ETF Summary

EXCLUSIVE: China’s expansive artificial intelligence (AI) operations could play a concerning role in the 2024 election cycle, Sen. Pete Ricketts warned on Thursday.

‘There’s absolutely a possibility that they could do that for the 2024 election, and that’s what we have to be on guard [for],’ Ricketts told Fox News Digital in an interview in his Senate office.

During a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing earlier this month, Ricketts referenced China and its use of AI technology to create ‘deepfakes,’ which are fabricated videos and images that can look and sound like real people and events. A report released earlier this year by a U.S.-based research firm claimed a ‘pro-Chinese spam operation’ was using AI deepfakes technology to create videos of fake news anchors reciting Beijing’s propaganda. Those videos were disseminated across social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the report said. Meanwhile, China has its own regulations limiting the reach of deepfakes within its borders.

Ricketts compared the effort to the Soviet Union’s vast propaganda network in the latter half of the 20th century. 

‘I think there’s a big parallel here between what the Soviet Union did back during the Cold War, where they outspent us like ten-to-one on this sort of propaganda, and what the CCP is doing right now where they’re spent outspending us ten-to-one, and now they’re trying to leverage that dollar advantage with the technology advantage of using AI,’ he said.

Ricketts revealed that he himself had been in contact with AI experts at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and other places ‘to come up with some strategies [on] what we can do.’

‘One of the key things that we have to do, really, is education for our own people about how they have to look at media now and think critically about it,’ the senator said. ‘Because there could be a good chance it’s completely made up, it’s completely false. Even if you see somebody, an image of somebody you think you know, it could be created through a computer program.’

He suggested that the U.S. government could work with colleges and universities researching AI technology on a ‘template’ for teaching people to be aware of deepfakes.

‘One of the things that we can do, as the federal government, is think about, well, what are the things we want to do when we’re saying, ‘Okay, we need to teach people – think critically,’ can we come up with some ideas on what that means? Maybe create a template or something that we can share with universities that they can adapt,’ Ricketts said.

He was wary of the suggestion that the federal government could create its own AI office to educate people, citing a bloated bureaucracy, but called on his colleagues to stay ‘on topic’ and learn as much as they can about the rapidly developing technology.

‘I’m always very careful about creating more government bureaucracy, so I’m not sure we want to run and do that. There are probably places that we can already address this,’ Ricketts said. ‘But I think part of it is just for my colleagues and for me to get educated on this, and what the capabilities are. And like I said, it’s moving very quickly, so we’ve got to stay on topic.’

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, shared a pair of videos to Twitter late Thursday evening showing what he found during a visit near the Rio Grande along the United States-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas.

In the first video, Cruz is standing next to a barbed wire barrier that runs along the border when he points toward Mexico, noting there are ‘over 22,000 illegal immigrants right across the river.’

‘Joe Biden, this is your fault,’ Cruz said in the video, scolding the president.

‘The people who are killed crossing illegally, that is your fault,’ he continued. ‘The women who are sexually abused crossing illegally, that is your fault. The children who are brutalized crossing illegally, that is your fault. The people who are dying of drug overdoses — over 100,000 last year — that is your fault.’

Cruz urged the president to take responsibility for the current border crisis, demanding that he visit the border so he can see the madness first-hand.

‘Come down here President Biden. Stop hiding in the basement, stop pretending this misery is not your fault, stop it. This is not humane, this is not compassionate. This is cruel,’ Cruz said.

‘You can see the lights, you can see a fire,’ Cruz explained. ‘If you look, they are waiting for Title 42 to expire, and then the invasion we are going to see is going to be massive.’

He continued: ‘We already have the worst illegal immigration in the history of our country and in just a few hours it’s getting worse.’

In a second video, Cruz walked along a road near the Rio Grande and said he found a sandal belonging to girl who is ‘no more than 5 or 6 years old.’

‘She might even be younger than that,’ he continued, describing the current immigration situation as ‘horrific and cruel.’ Cruz also said blame for the border crisis should rest squarely with President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and ‘every congressional Democrat.’

