The majority of House Democrats voted in favor of allowing non-citizens to participate in Washington, D.C. elections on Tuesday.

The House of Representatives passed a bill led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, to prohibit non-U.S. citizens from voting in elections in the nation’s capital.

It passed 266 to 148, with 56 Democrats joining Republicans in passing the measure. One Democrat voted ‘present,’ while 148 voted against the bill.

‘I believe strongly in not having federal overreach, but we have jurisdiction, Congress has jurisdiction over Washington, District of Columbia…and we don’t like to utilize our jurisdiction and our authority, but in this case, they’ve gone too far,’ Pfluger told Fox News Digital in an interview before the vote.

D.C.’s progressive city council passed the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act in 2022, granting non-U.S. citizens the ability to vote in local elections if they’ve lived in the district for at least 30 days.

Noncitizens can also hold local elected office in the D.C. government.

The local measure has been a frequent target of GOP attacks, with Republican national security hawks raising alarms about the possibility of hostile foreign agents participating in D.C. elections.

But progressive Democrats like Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., who spoke out against the bill on Tuesday afternoon, have dismissed that as an implausible scenario. 

‘Republicans claim that Congress has a constitutional duty to legislate on local D.C. matters, but this is historically and legally incorrect. Republicans legislate on local D.C. matters only when they think they can score political points, such as by demonizing immigrants,’ Frost said during debate on the House floor.

‘They only bring it up to the floor when they think they can score political points, taking away the democratic rights of people here in D.C. and home rule.’

Frost also argued that it was ‘highly unlikely’ foreign officials would vote in those elections, claiming they would have to ‘renounce their right to vote in their home country’ and because ‘D.C. has no authority in federal matters.’

But Pfluger, who spoke with Fox News Digital before the vote, was optimistic that it would get at least some Democratic support.

He noted that 52 Democrats voted for the bill when it passed the House in the previous Congress. It was never taken up in the formerly Democrat-controlled Senate, however.

‘It’s hard to go back to your district as a Democrat and say, yeah, I want foreign agents to be able to vote in our elections – ‘Oh yeah, it’s not federal elections,’ some may say. But it has an impact on the way the city is run,’ Pfluger said.

‘This could be Russian embassy personnel, they could be Chinese embassy personnel – a number of folks. It’s just wrong. It goes against the fabric of our society,’ he added.

Another bill receiving a vote on Tuesday is legislation that would grant D.C. police the ability to negotiate punishments via collective bargaining, and would help shield the capital’s police force from at least some liability by installing a statute of limitations against the Metropolitan Police Department. 

That legislation was introduced by New York Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino.

Expect the House of Representatives to make ‘technical corrections’ to President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ Wednesday.

But if you blink, you might miss it.

Senate Republicans are now in the middle of the ‘Byrd Bath’ with Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. This is a process, named after late Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to exclude provisions from budget reconciliation packages that don’t comport with special Senate budget rules. 

The Senate must use this special process to avoid a filibuster.

Some items in the House bill don’t fit into the bill under those special budget rules. So, they are tossing them out. But the House must essentially alter the bill and send it back to the Senate.

The House will embed those changes into a ‘rule’ Wednesday to tee up the spending cancellations bill to trim money for USAID and public broadcasting for debate and a vote on Friday.

So, the ‘altered’ bill, with the technical corrections, goes back to the Senate.

‘I think it’s going to be nothing that was unexpected. I don’t think it’s going to be a problem,’ House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said.

‘I’m trying to defend my product that was sent over there. As you all know, it took a long time to get that balance.’

Several Democratic senators, including one who remains the preacher at Martin Luther King Jr.’s church, joined several clergy members for a vigil in opposition to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the Capitol steps Tuesday.

‘Clergy and leaders in robes, collars and religious vestments will offer prayers, sing songs, read scripture and testify to the Gospel, providing a moral reckoning at this critical moment in history,’ read an advisory announcing the vigil obtained by Fox News Digital.

