When liberal podcaster Jennifer Welch mocked Republicans for being afraid of liberal white women, BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales couldn’t help but point out that she’s right — guilty as charged.

“I finally agree with something that Jennifer Welch said,” Gonzales admits on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” though she notes Welch is “one of the most vile people” she’s ever witnessed speak in her life.

Welch was on a “very short-lived Bravo series” called “Sweet Home Oklahoma” before starting her podcast “I’ve Had It.”

“She spews all of her crazy leftist talking points on her podcast. … However, there was something that she said in a much longer rant, but there was a piece of it that I actually agreed with,” Gonzales says, before playing the clip of Welch.

“The Republican Party has perfectly exploited this personality and moral weakness in this sect of people. And that’s why these people live in fear 24/7, 365. They’re scared of the liberal white woman,” Welch said.

“Think about what a bunch of p***ies these grown ass men are that they would be scared,” she continued.

“And they will say it. ‘The white liberal woman is ruining America.’ I’m just like, go put your pacifier in your mouth you titty baby,” she added.

“I mean, listen, she’s disgusting. She’s crass. But she is right. Like I too am terrified of liberal white women. I actually am. I am scared of liberal white women. I would just say that it’s for good reason,” Gonzales comments.

“Let’s start with the fact that you guys are the ones trying to, I don’t know, like groom children at schools, teach our kindergarteners about sex and sexual positions and, you know, masturbation. That’s you. It’s always you guys,” she says.

“You guys are the ones who are on multiple SSRIs, and you have SSRI eyes all the time because you’re mentally unstable. You guys are the ones who are constantly promoting violence,” she adds.

Gonzales notes that you don’t need to take her word for it; liberal white women are statistically “more mentally ill than conservative women.”

“The science says, according to Pew Research, in 2020, has a doctor or health care provider ever told you that you have a mental health condition?” Gonzales begins, explaining that Pew Research “didn’t even have a graph big enough for liberal white women.”

“It just goes off the charts. Like they almost needed to change their scale,” she says.

However, the poll “gets even worse” when it comes to young liberal white women.

“When asked, ‘Has a doctor or health care provider ever told you you have a mental health condition?’ More than half say yes in the 18- to 29-year-old age range,” Gonzales says.

“That’s scary guys,” she says, adding, “Are you understanding why we’re scared of you yet?”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Jennifer welch, Pew research, White women, Mental illness, Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered 

A 20-year-old Briton was savagely attacked last month by multiple black individuals on the streets of Birmingham, England, within view of nearby police officers. A female officer ran into action but rather than help the apparent victim, she manhandled and arrested him while his attackers fled the scene.

Birmingham Police subsequently tried to paint the victim, Cody Harper, as the villain of the story and suppress evidence to the contrary.

‘[WMP] let two thugs from ethnic minority backgrounds off.’

While law enforcement nearly succeeded in ruining the young man’s life, the case against Harper has crumbled in the wake of significant backlash and criticism over two-tier policing in the United Kingdom.

The incident

Footage of the June 21 incident shows six black individuals hassling Harper on Birmingham’s Broad Street. One man from the mob dressed in a black jacket launches a sneak attack from the right, knocking Harper to the ground, before another thug sucker-punches him in the back of the head, video shows.

Harper attempts to scramble to his feet, only to have a female police officer pin him against a nearby wall, video shows. Harper is unaware his attacker is an officer and so blindly throws a punch in self-defense, but only brushes off her cap.

Despite Harper’s claims that the mob was “tryin’ to smack me up,” the female officer — who failed to identify herself as police — lunges for Harper’s neck, proceeds to handcuff him, and appears to call him a “dick.”

RELATED: What is anarcho-tyranny? Modern Britain gives a disturbing glimpse of our future.

“You’re under arrest for assault on police,” says the female officer. She and another female officer then march Harper over to a police car, and a male cop throws him in it.

The response

Footage of the incident went viral online, prompting an official response by police.

“We are aware of footage showing the arrest of a man after a disorder on Broad Street at 1.30am on 21 June. Officers found a group of men fighting,” Birmingham Police said July 2. “As the incident was dealt with, an officer was punched. One man was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer.”