The video was shared on Twitter just 30 minutes before the Title 42 public health order is set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, May 11.

The Republican added: ‘Biden brought back catch and release, he halted construction of the wall, & he ended the Remain in Mexico policy. Now Biden has let #Title42 expire!’

‘There is a full-blown invasion unfolding, and Texas is paying the price,’ Cruz added in a third tweet late Thursday evening, again blaming President Biden and Department of Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas.

Around the same time of Cruz’s stern rebuke, Sec. Mayorkas released his own statement claiming that the U.S.-Mexico border remains secure and affirmed Border Patrol agents would continue to remove migrants.

‘The border is not open,’ Mayorkas said in a video. ‘Starting tonight, people who arrive at the border without using a lawful pathway will be presumed ineligible for asylum.’

He added: ‘We have 24,000 Border Patrol Agents and Officers at the Southwest Border and have surged thousands of troops and contractors, and over a thousand asylum officers to help enforce our laws. Do not believe the lies of smugglers.’

Immigration officials have warned for weeks that the expiration of Title 42 public health order, a COVID-era rule that authorized border officials to swiftly remove migrants, would prompt a surge of migrants to the border.

Customs and Border Protection agents have encountered more than 10,000 individuals at the border on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, just before Title 42’s expiration, sources told Fox News.

Each of these is the highest-ever single-day record. Officials have predicted the border could see as many as 14,000 migrants daily after Title 42 expires.

Lawmakers in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have criticized President Biden’s handling of border security between the U.S. and Mexico.

The California Reparations Task Force, a committee created by legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, formally recommended that the state legislature repeal a constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, someone based on their race.

Last weekend, the task force formally approved its final recommendations to the California Legislature, which will then decide whether to implement the measures and send them to the governor’s desk to be signed into law.

Much of the public’s attention has been focused on the price tag of the committee’s proposed reparations to make amends for slavery and anti-Black racism. However, several aspects of the committee’s recommendations, which are outlined in hundreds of pages of documents, have received little attention, including a proposal to repeal Proposition 209.

California voters passed Proposition 209, now enshrined in California’s constitution, in 1996. The measure amended the California Constitution, adding a section that states in part, ‘The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.’

The California Supreme Court said in a case from 2000 that, in the context of Proposition 209, discrimination means ‘to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of) or prejudice (against)’ and preferential means ‘a giving of priority or advantage to one person … over others.’

Proposition 209 is largely known for banning affirmative action but effectively outlawed racial discrimination in California outright. Repealing it would appear to allow discrimination as the court defined it.

Nonetheless, the task force wants to get rid of the measure, arguing it is actually created more racial discrimination.

‘Since its passage, Proposition 209 has had far-reaching impact on efforts to remediate entrenched systemic anti-Black bias and discrimination,’ the task force writes in a final report outlining its proposals. ‘In recognition of the systemic discrimination faced by the African American community and the barriers to justice and repair imposed by Proposition 209, the task force recommends that the legislature take steps within its authority to seek the repeal [of] Proposition 209. This effort must continue until California’s constitution has been cleansed of this or any other measure rooted in racism.’

The task force highlights a study commissioned by the far-left Equal Justice Society, an organization of which a task force member is president, that concluded between $1 billion and $1.1 billion in contract dollars were lost annually by businesses owned by women and people of color due to Proposition 209. The task force’s report also argued admissions declined for Black applicants ‘at every campus.’

According to UCLA law professor Richard Sander, however, the number of Black graduates from the University of California had risen 70% above pre-Proposition 209 levels by 2017. That same year, he wrote, the number of STEM graduates rose from an annual average of around 200 before Proposition 209 to 510. The figure increased to 558 in 2018.

It is unclear how repealing a measure that bars discrimination or preferential treatment based on race would help combat racial discrimination.

One possible explanation relates to legality.

Many of the task force’s proposals are explicitly race-based to make distinctions in favor of Black Californians as a way to make amends for slavery and subsequent racism. With that in mind, critics of reparations have argued Proposition 209 could present a legal hurdle for their proposals.