Rev. Jim Wallis, who advised the Obama administration on faith and neighborhood partnerships, told the crowd they ‘come today in spiritual procession – singing, reading Scripture and coming for a vigil on the Senate steps.’

‘Some say that we should keep faith out of politics – we’re saying while the Bible doesn’t give us detailed legislation, it tells us who to care for,’ Wallis went on. ‘We don’t want to let Jesus Christ be left outside the Senate chamber for this vote.’

Wallis called Republicans’ budget a ‘big bad bill’ that will purportedly ‘take 60 million [people] off of health care.’

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., cited Luke 10, recalling the passage where a lawyer – ‘and it’s always a lawyer causing trouble,’ he quipped – asks Jesus who qualifies as a neighbor and who one ought to care for.

Coons claimed the GOP bill ‘literally takes the food from the mouths of hungry children to pass an enormous tax cut for the very wealthiest [and] is the definition of an immoral bill before this Congress.’

Later, Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga. – reverend of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta – said the vigil felt like ‘déjà vu.’

Warnock recounted protesting via prayer and singing in the Capitol rotunda in 2017 – alongside former North Carolina NAACP president William Barber II – and said he ‘drew the short straw’ when he, but not Barber, was arrested.

‘As I stood there, I said then what I want to say today: That a budget is not just a fiscal document, it’s a moral document.’

‘Show me your budget and I’ll show you who you think matters and who does not – who you think is dispensable. Right. And we stood there in 2017 making the same point,’ he said, crediting the Capitol Police for arresting them in a professional manner. Warnock recounted that when he was warned of being arrested, he said he had ‘already been arrested.’

‘My mind and my imagination and my heart had been arrested by the heartbeat of children who should not lose their food and who should not lose healthcare in order to give wealthy people a tax cut,’ he said, suggesting the same was true with Republicans’ latest budget bill.

‘Here I am eight years later, having transformed my agitation into legislation.’

‘I’m here today because I still know how to agitate – I still know how to protest. I’m not a senator who used to be a pastor. I’m a pastor in the Senate.’

President Donald Trump told Fox News that Iran has become ‘much more aggressive’ in nuclear talks. 

‘Iran is acting much differently in negotiations than it did just days ago,’ Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier. ‘Much more aggressive. It’s surprising to me. It’s disappointing, but we are set to meet again tomorrow – we’ll see.’

Senior administration officials also told Fox News that Iran appears to be dragging negotiations on without concrete progress while pushing forward with its nuclear efforts.

Meanwhile, outgoing Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), General Michael E. Kurilla, told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year that he had prepared ‘several plans and options’ for Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ‘in the event there is no agreement with Iran.’

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

The U.S. State Department and Secretary Marco Rubio punched back at claims that contracts providing Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTFs) have been halted and affirmed the agency will continue its commitment to ‘delivering critical humanitarian aid.’

‘As USAID transitions under the State Department, our commitment to delivering critical humanitarian aid remains steadfast and aligned with America’s foreign policy priorities,’ a senior State Department official told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement. 

‘We are proud to continue working with our local partners to deliver life-saving ready-to-use therapeutic food. Most recently, an additional $50 million in RUTFs was approved. This is enough to nourish over one million of the world’s most vulnerable children.’

RUFTs’ contracts and operations were previously overseen by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However, oversight now lies with the State Department after USAID merged into the agency in February, largely influenced by then-Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk. 

RUTFs are pre-packaged, nutrient-rich, ready-to-eat meals that help prevent malnutrition, mainly in children. Some countries even refer to RUTFs as a form of medicine. 

The State Department’s comments come after Secretary Rubio faced questions from lawmakers on Capitol Hill in a May hearing, when Democratic Rep. Gabe Amo of Rhode Island confronted Rubio in a heated exchange, saying the agency was intentionally ‘freezing’ RUTF aid to countries in need. 

‘You need to figure out why they’re not moving, because it isn’t an impediment for us,’ Rubio fired back. 