The police department noted further that following a review of the incident, it had “no concerns over the officer’s actions” and was “satisfied that they were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.”

The department urged the public not to share footage of the attack.

The public, however, declined to heed Birmingham Police’s request, and the mistreatment of Harper became a major scandal, prompting commentary and criticism, including from lawmakers.

Zia Yusuf, a spokesman for Nigel Farage’s Reform U.K. party, said at the time, “If you are a white person in Britain and you get assaulted by ethnic minority men: The police watch on and wait until you are on the floor before moving in to arrest YOU. The police make no attempt to arrest your assailants, letting them run off without consequence.”

James McMurdock, a Reform U.K. member of Parliament, wrote, “I can’t let this go unchallenged. That young man was, in my opinion and based on the video below, the clear victim of an assault. The video shows, for reasons that are entirely beyond my comprehension, the officer steaming directly into the victim.”

RELATED: Horrific details emerge about international pro-life leader’s assassination

UK MP James McMurdock. Christopher Furlong/Getty Images.

Robert Jenrick, another member of Parliament for Reform U.K., said that “it’s baffling that he was arrested while the two black men who attacked him weren’t.”

Amid the backlash, police slightly changed their tune, acknowledging July 3 that “an assault has taken place” and announcing they were taking steps to “identify those involved.”

Despite the update, Harper was still saddled with the assault charge and due in court on July 23.

No charges — for anyone

The Crown Prosecution Service has since dropped the case against Harper, having concluded that they didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute the young man.

“Following a careful review of all the evidence, including video footage of the incident, we concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the suspect for assaulting a police officer,” said a Crown Prosecution Service spokesman. “We have therefore stopped proceedings and written to both the suspect and the complainant confirming this.”

‘A failure of justice here would have haunted him.’

“We recognize assaults committed against emergency workers are abhorrent crimes, both against the victim and against society as a whole,” added the spokesman.

Yet, West Midlands Police, which encompasses Birmingham Police, isn’t apologizing for its treatment of Harper.

On the contrary, the force told the Telegraph that while it respected the decision to discontinue the case against Harper, his arrest was “lawful and came after a police officer conducting her duties was hit.”

WMP revealed that the two cowards who attacked Harper have been identified — but that neither man has been charged with assault. They were instead given out-of-court disposals, roughly the equivalent of a citation in the U.S.

While happy to see Harper’s charges dropped, Christopher Philp, a Conservative Party member who serves as shadow home secretary, condemned WMP’s decision to treat the attackers with kid gloves, calling it a “blatant example of two-tier policing.”

“[WMP] let two thugs from ethnic minority backgrounds off with a slap on the wrist while attempting to prosecute a third man — who had himself been attacked — who was white,” said Philp. “Only the intervention of the CPS thankfully stopped this from proceeding.”

“Everyone should be treated the same regardless of skin color. But the extremist and misnamed ‘anti-racist’ ideology that some police leaders have signed up to brazenly calls for people to be treated differently based on skin color,” added Philp.

The anti-racism guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council still explicitly calls for treating people differently on the basis of race.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Anti-white, United kingdom, Nigel farage, Reform uk, Politics 

A few weeks ago, Americans celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence — our formal rejection of hereditary rule and political power by birthright.

Now South Carolina Republicans are being asked to embrace precisely that principle in a Senate primary.

South Carolina does not need another half-century of political inheritance. It needs a genuine changing of the guard.

After initially saying Darline Graham Nordone would hold her late brother Lindsey Graham’s U.S. Senate seat only temporarily while the state prepared for a special election, President Trump encouraged her to seek a full six-year term. She agreed.

This candidacy began with a promise that proved disposable. A lie. Nothing about it has improved since.

Nordone’s central qualification is obvious: She is Lindsey Graham’s sister. Her campaign amounts to “birthright senatorship” — an inherited claim on public office dressed up as party unity.

