Trump admin's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concernsNew Foto - Trump admin's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns

DENVER‒For decades, the government has been able to watch where you drive and where you walk. It can figure out where you shop, what you buy and who you spend time with. It knows how much money you have,where you've workedand in many cases, what medical procedures you've had. It can figure out if you've attended a protest or bought marijuana, and can even read your emails if it wants. But because all of those data points about you were scattered across dozens of federal, state and commercial databases, it wasn't easy for the government to easily build a comprehensive profile of your life. That's changing ‒ fast. With the help of Big Tech, in just a few short months, the Trump administration hasexpanded the government surveillancestate to a whole new level as the president and his allies chase down illegal immigrants and suspected domestic terrorists, while simultaneously trying to slash federal spending they've deemed wasteful, and prevent foreigners from voting. And in doing so, privacy experts warn, the federal government is inevitably scooping up, sorting, combining and storing data about millions of law-abiding Americans. The vast data storehouses, some of which have been targeted for access by Elon Musk's DOGE teams,raise significant privacy concernsand the threat of cybersecurity breaches. "What makes the Trump administration's approach so chilling is that they are seeking to collect and use data across federal agencies in ways that are unprecedented," said Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The federal government's collection of data has always been a double-edged sword." Americans have always fiercely guarded and worried about their privacy even from the country's earliest days: The Constitution's Fourth Amendment specifically limits the government's ability to invade a person's privacy. Those concerns have only grown as more and more government functions are conducted online. A2023 survey by the Pew Research Centerfound that 71% of Americans worry about the government's use of data about them, up from 64% in 2019. The survey found the concern was greatest among those people who lean or consistently vote Republican, up from 63% to 77%. The level of concern among people who lean or consistently vote Democrat remained steady at 65%, the survey found. That same survey found that Americans overall are almost as concerned about government access to their data as they are about social media companies having access. People who had attended college were more worried about data privacy, while people with high school degrees were in general "confident that those who have access to their personal information will do the right thing." In acknowledgment of those concerns, the federal government carefully stores most data about Americans in separate databases, from Social Security payments to Medicare reimbursements, housing vouchers and food stamps. That limits the ability of government workers to surreptitiously build comprehensive profiles of Americans without court oversight. In the name of rooting out fraud, and government inefficiency, however, PresidentDonald Trumpin March ordered federal agencies under his control to lower the walls between their data warehouses. The Government Accounting Office estimates the federal government loses $233 billion to $521 billion to fraud annually, much of that due to improper payments to contractors or falsified medical payments, according to an April GAO report. The report also noted significant losses via Medicare or unemployment fraud, andpandemic-era stimulus payments. "Decades of restricted data access within and between agencies have led to duplicated efforts, undetected overpayments, and unchecked fraud, costing taxpayers billions," President Donald Trump said in a March 20 executive order that helped create the new system. "This executive order dismantles unnecessary barriers, promotes inter-agency collaboration, and ensure the Federal Government operates responsibly and efficiently to safeguard public funds." Supporters say this kind of data archive, especially video surveillance coupled with AI-powered facial recognition, can also be a powerful tool to fight crime. Authorities in New Orleans used video footage collected by privately owned security cameras to help capture at least one of the men who recently escaped jail. And systems that read license plates helped Colorado police track down a suspect accused of repeatedly vandalizing a Tesla dealership. White House officials are now prosecuting some Tesla vandalism cases as terrorism. But the new White House efforts go far beyond anything ever previously attempted in the United States, allowing the government to conduct intrusive surveillance against almost anyone by combining government and commercial databases. Privacy experts say it's the merging of government and commercial databases that poses the most significant concern because much of it can be done without court oversight. As part of the broader White House effort, contractors are currently building a $30 million system to track suspected gang members and undocumented immigrants, and buying access to a system that tracks passengers on virtually every U.S.-based airplane flight. And federal officials are also making plans to compile and share state-level voting registration information, whichthe president arguesis necessary to prevent foreign nationals from illegally voting in federal elections. Privacy experts say that while all of that data has long been collected and kept separate by different government agencies or private vendors ‒ like your supermarket frequent shopper card and cell phone provider ‒ the Trump administration is dramatically expanding its compilation into comprehensive dossiers on Americans. Much of the work has been kicked off by Elon Musk's DOGE teams, with the assistance of billionairePeter Thiel's Denver-based Palantir. Critics say such a system could track women who cross state lines for abortions - something apolice officer in Texas is accused of doing- or be abused by law enforcement to target political critics or even stalk romantic partners. And if somehow accessed by hackers, the centralized systems would prove a trove of information to commit fraud or blackmail. The nonpartisan nonprofitProject on Government Oversighthas been warning about the risks of federal surveillance expansion for years, and noted that both Democrats and Republicans have voted to expand such information gathering. "We need our leaders to recognize that as the surveillance apparatus grows, it becomes an enticing prize for a would-be autocrat,"POGO said in an August 2024 report. "Our country cannot build and expand a surveillance superstructure and expect that it will not be turned against the people it is meant to protect." Trump campaigned in 2024 on a platform of tough immigration enforcement, including large-scale deportations and ending access by undocumented people to federal programs. Immigrant-rights advocates point out that people living illegally in the United States are generally barred from federal programs, although those who have children born as U.S. citizens can often access things like food assistance or health care. Supporters say having access to that data will help them prioritize people for deportation by comparing work history and tax payments to immigration status, work that previously was far more labor intensive. Because federal officials don't know exactly who is living illegally in the United States, the systems by default must to scoop up information about everyone first. One example: a newly expanded program to collect biometric data from suspected illegal immigrants intercepted at sea can also be used to collect the same information on American citizens under the vague justification of "officer safety." That data can be retained for up to 75 years, according to federal documents. "It's only a matter of time before the harmful ripples from this new effort reach other groups," Venzke said. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Trump's emerging surveillance state hits privacy concerns