Amo responded, ‘No, you need to figure [that] out, sir,’ and said that the secretary ‘refused to make’ a commitment to ensuring effective RUTF distribution. 

‘We’re going to continue to do food aid,’ Rubio answered. ‘We’re going to do more food aid than any other country on the planet, times 10.’

A source at the State Department revealed to Fox News Digital that key partnerships with non-profit RUTF producers, MANA and Edesia, have been active since March 2. Additionally, 1.4 million boxes of RUTFs were approved on May 26.

Fox also obtained an internal document and action memorandum for Jeremy Lewin, a former DOGE employee now overseeing the transition of merging USAID with the State Department, from USAID’s Dianna Darney de Salcedo. The document called for urgent approval to move food commodities and RUFTs that were stored in warehouses to be shipped for use. 

The sensitive but unclassified document also revealed a request to approve a new Title II award, valued at $35 million, which sources say was several times less than initially estimated, to cover the costs of warehouses, shipping overseas, transporting inland, programming and distribution.  

Fox News Digital spoke to MANA CEO Mark Moore, who outlined a detailed timeline of RUTF federal contract negotiations and the challenges the non-profit faced as USAID merged into the State Department at the beginning of 2025.

At one point, before the State Department and the Trump administration proposed contracts in May, Moore told Fox News, ‘We’re all looking at June and July running out of these old contracts and saying we’re just going to have to close the doors.’ He noted that ‘if this new order didn’t come out, we’d really be screwed going into the summer.’

‘It is trending the right way, and we’re thrilled,’ Moore added. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Rep. Gabe Amo and Edesia but did not receive a response. 

Preston Mizell is a writer with Fox News Digital covering breaking news. Story tips can be sent to Preston.Mizell@fox.com and on X @MizellPreston

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was deported from Israel after the country’s naval forces detained her Gaza-bound flotilla, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

The ministry said Tuesday that Thunberg was on a flight headed back to Sweden via France. 

‘Greta Thunberg just departed Israel on a flight to Sweden (via France),’ the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on X.

Thunberg and three other activists were transported to Ben Gurion Airport to be deported, while eight others — including a member of the European Parliament — refused to sign deportation paperwork, according to the Times of Israel.

The 22-year-old climate activist reportedly told her attorneys that she could do ‘more good outside of Israel’ and that refusing to leave would ‘harm’ her cause, the Times of Israel reported, citing Adalah, an Israeli organization.

Thunberg famously avoids air travel as part of her climate activism, making this flight out of Israel an anomaly for her.

The Israeli navy intercepted the flotilla, named the Madleen, early on Monday. Thunberg posted a video amid the chaos saying that she had been ‘kidnapped’ by Israel, a comment which drew heavy scrutiny, as some pointed out the plight of the hostages who have been held in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023.

When asked about Thunberg’s claim that she had been ‘kidnapped,’ President Donald Trump said, ‘I think Israel has enough problems without kidnapping Greta Thunberg.’ The president called the climate activist a ‘strange person’ and told reporters that she needed ‘anger management’ courses.

Thunberg was one of 12 people aboard the flotilla, which Israel dubbed the ‘selfie yacht,’ claiming that the entire thing was a publicity stunt. The Madleen was carrying aid for the people of Gaza, though Israel said that the ship contained less than a single truckload. 

‘The tiny amount of aid that wasn’t consumed by the ‘celebrities’ will be transferred to Gaza through real humanitarian channels,’ the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote on X after the Madleen was intercepted. ‘There are ways to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip — they do not involve provocations and selfies.’

Israel said on Monday that more than 1,200 aid trucks had entered Gaza over the past two weeks, and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a controversial Israeli and U.S.-backed organization, had delivered almost 11 million meals to the civilians in Gaza.

A federal judge has restricted the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to federal databases, citing a ‘breach of law and trust.’ 