America First voters were promised an assault on the swamp: entrenched power, donor networks, insider dealing, and political advancement based on access rather than merit. They were not promised a new hereditary class with Senate seats passed from one family member to another.

To borrow Graham’s own words from the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation fight, this is a sham, and South Carolinians should see through the charade.

Graham’s speech during that battle was one of his finest moments in the Senate. It may have helped save Kavanaugh’s nomination. It did not create a family title to the office Graham held.

His sister is not entitled to inherit his seat because he died in office.

The proposed Graham dynasty is especially offensive because this seat has already been dominated by two men since 1956: Strom Thurmond and Lindsey Graham. South Carolina does not need another half-century of political inheritance. It needs a genuine changing of the guard.

Most voters cannot leave their children a lucrative career, much less a seat in the United States Senate. Public office is not family property. It belongs to the people, who are supposed to choose among candidates with records, ideas, and qualifications of their own.

Nordone has no meaningful public record in politics or policy that would justify elevation to one of the nation’s most powerful offices. What fills that void instead is support for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; a career inside federally subsidized state bureaucracy; and an endorsement from Rep. Jim Clyburn, the South Carolina Democrat whose support revived Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

RELATED: The internet makes monsters and saints before the body is cold

Blaze Media Illustration

None of that recommends her to voters who were told they were dismantling the old order.

For years, South Carolina politics has been dominated by the Haley-Graham cocktail circuit: polished Republicans who chased dragons abroad while much of their state declined beyond the comfortable enclaves of Charleston and Columbia.

Graham’s death was tragic. His foreign-policy views were often badly out of step with America First voters, but no decent person wished for his sudden passing. He deserves mourning and respect.

His sister does not deserve a coronation.

The Republican Party should be especially wary of this arrangement because its voters have spent a decade rebelling against political dynasties. They rejected the Bushes, resisted the Clintons, and rallied behind Trump in part because he attacked a system in which the right surname, donor list, or social circle mattered more than accountability.

A Truth Social post should not be enough to transform blood relation into political legitimacy. Neither should the swift organization of party officials, donors, and consultants eager to preserve their access.

If Nordone wants the seat, she should earn it on the strength of her own record and convictions. So far, she has offered neither. Her campaign asks voters to treat kinship as qualification and temporary appointment as entitlement.

That is the political world America First was supposed to destroy.

South Carolina Republicans should refuse to build a Graham dynasty in the name of draining the swamp. They should reject birthright senatorship and choose a senator rather than accept an heir.

​Declaration of independence, Lindsey graham, President trump, Special election, Senate primary, Darline nordone, America first, South carolina, Opinion & analysis 

A Washington state grandfather was recently launched roughly eight feet in the air by a charging bison at Yellowstone National Park. The man survived the terrifying ordeal and is now telling his harrowing story from a hospital bed after suffering a brutal injury.

Carl Isom-McDaniel, 65, was walking with his 13-year-old grandson just after dinner on July 10 at Bridge Bay Campground near Yellowstone Lake in Wyoming. The pair stopped to take photos of a bull bison resting near a campsite.

‘He just kept coming, and he was more aggressive.’

Mike MacLeod is a professional photographer who witnessed the attack and captured it on video.

MacLeod told NewsNation’s Jesse Weber that the bison charged at a couple and some boys before the animal appeared to settle down, but that calm was short-lived.

“Carl and his grandson started walking along the road, and the bison saw them,” MacLeod recalled. “And for whatever reason, he got up and charged.”

MacLeod said the grandfather saved the boy’s life by distracting the bison.

“Carl told his grandson to run along the road and go back to the place where they had just come from while he lured the bison away,” MacLeod stated. “So he saved his grandson’s life.”

MacLeod also attempted to get the bison’s attention once it charged at the grandfather.

“Someone just needed to distract that bison. So I started yelling for other campers … running, jumping up as high as I could, and screaming at the top of my lungs, and ran at it to distract,” said MacLeod, who has a master’s degree in wildlife biology.

A viral video caught the moment the bison charged at Isom-McDaniel and hurled him several feet into the air.