Trump admin's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns

Trump admin's emerging surveillance state raises privacy concerns DENVER‒For decades, the government has been able to watch where you dr...
Trump says Fed's Powell must lower interest rate - Truth Social postNew Foto - Trump says Fed's Powell must lower interest rate - Truth Social post

(Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday redoubled his calls for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates, noting that payroll processing firm ADP reported that job creation slowed in May. "ADP number out. 'Too Late' Powell must now lower the rate. He is unbelievable. Europe has lowered nine times," Trump said in a Truth Social post. ADP reported on Wednesday that U.S. private payrolls increased far less than expected in May, increasing by only 37,000 jobs last month after a 60,000 rise in April that was revised downward. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast private employment increasing 110,000 following a previously reported gain of 62,000 in April. Wednesday's ADP data came ahead of a more comprehensive employment report that will be released on Friday by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Trump, a Republican, has hammered Powell for months in often personal attacks, with his calls for the Fed chair's resignation weighing on U.S. stocks and financial markets. Trump's repeated attacks have raised questions about the continued independence of the U.S. central bank under the Trump administration, although the U.S. president last month said he would not remove the Fed chair before his term ends in May 2026. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal, Brendan O'Brien and Katharine Jackson; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Chizu Nomiyama)

Trump says Fed's Powell must lower interest rate - Truth Social post

Trump says Fed's Powell must lower interest rate - Truth Social post (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday redoubled his c...
Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court reviewNew Foto - Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review

By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -The constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order to curtail automatic birthright citizenship is set to be considered by a U.S. appeals court for the first time on Wednesday, even as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs his administration's request to let it begin to take effect. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear arguments in Seattle in the administration's appeal of a judge's ruling blocking enforcement nationwide of the executive order, which is a key element of the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued his preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 after declaring Trump's action "blatantly unconstitutional" and accusing the Republican president of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland also have issued similar orders blocking the directive nationwide. Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates in lawsuits challenging Trump's directive argued that it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. The administration contends that the 14th Amendment's citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to consider the constitutional questions regarding Trump's action. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments on May 15 in the administration's bid to narrow the three injunctions. Those arguments did not center on the legal merits of Trump's order, instead focusing on the issue of whether a single judge should be able to issue nationwide injunctions like the ones that have blocked Trump's directive. The Supreme Court, which has yet to rule, could allow the directive to go into effect in large swathes of the country. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs. Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, has presided over a legal challenge brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women. The 9th Circuit panel hearing arguments on Wednesday includes two judges appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and one appointed by Trump during his first presidential term. (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi)

Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review

Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -The constitutionality of Presiden...
How Trump's DOGE cuts package could put GOP in a bindNew Foto - How Trump's DOGE cuts package could put GOP in a bind