Led by the American Federation of Government Employees, a group of current and former federal government employees and their unions in February sued the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DOGE for alleged ‘breach of privacy.’

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs’ April 25 motion for a preliminary injunction Monday, but said the scope of the injunction would be addressed in a separate order. 

‘Following President Trump’s inauguration, OPM granted broad access to many of those systems to a group of individuals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’), even though no credible need for this access had been demonstrated. In doing so, OPM violated the law and bypassed its established cybersecurity practices,’ Cote wrote in a 99-page opinion on Monday. 

‘In brief, the OPM records at issue concern the plaintiffs’ most sensitive private affairs,’ the opinion says. ‘They include social security numbers, health care information, banking information, and information about family members. For some people, disclosure of information in OPM systems could subject them to danger.’ 

An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Cotes said plaintiffs ‘have shown they are entitled to’ a preliminary injunction, which ‘would stop disclosure of OPM records to individuals associated with DOGE and require the destruction of any copies of personal information that have been obtained through such disclosure.’ 

‘The plaintiffs have shown that the defendants disclosed OPM records to individuals who had no legal right of access to those records,’ Cotes wrote. ‘In doing so, the defendants violated the Privacy Act and departed from cybersecurity standards that they are obligated to follow. This was a breach of law and of trust. Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.’ 

The judge further criticized the Trump administration’s handling of OPM records. 

‘The Government could have acknowledged that in its rush to accomplish a new President’s agenda mistakes were made and established, important protocols were overlooked. It has not,’ Cote wrote. ‘The Government has defended this lawsuit by repeatedly invoking a mantra that it adhered to all established procedures and safeguards. It did not. Without a full-throated recognition that the law and established cybersecurity procedures must be followed, the risk of irreparable harm will continue to exist.’ 

In a May hearing, Justice Department lawyers reportedly argued that any preliminary injunction granted should include exceptions for high-level OPM officials and cited how a separate judge had walked back initial restrictions placed on DOGE access to Treasury Department records in February so long as DOGE staffers have the appropriate training and vetting, according to the Federal News Network.

Justice Department lawyers filed a separate motion in the case on Friday, citing the Supreme Court’s latest decision related to DOGE access to Social Security Administration (SSA) records. 

DOGE’s future remains uncertain amid a rocky public fallout between its former leader, tech billionaire Elon Musk, and President Donald Trump, though both men previously said they want the waste-cutting entity’s work to continue. 

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday in cases involving DOGE, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases.

The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE. 

In one case, the high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that had restricted the team’s access to the SSA under federal privacy laws.

The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a ‘Ponzi scheme’ and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending.

But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE’s efforts at Social Security amounted to a ‘fishing expedition’ based on ‘little more than suspicion’ of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans’ private information at risk.

Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need.

The Trump administration has said DOGE cannot work effectively with those restrictions.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Congressional Republicans are racing to harness the momentum left behind by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and the leaders of a new House GOP initiative are hoping they have the solution.

‘You tell people the word ‘rescission,’ in my district, I’m sure that polls pretty low, but they know waste, they know fraud, and they know abuse,’ Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., told Fox News Digital. 

‘This is why this process needs to be not only explained to our own members, but also to the population out here that might not know what the heck a rescission is, but know that they want the wasteful spending to end.’

Moore is leading the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) new task force, aimed at getting both fellow House Republicans and the American public on board with the GOP on a mechanism for spending cuts known as rescissions.

Rescissions proposals are requests from the White House for cuts to funding already approved by Congress in the current fiscal year. 

Once submitted to Capitol Hill, lawmakers have 45 days to pass the proposal, or it is considered rejected. 

The House is voting on the first of what Republican leaders hope are several such proposals this week – President Donald Trump sent Congress a request to cut $9.4 billion in funding to PBS, NPR and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The $9.4 billion figure is part of a larger $180 billion sum of waste that Musk said his DOGE efforts had uncovered.