For example, San Francisco resident Richie Greenberg, who founded the successful movement to recall the city’s former District Attorney Chesa Boudin, has argued that large-scale reparations would violate not only Proposition 209 but also the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Ward Connerly, the leading Black voice supporting Proposition 209, has expressed similar sentiments.

‘It is [Proposition] 209 that will prevent our legislature and governor from doing something so ridiculous as to compensate some of us based on the color of our skin or being the ancestors of slaves,’ he tweeted last year.

Connerly served as president of the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign in the 1990s and is now founder and president of the American Civil Rights Institute.

The task force didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story. However, the committee appeared to acknowledge the potential legal hurdle that Proposition 209 presents in its report, writing, ‘More broadly, Proposition 209 is widely viewed as an impediment to the adoption of remedial measures. The chilling effect has been far-reaching.’

This is not the first effort to repeal Proposition 209. In 2020, Proposition 16 appeared on the general election ballot asking California voters to amend the California Constitution to repeal Proposition 209. 

Proposition 16 failed, with 57% of voters saying they want to keep Proposition 209, which still remains in effect.

‘In other words, a majority of California voters wanted to keep Prop 209 in place, maintaining the constitutional ban on the state engaging in race-based discrimination or preferential treatment,’ Edward Ring, a senior fellow at the California Policy Center, wrote recently of the 2020 vote.

Half of America’s governors are urging the Biden administration to forgo or delay the implementation of a proposed rule from the Department of Education they say could prevent states from enforcing ‘duly-enacted statutes protecting fairness in women’s and girls’ sports.’

In a joint comment submitted Friday to Education Sec. Miguel Cardona, 25 Republican governors pushed back against the department’s proposal to amend Title IX rules to expand the meaning of sexual discrimination to include gender identity that would prevent schools and colleges from banning transgender athletes.

‘We write to submit a joint comment in opposition to the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed new regulation 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b)(2) and respectfully request that it be withdrawn or delayed until the U.S. Supreme Court can address the questions raised in several pending cases that are challenging this administration’s expanded reading of Title IX,’ the governors, led by Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, wrote in the comment.

Under the department’s proposed rule, no school or college that receives federal funding would be allowed to impose a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy that categorically bans transgender students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Such policies would be considered a violation of Title IX.

The proposal, the GOP governors said, could ‘prevent states from enforcing our duly-enacted statutes protecting fairness in women’s and girls’ sports.’

‘If not withdrawn, we are gravely concerned about the impact that the Department’s wholesale reinvention of Title IX’s terms would have on states’ ability to enforce their laws and policies as written,’ the governors wrote. ‘Indeed, under threat of denying essential school funding, the Department’s proposed regulation would attempt to coerce compliance with an uncertain, fluid, and completely subjective standard that is based on a highly politicized gender ideology. Most troubling, the proposed regulation would turn the purpose of Title IX on its head and threaten the many achievements of women in athletics.’

Offering further criticism of the proposal, the governors said the recommended regulation from the department ‘lacks foundation in established law’ and ‘includes terms not found in Title IX in an attempt to expand Title IX’s clear language beyond Congress’ intent.’

‘The proposed rule also lacks any Congressional authority. The plain language used in Title IX does not allow the sweeping rewrites of Title IX that the Department persists in seeking,’ the governors stated. ‘It is undisputed that Title IX prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.”

‘Undeterred by plain English, the Department invents new categories solely based on a student’s ‘gender identity’ — a term not used in Title IX,’ they added. ‘This overreaching interpretation exceeds the Department’s Congressionally granted authority. Not only does the Department lack the authority to unilaterally re-write Title IX, such a regulation would disrupt states and schools and eviscerate the lived experience and achievements of generations of courageous women.’

The governors also highlighted the importance of defending the ‘hard-fought’ achievements of female athletes.