DOGE isn't dead, both President Donald Trump and Elon Musk assured last week as Musksaid goodbyeto the Trump administration. But the already dicey effort Musk led could soon become even more so. That's because the White House is now asking Congress to sign off on some of the cuts that the Department of Government Efficiency sought to make unilaterally. Andthe first set of cutsthe White House has sent over to Capitol Hill epitomizes the dilemmas that lay ahead for Republicans. The dollar amount – $9.4 billion – is a tiny fraction of the federal budget, and the administration appears to be targeting low-hanging political fruit. But polling suggests the votes could still be tough ones. The idea is to make the cuts more permanent by having Congress pass what's known as a "rescissions" package. This would codify the DOGE cuts into law, so that they can't be reversed by the next administration or overturned by the courts. Musk and fiscal conservatives havepushed for this, aiming to put a more lasting stamp of approval on cuts that havefailed to live up to Musk's billingand could ultimatelyprove to be even less than meets the eye. The effort is also important as many of the same Trump allies have balked at the price tag of the president's"Big Beautiful Bill"and want evidence that the administration is serious about spending cuts. Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday afternoon that the House had received the White House's request and vowed to put it on the floor for a vote "as quickly as possible." A lot will depend on how it's received and whether it passes. Such legislation needs only a majority of both chambers, meaning Republicans have the votes if they keep their side in line. "We are intending to be strategic, work with Congress, see what they're willing to do, and if they pass this, we'll send up many more," Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought told Fox News on Tuesday. But doing that is no small task. Spending cuts are often popular in theory but much less so in practice, when you get into specific things that will be taken away. Musk's and DOGE's effortsquickly fell out of favorwith the American public, with polls showing both have become rather unpopular and Musk's efforts to impact a high-profile state Supreme Court election in Wisconsin falling flat. It's not difficult to see this legislative effort struggling and Trump – who has always talked much more about cutting spending than actually doing it – getting cold feet. Let's take a look at what's in the first rescissions package, and how it could test Republicans politically. The White House is aiming to make good on a long-standing conservative push toend federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. This accounts for $1.1 billion of the rescissions package, according to Johnson's office Tuesday. But just because conservatives have been pushing this for a long time doesn't mean it's popular. AMarch Pew Research Center pollshowed Americans supported continuing the funding rather than ending it, 43% to 24%. (About one-third of Americans offered no opinion.) Republicans and Republican-leaning voters were more in favor of the cuts, but even there it didn't seem to be a huge priority. While 44% wanted to end the funding, 19% – 1 in 5 – wanted to continue it. And past polling suggests this could be even more unpopular than those numbers suggest, depending on how the cut is sold. A2017 Quinnipiac University poll, for instance, asked about the prospect ofeliminatingthe Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Americans back then said it was a "bad idea," 70% to 25%. Getting 7 in 10 Americans to align on any given issue is difficult, but this one did the trick. This could also be a hurdle for some key Republican votes in the Senate and the closely divided House. Some Republicans from rural areas could worry this would decimate key news and educational programming in their areas. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for instance, wrote an op-ed last month hailing public broadcasting and warning the administration against cuts. She called it an "invaluable resource that saves lives in Alaska." She noted some local stations in Alaska rely on the funding to operate – for as much as 30% to 70% of their budgets – at relatively low cost to taxpayers. Indeed, as CNN's Brian Stelter noted in April, the annual budget of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is about $535 million, or$1.60 per taxpayer. That makes it a tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to budget-cutting – but one the people who rely on the programming could quickly notice, particularly if it suddenly disappears. The Pew survey found about 1 in 5 American adults say they regularly get news from both NPR and PBS. It's a group that skews toward Democratic-leaning Americans, but still includes about 1 in 10 Republican-leaning ones. The lion's share of the money in the first rescissions package ($8.3 billion, according to Johnson's office) deals with what it calls "wasteful foreign aid spending." That gets to a key target of Musk and DOGE: the US Agency for International Development (USAID). And Republicans – includingformer USAID cheerleaders like Secretary of State Marco Rubio– have largely been in lockstep against this funding. This one is a little more complicated, politically. One the one hand, Americans generally think we send too much money overseas. AFebruary KFF pollshowed 58% of Americans said the United States spends "too much" on foreign aid. But people also vastly over-estimate the amount of money involved. The same poll showed the average person estimated foreign aid was 26% of the budget; the actual number is about 1%. When the pollster told respondents about the actual figure, the percentage who said the government spends "too much" dropped from 58% all the way down to 34%. Among Republicans – the group most critical of foreign aid – it dropped from 81% to 50%. We've also seen that Americans generally don't like the idea of ending most or all foreign aid. AMarch Pew pollshowed Americans opposed ending "most" USAID programs, 45% to 35%. The gap was similar in aMarch Reuters/Ipsos pollthat asked about shuttering USAID. And aFebruary CNN pollconducted by SSRS showed Americans said Trump shutting down entire government agencies like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a "bad thing," 53% to 28%. The rescissions package doesn't seem to go that far. Based on what OMB teased on social media Tuesday, it instead focuses on programs that might sound ridiculous to some. The administration has oftenmisstated what these programs actually do, but many of them are obscure-sounding. They involve things like cultural programs in foreign countries and often things like DEI, gender equity and LGBTQ issues. And there, the administration could be on more solid ground.A Pew survey, for instance, showed that just 34% of Americans support foreign aid for "art and cultural activities." But some of the measures could test public support. For instance, the administrationsaid it's requestinga rescission for $135 million in funding to the World Health Organization, which polls suggest isrelatively popular. According to OMB, that includes money for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in the African country of Zambia – part of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program. PEPFAR is popular. And the Pew survey showed83% of Americanssupport using foreign aid for "providing medicine and medical supplies to developing countries." Ultimately, the GOP's ability to sell these cuts – and feel confident voting for them – will depend in large part on whether Americans just see them broadly as cuts to obscure foreign aid programs, or if they view them as relatively modest investments in important programs. The real drama could come if the White House asks for more significant USAID cuts on programs beyond the ones they've cited in their talking points – programs that account for a much larger chunk of that 1%. The administration has struggled, for instance, to account for its changes to PEPFAR, which reports indicate havejeopardized the waragainst AIDS in Africa. The administration seems to view these initial rescissions cuts as the most politically palatable. But even they could test lawmakers' tolerance for signing off on DOGE's work – and could determine whether Republicans in Washington will press forward in actually voting on cuts. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