MacLeod told Fox News, “Once I saw the victim in the air, I stopped filming and ran with some other men to haze the bison away and to render aid.”

MacLeod informed KIVI-TV, “He said it wasn’t the horn, it was his head. It was actually soft. All the damage came when he hit the ground and broke his femur.”

MacLeod recalled that the first thing Isom-McDaniel asked after the brutal attack was: “How is my grandson?” Fox News reported.

“He was in severe pain,” MacLeod remembered, but added, “People came to help comfort him. And he started making jokes.”

RELATED: ‘Savage’ pit bulls with cocaine in their systems kill gardening grandmother in ‘gruesome’ mauling: Lawsuit

According to the Seattle Times, Bozeman Health emergency department Dr. Eric Lowe said Isom-McDaniel broke his femur in four places.

In a Facebook video shared by the Bozeman Health Deaconess Regional Medical Center, Isom-McDaniel gave an update on his health and how the nightmarish scenario unfolded.

The grandpa said of the bison, “He wasn’t showing aggression or anything like that until it picked a target. That target happened to be me.”

Isom-McDaniel instructed his grandson to get out of the area.

He then told his grandson, “I will deal with this down here.”

Isom-McDaniel said of the wild animal, “They move faster than you could ever imagine.”

“He just kept coming, and he was more aggressive,” the grandfather recalled. “And as soon as he got off that tree, he launched me in the air.”

The grandfather added, “Even though I was on the ground, he could have stomped me, he could have gored me, he could have done anything.”

Isom-McDaniel noted, “I didn’t get bruises from him launching me in the air. It was the landing that [caused] the problem.”

Yellowstone National Park officials confirmed that the bison involved in the attack was not euthanized.

Bison are known to be aggressive toward humans, especially during the summer mating season — which is known as the rut.

Wildlife expert and Zoo Miami Foundation conservation liaison Ron Magill told ABC News that male bison can be particularly dangerous in the summer.

“We’re at the peak of what’s called the bison rut. This is where the males are just raging in hormones because they’re fighting for territories and they’re fighting for females,” Magill explained.

Magill suggested, “The key thing to do is to move away slowly, do not run, do not make any fast types of movements.”

On June 26, a 12-year-old visitor was injured by a bison at Yellowstone National Park.

Yellowstone Park officials said of that incident, “The visitor sustained injuries, and emergency medical personnel transported them to a nearby hospital.”

Officials noted that bison have injured more people at Yellowstone Park than any other animal.

“They are unpredictable, can run three times faster than humans, and will defend their space when threatened,” Yellowstone officials said.

Officials warned, “Wild animals can be aggressive when people do not respect their space.”

The statement read, “Visitors are responsible for staying at least 25 yards away from all large animals, including bison, elk, bighorn sheep, deer, moose, and coyotes, and at least 100 yards away from bears, wolves, and cougars.”

“If wildlife approach you, move away to maintain the required distance,” the statement read. “Never approach, touch, feed, or crowd wildlife, even if an animal appears calm.”

The Yellowstone National Park website points out that male bison are the largest land-dwelling mammal in North America and can weigh as much as a ton and reach speeds of up to 35 mph.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Yellowstone national park, Wyoming, Politics, Bison 

Cop-cam videos are one of my favorite guilty pleasures. Seeing the badly behaved and the thuggish get what’s coming to them is a rare treat in an America that has abandoned personal responsibility and consequences for bad behavior.

But the pleasure turns to frustration too often. In most of these videos, the police waste minutes to an hour repeating their orders to a struggling suspect who has no intention of obeying.

Any parent of a toddler knows that you don’t negotiate with terrorists.

Take the latest viral example: a blue-haired college kid of indeterminate gender demanding that the cop “use my pronouns” before “consenting” to being arrested (yes, they do think they have a choice).

What should have been a simple arrest turns into an eight-minute installment of absurdist theater. It is truly something to behold.

Missed manners

Before we get to that, consider the general cultural context of such videos. Anyone in their 40s or older knows that standards of public behavior in America ain’t what they used to be. Manners are a thing of the past. People walk their carts up the middle of aisles, oblivious to anyone needing to get by. They sail through doors you hold without acknowledgment.