‘This administration apparently sees no irony that its policies validate an average male athlete stealing the recognition from a truly remarkable female athlete whose lifelong athletic discipline and achievements are discarded based on a deliberate misreading of a law whose very purpose was to protect, preserve, and encourage women’s athletics,’ the governors said. ‘The scandal of 1970’s and 1980’s East German women athletes pales in comparison to the logical result of this administration’s relentless pursuit of draconian enforcement of its gender ideology. Leaving aside the Department’s utter lack of authority to promulgate such a regulation, neither states nor schools should be subjected to such a fluid and uncertain standard. Nor, most importantly, should the historic advancements and achievements of our sisters, mothers, and daughters be erased.’

In a press release, the Biden administration said the proposed rule ‘affirms that students benefit from the chance to join a school sports team to learn about teamwork, leadership, and physical fitness.’

The joint comment from more than two dozen Republican state leaders comes amid widespread support from Democrats and liberals to allow transgender athletes to compete in sports that do not align with their biological sex.

The House passed legislation last month aimed at preventing biological males from competing as transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports at schools across the country. The measure, known as the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, passed in a 219-203 vote on April 20. All the ‘yes’ votes came from Republicans, and all the ‘no’ votes came from Democrats.

Republicans defended the bill as an attempt to spare women and girls from having to compete against transgender women and girls — biological males who can sometimes dominate these sports and prevent some female athletes from making the team. But several Democrats argued in debate that the GOP bill is an extension of the bullying that transgender students are already facing at school.

Cardona has said that he supports allowing biological male transgender people to compete in women’s sports. He said during his confirmation hearing that it is ‘critically important’ that educators and school systems ‘respect the rights of all students, including students who are transgender’ and that all students should be able to participate in activities.

The Friday comment to Cardona included signatures and support from Reeves, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Idaho Gov. Brad Little, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, and Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon.

Fox News’ Andrew Mark Miller, Peter Kasperowicz, and The Associated Press contributed to this article.

A retired rear admiral with the U.S. Maritime Administration gave what Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, described as an ‘insufficient’ answer to his question about a U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) official’s controversial tweet about White males.

During a hearing Thursday before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure about the shortage of U.S. mariners, Babin grilled Rear Adm. Ann Phillips (ret.) about a June 2020 tweet from Anton Tripolskii, who was hired at the Kings Point, New York, academy last year as its $142,595-per-year sexual assault response director.

‘We don’t have forces who do right by survivors of intimate partner and sexual violence because we don’t have forces who don’t abuse Brown and Black people,’ Tripolskii wrote in the tweet. ‘Same forces, same reasons. Misogyny and racism grow from the same white, male root.’

Tripolskii also retweeted a user in October 2020 who suggested  that ‘White men with a history of domestic and sexual violence’ are more inclined to become ‘radicalized terrorists.’

Tripolskii’s Twitter activity prompted a scathing letter from four members of the U.S. House’s Anti-Woke Caucus to USMMA Superintendent Vice Adm. Joanna Nunan earlier this week.

‘He has made it clear that he believes that White males – the same White males that make up the majority of the U.S. Merchant Marine – are to blame for sexual violence in the United States,’ said Babin, who was one of the members of Congress who signed the letter to Nunan. ‘In fact, Mr. Tripolskii, who is White and male, has made these kinds of comments repeatedly.’

Noting how the USMMA should have been aware of his Twitter activity before hiring him, Babin asked Phillips if she agrees with Tripolskii that misogyny and racism ‘grow from the same white, male root.’

Phillips acknowledged the USMMA’s receipt of the letter from the Anti-Woke Caucus, but she noted that Tripolskii’s tweet was ‘several years old’ and that she and Nunan ‘are looking towards the future’ by ‘building an environment of value that includes inclusiveness’ and values people’s participation based on their professionalism and skill.

Babin cut in to say he did not understand her answer and reiterated his question by asking if Phillips believes Tripolskii’s statement about White males is true.

The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy needs experienced leaders training our merchant mariners, not some social justice warrior who’s laser-focused on DEI ideology …

— Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas

‘Well, sir, his statements were made a number of years ago, and I have no indication that they apply to his current position,’ Phillips said. ‘And again, I have spoken with Vice Adm. Nunan, we are moving forward with a future and collective future for the academy that values everyone, including White men, for their professionalism and skill and ensures that we have a team to move forward.’

