure could subject them to harassment or danger." That interest carries particular force here. Plaintiffs' prior assignments—and the roles into which they seek reinstatement—involved counterintelligence, international financial fraud, and other sensitive investigative matters, effectiveness in which depends in part on anonymity. Their terminations, furthermore, have drawn significant public attention and accompanying threats. Against that backdrop, and given the documented rise in doxing and SWATting targeting law-enforcement personnel, Motion for Leave to Proceed Pseudonymously at 5 (citing FBI Security Division memo and DHS press release), formally associating Plaintiffs' names with… [TheTopNews] Read More.

From yesterday's decision by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. DeLuca (D. Neb.) in Wilson v. Noshirvan: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the Court to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Rule 12(f) is "permissive" and grants the Court liberal discretion when ruling on a motion to strike. Striking is an extreme measure and courts view motions to strike with disfavor. The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is to "minimize delay, prejudice, and confusion." When abused, Rule 12(f) can multiply proceedings, causing unnecessary disputes and delays. Given this, Rule 12(f) motions will not be granted without a "showing of prejudicial harm." "A motion to strike a defense will be denied if the defense is sufficient as a matter of law or if it fairly presents a question of law or fact which the court ought to hear." Plaintiff moves to strike the entirety of paragraph 58 in Defendant's Amended Answer. Paragraph 58 provides: Plaintiff's action is frivolous under Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-824. Under Nebraska law, a frivolous action is defined as "a legal position wholly without merit, that is, without rational argument based on law and evidence to support a litigant's position in the lawsuit." Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538. Plaintiff allegations of "materially false statements" are either true, opinion, falsely characterized by Plaintiff or wholly irrelevant to the alleged causes of action. For example, Plaintiff claims Defendant falsely labeled him as a three-time sex offender despite only two sex offender convictions in Nebraska. However, Defendant affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff was also charged for a sexual offense in Iowa. Plaintiff alleges false assertions of child endangerment and fraudulent behavior on the part of Plaintiff. However, Defendant affirmatively alleges there are opinions derived from observations of Plaintiff's conduct. Plaintiff alleges defamatory use of the term pedophile. However, Defendant affirmatively alleges that the term was used colloquially as an opinion derived from observations of Plaintiff's conduct and criminal history. Despite moving to strike the entire paragraph, Plaintiff only contests Defendant's allegation that "Plaintiff was also charged for a sexual offense in Iowa." Plaintiff asserts Defendant's defenses as it pertains to this allegation are legally insufficient because the Iowa proceedings are sealed by statute and the Iowa charges were dismissed. He also argues this allegation is impertinent and scandalous. Finally, he argues the Court order that the Iowa… [TheTopNews] Read More.

In a precedent-setting verdict this week, a Los Angeles jury held Meta and YouTube responsible for addicting a young woman to their services and exacerbating her mental health struggles. The jury recommended the two companies pay $6 million to the plaintiff, now 20, identified in court documents as Kaley or KMG. The verdict came a day after a New Mexico jury found that Meta harmed the mental health of children, failed to protect them from sexual predators, and violated state law. In this special bonus episode of The Reason Interview, Nick Gillespie talks with tech journalist Taylor Lorenz, founder of User Mag, who covered the Los Angeles trial. She recounts testimony from Kaley's deposition describing physical and psychological abuse from her parents. Lorenz argues that Kaley's unstable home life was a more significant factor in her mental health issues than social media use. Kaley even used Instagram to complain about her mother, who at one point would communicate with her daughter only through the app. Lorenz and Gillespie discuss rising cultural and political calls for regulation of social media, pending legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), and how Meta and other major players are simultaneously defending themselves in court while pursuing regulation that may benefit them at the expense of free speech. Previous appearance:"Taylor Lorenz Makes Sense of Online Culture for the Rest of Us," February 26, 2020   0:00—Observations from the trial 1:56—The plaintiff's mental health and history of abuse 6:34—Mark Zuckerberg's testimony 7:04—Is social media becoming the cultural scapegoat? 10:19—The impact of this verdict on setting legal precedents 13:15—KOSA 14:47—How sexual content drives regulation efforts 16:33—Are companies liable for not enforcing age verification? 17:56—What are the privacy threats with age verification? 19:05—Why more regulation stifles competition 21:48—Do younger generations value free speech?   Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/https://reason.org/jobs/producer/ Producer: Paul AlexanderAudio Mixer: Ian KeyserThe post Taylor Lorenz: Is Social Media Responsible for Bad Parenting? appeared first on Reason.com. [TheTopNews] Read More.

The Democrat campaign to confiscate wealth continued on Thursday when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) introduced the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2026. The bill comes on the heels of a series of wealth taxes that have been enacted or proposed in states and the halls of Congress in recent weeks.  Warren's bill would impose a 2 percent annual levy on household and trust wealth above $50 million and a 3 percent rate on wealth above $1 billion. University of California, Berkeley, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman estimate that approximately 260,000 American families would be subject to the tax. Assuming a 15 percent tax avoidance rate, the economists project the ultra-millionaire tax raising $514 billion this year and $6.2 trillion over the next decade. Instead of using the revenue to reduce the country's $1.8 trillion (and climbing) deficit, Warren proposes dramatically increasing social spending by instituting universal child care, free community college, Medicare expansion for those 55 and older, and paid family leave. Despite Warren's claim that she is trying to promote "basic fairness" for "working people," her bill would make the middle class worse off.  The wealthy hold their fortunes primarily in illiquid assets: public equity (37 percent), private equity (29 percent), and real estate and luxury assets (3 percent). To pay an annual wealth tax, those subject to it would need to sell holdings they had no intention of liquidating, distorting markets. Moreover, forcing the sale of stocks in publicly traded companies increases supply and places downward pressure on share prices, thereby reducing the value of ordinary Americans' retirement accounts—401(k)s, Roth IRAs, and pension funds.  Of course, this assumes that a federal wealth tax is both legal and effective.  The Constitution allows the federal government to collect indirect taxes—duties, imposts, and excises (tariffs)—but prohibits it from imposing direct taxes. The lack of clarity surrounding the definition of "direct taxes" prompted the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913 to impose the federal income tax. Even if a wealth tax is not a direct tax and, therefore, constitutional, it would be ineffective unless those subject to it don't flee. History suggests such capital flight is likely. In 1990, more than 12 European countries had wealth taxes. Today, only three remain. Chris Edwards, the head of fiscal studies at the Cato Institute, explains that France repealed its wealth tax in 2017 after it was found to cost the… [TheTopNews] Read More.