And that’s just on foot. Rules of the road? Forget it. Everyone at a four-way stop is either trying to jump the right-of-way line or they’ve forgotten the rule altogether. Or they don’t care.

The other day I ran across an honest-to-God telephone booth preserved as part of a nostalgia display at an amusement park. These were built for a world with manners. People were motivated to build booths for phones because they assumed the caller wanted privacy and that the caller didn’t want to inflict his conversation on passersby. Quaint, no?

Broken windows

We’re living through a nationwide experiment in abandoning broken-windows policing. It’s just plain old common sense: When authorities let the “little” things slide — graffiti, vandalism, public disorder, petty lawbreaking — they teach people that the rules don’t matter. Bigger offenses inevitably follow. New York City learned that lesson the hard way before Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton restored order in the 1990s by cracking down on so-called “quality of life” crimes.

It’s obviously true. But Democrats, leftists, and communists don’t like law and order. What they like is pretending that having rules for civil society is oppression. What they like even more is getting cities to defund their police departments so that criminals have a rules-free playground at everyone else’s expense. They do this by whining that mean, bad, Republican “fascists” like Giuliani were hurting “people of color” and “unhoused people” with these awful rules and laws.

You can see it in this essay on the blog Common Justice. Author “Cade T.,” who styles himself a “community organizer,” says cracking down on law and order is targeting those oppressed brown people again.

“Ultimately, the fear is that crime will become contagious and endemic in the urban environment,” he writes. “Under Giuliani, the NYPD identified neighborhoods in which to crack down on minor crimes. Not only did broken windows policing fail to reduce crime, but it also provided cover for a deliberate targeting of Black and brown communities.”

No respect

This is simply not true. Giuliani’s policy resulted in a dramatic decrease in violent crime. It stands to reason. When people see police take a hands-off approach — especially toward groups the political class considers “protected” — they naturally become bolder. We see it every time hundreds of black teens riot through city streets while news anchors timidly describe the violence as nothing more than a “teen takeover.”

A large number of Americans — especially younger ones — neither fear nor respect the police. Why would they? As Forbes reported in 2020, at least 13 major American cities cut police funding or staffing in response to the BLM movement, while many smaller jurisdictions created such a hostile political climate that officers no longer felt confident their own departments would support them for simply doing their jobs. Small cities like Montpelier, Vermont, now struggle to recruit and retain enough officers.

The video below shows what hands-off policing looks like in the 2020s. Even when cops are willing to try to do their job, they’re strangely timid about effecting an arrest in a way I don’t remember police acting when I was a young man.

RELATED: How a McDonald’s men’s room perfectly captures blue-state decline

Paul Harris/Getty Images

Gender special

Our protagonist is a young man I’ll call a “gender special.” He’s obese, his hair is dyed blue, and he simpers as he gesticulates, using a falsely high voice. It’s eight minutes long. If you’re pressed for time, just watch the first two minutes, and then the last two minutes. The whole thing is worth watching, though: The young man screams “JUST SAY SHE” repeatedly at the cops, jumping up and down like Rumpelstiltskin when his true name was spoken.

The encounter takes place on a Florida college campus. The cops were there to deal with a car theft. The blue-haired person begins screaming at the cops; it’s not clear why. The cops tell the shrieking man to lower his voice and stop freaking out or he’s going to be cuffed and taken for a psychiatric hold. So far, so good.

And then all hell breaks loose, and the cops waste almost seven minutes shouting repeated orders at the increasingly aggressive blue-hair. The trouble is, they don’t make good on those threats immediately. The tantrum-thrower escalates; he claims to be “scared”; he screams at the cops to stop harassing him (they’re not); and he pitches a fit at being referred to as “sir.”

He even threatens the cop with “f**king try it” when the cop warns him he’ll be handcuffed.

Tantrum terrorist

Any parent of a toddler knows that you don’t negotiate with terrorists. You give them one warning, and if they keep fussing, you bodily control them and remove them from the scene. Otherwise, the tantrum gets worse.