How Trump’s DOGE cuts package could put GOP in a bind

How Trump's DOGE cuts package could put GOP in a bind DOGE isn't dead, both President Donald Trump and Elon Musk assured last week a...
Hawley spars with legal professor over injunctions blocking TrumpNew Foto - Hawley spars with legal professor over injunctions blocking Trump

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sparred with a legal professor during a Tuesday congressional hearing over nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges against President Trump's administration. Hawley, during the Senate Judiciary joint subcommittee hearing,presented a graphshowing that the number of injunctions issued against Trump is far higher than other recent U.S. presidents. "You don't think this is a little bit anomalous?" Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Kate Shaw. "A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that he [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right," Shaw said. "You must concede that as a possibility." Hawley argued that nationwide injunctions, which judges have issued in recent months to temporarily halt or slow down the actions of the executive branch, had not been used before the 1960s and that "suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction, and then when Biden comes into office, no, no." Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News, noted that Republican-appointed justices have also imposed injunctions against the administration and added that the 1960s was "where some scholars begin — sort of locate the beginning of this." The professor, who worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, said that Mila Sohoni, "who's another scholar of universal injunction, suggests 1913 is actually the first and others in the '20s." "The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago," Shaw said. "There's many things that have changed in the last 100 or the last 50 years." "So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions," Hawley said during the exchange. "If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for." During Trump's second White House term, judges have ruled against the president's efforts regarding mass deportations, federal funding cuts, efforts to terminate federal workers and tariffs. Other GOP senators voiced their displeasure with the judges' rulings during the Tuesday hearing. Republicans in Congressintroduced measuresearlier this year that would curb nationwide injunctions, saying it would prevent jurists from overreaching, while Democrats have said that judges are just doing their jobs. The Missouri senator also asked, "How can our system of law survive on those principles, professor?" "I think a system in which there are no constraints on the president is a very dangerous system," Shaw responded. Hawley fired back at Shaw, saying that it was not the argument she used when former President Biden occupied the Oval Office. "You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law," Hawley said. "You also said when Joe Biden was president, you said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide objection was just judges looking like politicians in robes, again, it threatened the underlying legal system. It was just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law," the GOP lawmaker added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

Hawley spars with legal professor over injunctions blocking Trump

Hawley spars with legal professor over injunctions blocking Trump Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sparred with a legal professor during a Tuesday c...

 

VS POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com