‘I understand what you’re saying, and you’re kind of dodging,’ Babin said, going on to express concern about worsening recruitment shortfalls ‘throughout the services’ and at the USMMA especially.

‘The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy needs experienced leaders training our merchant mariners, not some social justice warrior who’s laser-focused on DEI ideology, expanding abortion or accusing individuals of inherent racism based purely on their skin color – which is illegal, by the way, since 1965,’ Babin said, adding that he found Phillips’ answer ‘insufficient.’

The controversy over Tripolskii’s views comes months after midshipmen currently enrolled at the USMMA told Fox News Digital on condition of anonymity that the academy under the authority of Nunan and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has become increasingly ‘woke.’

A federal judge in Virginia has struck down a law prohibiting licensed federal firearms dealers from selling handguns to 18- to 20-year-olds, finding that it violates their Second Amendment rights and is unconstitutional.

In a 71-page ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Payne said that since adults under 21 have the right to vote, join the military and serve on a federal jury, there is no reason why federal law should restrict them from buying a firearm.

‘If the Court were to exclude 18-to-20-year-olds from the Second Amendment’s protection, it would impose limitations on the Second Amendment that do not exist with other constitutional guarantees,’ Payne wrote.

‘Because the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our Nation’s history and tradition, they, therefore, cannot stand,’ he wrote.

His opinion relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which said that courts must review the country’s ‘historical tradition of firearm regulation’ to evaluate the constitutionality of a gun restriction. That landmark ruling has led to several successful challenges to longstanding gun control laws brought by gun owners and Second Amendment groups.

Since the Bruen decision, courts have declared unconstitutional laws including federal measures designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and defendants under felony indictment, as well as a ban on possessing guns with the serial number removed. A federal judge recently cited the high court decision in ruling against a Minnesota law prohibiting 18- to 20-year-olds from getting permits to carry handguns in public. A judge struck down a similar law last year on gun restrictions for young adults in Texas.

Payne, who cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling repeatedly in his ruling, wrote that the government failed to present ‘any evidence of age-based restrictions on the purchase or sale of firearms from the colonial era, Founding or Early Republic.’ The lack of similar regulations from those time periods indicates that the ‘Founders considered age-based regulations on the purchase of firearms to circumscribe the right to keep and bear arms confirmed by the Second Amendment,’ he wrote.

This class action lawsuit was brought by John Corey Fraser, 20, and other plaintiffs who said the Gun Control Act of 1968 and subsequent regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were unconstitutional because they excluded all adults under 21 from ‘exercising the right to keep and bear arms.’ Fraser, 20, had attempted to purchase a Glock 19x handgun from a licensed dealer but was turned away, according to the lawsuit. 

Elliott Harding, an attorney representing Fraser, was pleased with Payne’s decision and expressed confidence the ruling will be upheld on appeal. 

‘Even though it ensures that future buyers can now purchase these firearms in the federal system — one that includes background checks and other requirements — we expect the defendants will appeal,’ Harding told the Associated Press.

Harding noted that 18- to 20-year-olds are currently allowed to buy handguns from private sellers, calling it a ‘loophole’ that is ‘completely unregulated.’ 

‘This allows them to go in and buy a registered firearm, direct from a manufacturer, but they’ll also go through background checks,’ he said. ‘They have to go through the traditional steps in purchasing a firearm.’

Everytown Law, a legal group that supports gun control and filed a brief supporting the ban on handgun sales to adults under 21, said the law is constitutional and an essential tool for preventing gun violence. 

‘Not only are guns the leading cause of death for U.S. kids and teens, but research shows us that 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 years and older,’ said Janet Carter, Everytown Law’s senior director of issues and appeals.

‘The Court’s ruling will undoubtedly put lives at risk,’ Carter added, ‘It must be reversed.’

The Justice Department and ATF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.