That’s the mistake the cops made. I watched the video and counted the number of verbal warnings and commands the cops gave before finally making good on the threat to take him down in cuffs: 14.

The blue-hair’s resistance didn’t stop there. Even after he was in custody, cops had to tase him twice before he finally stopped kicking and fighting.

Back the blue

Policing needs to go back to the way it used to be. Before recent years, we never saw cops who were afraid to arrest a disorderly suspect. Why do they keep giving orders repeatedly while their subject escalates? Don’t they see that failing to follow through on promised consequences teaches the suspect and onlookers that people can, in fact, break the law and the cops won’t do anything about it?

Yes. It does teach that lesson. And that’s part of why we now see behavior every day on the street that only used to happen in mental hospitals.

But the police are not the problem. The governments, municipalities, and mayors’ offices are the problem. Cops are working in hostile territory. They know their civilian superiors not only do not support them, but are often working to target their own police force for false complaints of racism and brutality that can cost a cop his career.

If we want the boys in blue to have our backs, we have to make sure someone has theirs.

​Crime, Defund police, Law and order, Police funding, Violent crime, Policing, Black lives matter, Defund the police, Intervention, Culture 

A Connecticut police officer shot and killed a man who was brutally beating his father with a baseball bat on Sunday, according to residents in the neighborhood.

Meriden police said they were called to the residence on Sagamore Road at about 10 a.m. on Sunday over reports of a domestic violence situation.

An autopsy found that the victim died from blunt force head injuries and listed his cause of death as homicide.

The shocking body camera footage shows a man beating a victim with a bat as the officer arrives.

The officer yells at the man to stop, but he continues attacking the man. Seconds later, the officer shoots at the man, who falls down.

The alleged attacker was identified as 38-year-old Robert Lee Jenkins III, who was treated for gunshot wounds and hospitalized before he was declared dead at about 11:30 p.m.

His victim was also declared dead at the scene.

WVIT-TV reported that numerous neighbors in the area confirmed the victim to be the father of Jenkins, but Connecticut law prevents the identification of victims of certain crimes.

The Connecticut Office of the Inspector General said the cause of death for Jenkins was determined by the chief medical examiner to be multiple gunshot wounds to the torso.

An autopsy found that the victim died from blunt force head injuries and listed his cause of death as homicide.

Some reports indicate that the officer fired nearly 20 times at Jenkins.

RELATED: Elderly couple hired 17-year-old to do odd jobs at their home — before he robbed and brutally murdered them, cops say

The Office of the Inspector General released the body camera footage from the harrowing incident.

The New Haven Judicial District State’s Attorney’s Office is investigating the incident along with the Connecticut State Police Central District Major Crime Squad and the Meriden Police Department.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Body camera footage, Brutal beating, Connecticut, Police shooting, Crime 

China has made its view of artificial intelligence unmistakably clear.

Beijing is reportedly preparing to restrict overseas access to its most advanced AI models even as second-tier Chinese firms race to capture global customers that American export controls may drive away. China treats frontier AI as a national asset to guard, not a product to sell freely on the open market.

America’s better bet is disciplined openness: protect frontier capabilities from adversaries while making it easy for allies and trusted partners to build with American AI.

No surprise. Authoritarian governments always seek to control information, technology, and who may benefit from either. The United States should not make the same mistake.

America’s technological advantage has never come from secrecy alone. It comes from building products others want to use, setting standards others trust, and scaling companies faster than any rival.

As Congress negotiates the National Defense Authorization Act, lobbyists are pushing for new AI export restrictions. The impulse is understandable. Advanced chips, large-scale cloud computing, and frontier model weights can help foreign militaries, cyber actors, weapons proliferators, and surveillance states.

Congress must distinguish between two goals: denying adversaries dangerous capabilities and keeping the world’s trusted AI ecosystem centered on the United States.

That distinction should guide every AI export policy.

The first principle is national security through technological leadership. American AI companies, cloud providers, chip designers, universities, and capital markets form the engine of that leadership. Export controls should protect the system, not cripple it.