RSC Chair August Pfluger, R-Texas, said Moore ‘is able to educate our members, work with the White House, liaise directly with [the Office of Management and Budget], talk to leadership, voice the conservative concerns… and to dispel myth and speak truth.’

Pfluger’s 189-member RSC serves as a de facto conservative think tank of sorts for the House GOP.

It’s a natural extension of the group’s work to focus on how to message government spending cuts, particularly while Democrats are accusing the GOP of trying to rip away critical programs.

Pfluger and Moore signaled the task force’s most immediate goal will be easing concerns of moderate Republicans who may be wary of the $9.4 billion spending cut plan.

With just a razor-thin majority, House GOP leaders can afford no more than three defections to pass legislation along party lines.

‘If members do have problems, the conservative conscience of our conference, RSC, can help them understand why it’s important to vote on it. And that’s what Riley is going to do,’ Pfluger said.

Both suggested they would like to see future rescissions packages, but would not go into detail about what could be cut.

Moore noted he was on the Appropriations Committee, the keepers of the House’s purse strings, and that there were ongoing conversations between members of that panel and the White House about identifying future rollbacks.

And both Pfluger and Moore said they were undaunted by Musk’s somewhat dramatic departure from the federal government – insisting the public was still behind the idea of DOGE, even without the Tesla billionaire at the forefront.

‘I don’t think the mainstream media is covering that aspect of it, because they want to talk about this breakup between the president and Elon Musk, but the president said as recently as today that he still believes in what he did,’ Pfluger said.

Moore added, ‘Media cycles moved extraordinarily fast. I think obviously there was a lot of excitement when it was first announced. But I can tell you when I’m doing Lincoln Day dinners and going around the counties in West Virginia, they’re still acutely focused on this. I hear from folks all the time… it is very much the average American still wants to see this happen.’

‘I think they’re, you know, they’re just waiting for us to do the right thing,’ Moore said.

Both Republicans and Democrats have used analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as a political cudgel when it suits them, but with unfavorable reviews of President Donald Trump’s ‘one big, beautiful bill’ coming out, some in the GOP are questioning the relevancy of the agency.

The CBO’s latest analysis of the gargantuan tax cut and spending package found that the House Republican-authored super bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade and boot millions off of health insurance.

Senate Republicans will now get their chance to tweak and change the legislation, and have vowed to do so, despite warnings from Trump to reshape the bill as little as possible.

Congressional Republicans have largely scoffed at the agency’s findings, arguing that the CBO doesn’t include expected economic growth or other factors into its scoring of the bill.

‘I don’t care what the CBO says,’ Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital. ‘They’re irrelevant to me. They were biased before. They’ve been biased in other things, but all the numbers speak for themselves.’

The agency’s latest score found that the House’s reconciliation offering would cut $1.2 trillion over a decade, add $2.4 trillion to the deficit and decrease revenues by $3.6 trillion. It also found that if the GOP’s proposals to slash Medicaid stay as is, nearly 11 million people would be booted from their health care.

That number cranks up to about 16 million Americans removed from the benefit rolls when factoring in Affordable Care Act provisions that are set to expire. 

However, the White House declared the CBO scores inaccurate, and argued that the package achieved, through a combination of spending cuts, reversing regulations ushered in by the Biden administration and tariffs – which are not part of the bill – roughly $6.6 trillion in savings over the next decade.  

Many raised issues with the agency’s accuracy, arguing that they got the score wrong for Trump’s 2017 tax package.

‘I mean, I heard the numbers are always wrong,’ said Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas. ‘What’s the purpose?’

Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, agreed, and contended that it was ‘time to discuss the CBO being more damn accurate.’ 

Still, some Republicans believe the CBO serves a purpose.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she didn’t believe the agency should be done away with, adding ‘we need to have a source for scores.’

‘We kind of go back and forth in terms of condemning CBO because we hate their score, or praising CBO because we like the outcome,’ she said. ‘And I think that’s what we’re seeing a lot of right now, is looking at that CBO score and saying, ‘That’s not real.’’