Second, allies and trusted partners should receive privileged access. America needs an AI coalition, not an AI fortress.

NATO allies and partners such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, and New Zealand should not face the same practical restrictions as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea when they meet strong security and anti-diversion standards.

Friendly countries will not build around American technology if they believe Washington can abruptly cut off access through broad and discretionary rules. They will build alternatives.

Third, controls should be risk-based and technically precise.

RELATED: The question of the AI age: How much humanism is too much?

Moor Studio/Getty Images

A transfer of frontier model weights is not the same as API access to a safeguarded model. A massive training run is not the same as ordinary inference. A Canadian researcher is not a Chinese military-linked laboratory.

The more a transaction transfers durable frontier capability, the stronger the case for licensing. The more it resembles ordinary use of a monitored service, the stronger the case for presumptive access.

The United States already uses focused tools to keep dangerous technologies away from dangerous actors. Those tools work best when they target specific end users and end uses: foreign militaries, sanctioned entities, weapons programs, offensive cyber operations, surveillance abuses, and diversion through shell companies or intermediaries.

They work poorly when companies cannot determine what the law allows.

That is the problem with the Remote Access Security Act, which the Senate is considering.

The remote-access loophole is real. Export controls fail when restricted firms cannot buy advanced chips but can rent the same computing capability through the cloud.

The House-passed bill, however, does more than close that loophole. It allows the Commerce Department to regulate remote access by a foreign person through a network or cloud service whenever the secretary determines that the use could pose a serious risk to U.S. national security or foreign policy.

That grants regulators enormous latitude.

“Foreign persons” include individuals and businesses in friendly countries. “Foreign policy” is an elastic standard. Together, those terms could give the executive branch sweeping authority over global access to American AI infrastructure.

The bill requires Commerce to inform Congress about anticipated regulations, including the security risk, method of regulation, and likely economic consequences. It does not require congressional approval before the rules take effect.

That may be administratively convenient. It is not sufficient for a power that could reshape the global AI market.

Regulators need discretion in a fast-moving technology sector. They do not need unbounded discretion.

The bill’s vagueness would change business behavior long before any court tested its limits.

RELATED: Smartphone and laptop prices are rising. Here’s why they won’t stop.

Crovik Media/Getty Images

When companies do not know who may receive access, they overblock. Cloud providers may exclude broad categories of foreign customers. AI laboratories may avoid international partnerships. Universities may slow research collaborations. Trusted allies and legitimate businesses may find themselves treated like hostile actors.

Customers who cannot obtain American AI will find it elsewhere. Increasingly, elsewhere means China.

DeepSeek, Alibaba, Huawei, Tencent, and Kuaishou’s Kling AI are aggressively courting users, developers, and investors worldwide. Every needless barrier Congress places before legitimate users of American AI gives those companies an opening.

The economic stakes are enormous.

PWC estimates that AI could add as much as $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030, with China among the largest projected beneficiaries. The Stanford AI Index reports that American private AI investment exceeded $285 billion in 2025, more than 23 times China’s total.

That lead is extraordinary. It is not permanent.

Customers gravitate toward ecosystems that are capable, accessible, reliable, and politically predictable. American dominance will erode if Washington makes access uncertain while Beijing makes its second-tier products easy to obtain.

Congress should not discard the Remote Access Security Act. It should improve it. A better bill would close the cloud loophole while creating safe pathways for lawful use. It should provide privileged access for allies and vetted users, define clear thresholds for frontier-scale compute and controlled model weights, and distinguish among weight transfers, training compute, inference, and ordinary applications.

It should also establish licensing deadlines, appeals or advisory opinions, safe harbors for companies that perform good-faith know-your-customer and anti-diversion checks, and periodic reviews that update or retire controls as technology changes.

That approach is not soft on China. It is how America can confront China without sabotaging itself.

The United States should deny adversaries the tools they need for military modernization, cyber operations, weapons programs, and authoritarian surveillance. It should also make safe transactions easy and dangerous transactions hard.

China is betting that control will win the AI race. America’s better bet is disciplined openness: protect frontier capabilities from adversaries while making it easy for allies and trusted partners to build with American AI.

Congress should write export rules that preserve that advantage, not hand American customers to Beijing by accident.

That model has kept American companies at the front of global technology for decades. It is how they will stay there.

​Artificial intelligence, Beijing, China, Foreign policy, Humanism, Information technology, National security, United states, Global economy, Congress, Nato, North korea, Opinion & analysis 

Last week, while testifying before Congress in support of additional funding for Supreme Court security, Justice Amy Coney Barrett described how escalating threats against the justices have affected her family.

She recalled that her then-12-year-old son once asked why she needed to wear a bulletproof vest.

Barrett should not have to defend her integrity because her children are frightened. She did not take an oath to place her family in danger.

Some commentators seized on the story as evidence that threats may have altered Barrett’s judicial outlook. They suggest that fear for her life — and the lives of her family members — has compromised her objectivity or influenced how she approaches cases before the court.

That claim does not withstand scrutiny.

The critics are searching for an explanation for the occasions when Barrett has diverged from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. They point to her positions in cases involving birthright citizenship, Mississippi ballot deadlines, and tariffs.

Those disagreements are fair subjects for criticism. But any serious assessment of Barrett’s record must consider the full body of her work, not a handful of outcomes that frustrated conservatives.

Barrett has frequently joined her conservative colleagues. She was part of the majority in Slaughter, an important constitutional decision affirming executive authority. She has stood firmly behind protections for women’s and girls’ sports. She has also joined decisions upholding immigration enforcement.

Critics may challenge any justice’s reasoning in any case. They should not invent a psychological explanation that ignores the justice’s broader record.

The suggestion that threats have softened Barrett’s jurisprudence also rests on a false comparison.

Some argue that military personnel and law-enforcement officers routinely accept danger as part of their work, so Supreme Court justices should do the same. But soldiers and police officers enter professions in which physical danger is expected. Supreme Court justices do not.

RELATED: Justice Amy Coney Barrett describes SWATTING attack against her family

Eric Lee/Getty Images

Context is crucial. Children of military personnel or law-enforcement officers generally understand that their parents’ work carries risk. My father served on a Secret Service protective detail. When he came home and hung his bulletproof vest in the closet, it did not seem unusual.

My mother taught nursery school. Had she been forced to wear a bulletproof vest because of threats against her classroom, that would have been deeply unsettling.

Barrett’s children did not grow up believing that their mother’s judicial service would make her a target. No one should expect them to remain unfazed when she comes home from the Supreme Court wearing body armor. Nor should anyone condemn Barrett for discussing their fear in public.

The underlying situation is disgraceful.

No justice should need a bulletproof vest to perform the duties of the office. Sadly, the days when Justice Antonin Scalia could attend daily Mass alone on Capitol Hill, unnoticed and unbothered, are gone.

Congress will probably approve the court’s request for additional security funding. It should.

Congress can also do more to reduce the political pressure placed on the judiciary.

For decades, lawmakers have avoided difficult policy decisions and allowed major national disputes to migrate into the courts. Congress increasingly leaves questions involving immigration, elections, executive power, abortion, and social policy to judges rather than resolving them through legislation.

That abdication turns every Supreme Court term into a national political showdown. It raises the stakes of each vacancy, each argument, and each ruling. It also encourages activists to treat justices as unelected legislators rather than judges interpreting the law.

Congress cannot eliminate threats by passing more bills. It can, however, reclaim its constitutional responsibility and stop forcing the court to settle every dispute elected lawmakers lack the courage to address.

Resolving contentious questions through the legislative process would not remove controversy from public life. It would reduce the pressure on nine justices to decide matters that properly belong to elected representatives.

Until Congress changes course, the court and its members will need more protection.

Barrett should not have to defend her integrity because her children are frightened. She did not take an oath to place her family in danger. A mother’s concern for her children does not prove judicial weakness.

It proves only that the threats are real.

​Immigration enforcement, Justice amy coney barrett, Secret service, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, Congress, Lawmakers, Opinion & analysis