Other lawmakers questioned what the alternative would be. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital, ‘We need something,’ but acknowledged that he felt the agency was biased, and that both parties used scores ‘to our manipulation.’

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., believes that the agency’s score was wildly incorrect. Still, he is one of the main antagonists of the current bill because it does not go far enough to achieve deep spending cuts.

The lawmaker told Fox News Digital that he believed the 50-year-old agency would soon be a relic of the past.

‘I think just AI is gonna replace them,’ he said. ‘I’m using AI all the time to do the sensitivity analysis. I don’t need CBO to do these sensitivity analyses anymore, I can do it myself.’ 

The hottest topic nowadays revolves around Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its potential to rapidly and imminently transform the world we live in — economically, socially, politically and even defensively. Regardless of whether you believe that the technology will be able to develop superintelligence and lead a metamorphosis of everything, the possibility that may come to fruition is a catalyst for more far-leftist control.  

The likeliest starting point will be more calls for Universal Basic Income (UBI), a program by which the government guarantees every American some form of ongoing payment (such as a monthly stipend). Despite direct and indirect pilots of UBI being a failure, a potential ‘crisis’ will render that fact moot.  

Using the prospect of AI software and hardware (aka robots) taking large swaths of American jobs, politicians won’t focus on retraining, they will go for the easy popular fix of promising something for ‘free.’ And something politicians can offer at someone else’s expense while creating more dependence on the government is a far-leftist dream. 

Unfortunately, that dream is an economic nightmare for the rest of us. The government doesn’t produce anything productive, and any money that it has is either taken from us via taxes or ‘printed’ which devalues our purchasing power.  

With an existing massive debt and deficit problem that has created a weak fiscal foundation, the government is in no position to create new entitlement programs. Further, taking money from workers, laundering it through the government and redistributing it to those who are not working is not a productive use of capital. It’s also not good for morale or giving people a sense of purpose in their lives. 

With that, there will likely be a communist-leaning conversation about any AI that takes jobs and who should have ownership over that AI. If AI drives — or is even perceived to possibly create in the future — a deeper rift between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots,’ there’s no doubt that government ownership or societal sharing of the AI will be seized upon by those who look for any reason to push socialistic or communistic ideals.  

Then, there is the potential for tyranny. If you thought the COVID-19 lockdowns were bad, wait until attack drones and robots create societal chaos. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where people are told to lock down or give up their freedoms until protocols are sorted out.  

This is why we should be imagining and planning for those scenarios today, and not let reactive crises lead to an erosion of our freedoms.  

Likewise, protecting our individual rights in the digital sphere, particularly as AI companies lobby to help shape regulation, is critical. 

And a final piece of the puzzle is embedded in the AI itself. A Substack, called ‘Contemplations on the Tree of Woe,’ raised a related concern, noting that just as the left captured the culture via the mainstream media and Hollywood, a similar thing is happening with AI. The piece notes, ‘The code is not neutral … every major LLM is aligned with leftist priors. OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, every single one leans Left. Even the much-ballyhooed Grok is at best Centrist. (And, unfortunately, the ‘center’ of the political compass these days isn’t exactly Philadelphia 1776.)’  

The piece goes on to say that if a left-leaning worldview is embedded in the coding and the output, and if something isn’t done to counter that, leftist ideals will be at the foundational core of everything, from education to culture to science (or repression of science). 

If you thought the COVID-19 lockdowns were bad, wait until attack drones and robots create societal chaos. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where people are told to lock down or give up their freedoms until protocols are sorted out.  

We need balance. A foundational infrastructure that is too far left or too far right can each cause myriad problems that compound and become too entrenched to resolve.   

Americans tend to be very reactive instead of proactive in addressing issues. But with AI, we cannot wait. If we let AI become a catalyst to move us permanently to the far left, or if the underpinnings of the AI do that inherently and foundationally, we will give up our checks, balances and freedoms for the future.