分类： 未分类

Starbucks resolves Florida DEI lawsuit with blockbuster agreement

The coffee giant will pay $1M and submit annual compliance certifications for four years under the agreement

2026-09-17T16:03:04-04:00 / Fox News

By Stepheny Price, Lorraine Taylor
Published September 17, 2026 4:03pm EDT | Updated September 17, 2026 6:25pm EDT

NFL subpoenaed over diversity hiring practices
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier discusses a subpoena to the NFL over its diversity hiring practices, arguing the Rooney Rule violates Florida law, on ‘Fox Report.’

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/83b3818b-e0fd-44b6-8fef-6efdcb5709bc

Listen to this article
5 min

EXCLUSIVE —Starbucks will pay Florida $1 million and will not use race-and sex-based goals, quotas and preferences in employment practices companywide under a sweeping settlement ending the state’s civil rights lawsuit against the coffee giant.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s office confirmed to Fox News Digital that the agreement applies to all Starbucks operations nationwide, not just the company’s locations in Florida.

“Every Floridian deserves to be hired, promoted and compensated based on merit, qualifications and character — not race or sex,” Uthmeier told Fox News Digital. “This resolution ensures that Starbucks’ policies and practices fully comply with Florida’s civil rights laws. DEI can never be an excuse to violate civil rights.”

The negotiated resolution ends the lawsuit Uthmeier filed in December 2025 accusing Starbucks of violating the Florida Civil Rights Act through racial and sex-based goals, quotas and preferences in its workplace policies.

GOP FRESHMAN FIREBRAND TARGETS GLOBAL CONSULTING GIANT OVER ‘PLAINLY ILLEGAL’ DEI PRACTICES

Starbucks Corp. headquarters in Seattle Sept. 26, 2025.(David Ryder/Bloomberg)

Under the agreement, Starbucks committed to complying with the state civil rights law, which prohibits race and sex-based preferences in hiring, promotions, pay, executive compensation, mentorship programs, supplier selection and board composition.

The company also agreed it will not participate in organizations that require it to increase the racial diversity of its board of directors.

GEORGIA DISTRICT QUIETLY TRAINED TEACHERS TO BLAME ‘WHITENESS,’ ‘DECOLONIZE’ UNDER FEDERAL CRACKDOWN: REPORT

James Uthmeier speaks at the National Conservative Convention in Washington D.C., Sept. 3, 2025.(Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

Starbucks’ chief legal officer will be required to submit annual certifications of the company’s continued compliance for four years. The company will also pay $1 million to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs to reimburse the office for the time, expenses and costs of bringing the case.

“We’re pleased to have resolved this matter without admission of wrongdoing and appreciate the constructive engagement of the Attorney General’s Office throughout this process,” Pilar Ramos, executive vice president and chief legal officer of Starbucks said.

“We will continue to focus on offering great jobs and career opportunities to our partners who wear the green apron, while making a positive impact on the communities we serve in Florida and around the world.”

The agreement includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Starbucks.

SEATTLE MAYOR’S STARBUCKS BOYCOTT CALL SLAMMED BY LOCAL RADIO HOST AS COFFEE GIANT ADDS NASHVILLE-BASED ROLES

Baristas at work inside a Starbucks coffee shop on Lincoln Road in Miami Beach, Fla.(Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

The settlement follows Uthmeier’s lawsuit, which alleged Starbucks had turned diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives into a system that discriminated based on race.

The December complaint pointed to goals Starbucks announced in 2020 to have people of color fill 40% of retail and manufacturing jobs and 30% of corporate positions by 2025.

‘SEATTLE CAN’T SURVIVE THIS’: CRITICS HAMMER SOCIALIST MAYOR AFTER STARBUCKS REVERSAL

Starbucks will overhaul its DEI practices after a lawsuit brought by Florida AG James Uthmeier.(Ramin Talaie/Corbis via Getty Images)

It also alleged the company paid certain employees more than workers of other races with the same experience and skills and, before March 2024, tied executive bonuses to diversity goals.

For fiscal year 2024, the lawsuit alleged that bonus criteria included executives mentoring Black, Indigenous and other employees of color, holding monthly meetings with mentees and keeping retention among those workers above a stated threshold.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACCUSES PRESTIGIOUS LAW SCHOOL OF FAVORING BLACK APPLICANTS OVER WHITE, ASIAN PEERS

The complaint further alleged that Florida Starbucks employees and job applicants contacted the attorney general’s office and reported feeling excluded or humiliated because they were White. Uthmeier accused the company of “systemic discrimination” against workers it considered “non-diverse.”

“Starbucks made DEI more than a slogan,” Uthmeier said when the lawsuit was announced. “They turned it into a mandatory hiring and promotion system based on race.”

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY HIT WITH FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OVER RACE, SEX-BASED SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier during a news conference April 14, 2025.(Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

He said at the time that race-based hiring goals and executive bonuses tied to meeting them amounted to discrimination prohibited under Florida law.

The state initially sought $10,000 in damages for each alleged instance of racial discrimination against a Florida resident, an amount Uthmeier’s office said could have reached tens of millions of dollars or more. Starbucks operates more than 900 stores in Florida, according to the complaint.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES STRIPPING TAX-EXEMPT STATUS FROM SCHOOLS USING RACE-BASED PROGRAMS

The effort began in 2024 under then-Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, now a Republican U.S. senator, after she called for an investigation into the company’s hiring practices.

Florida was not the only state to challenge Starbucks’ DEI policies. Then-Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a separate federal lawsuit in February 2025 alleging the company used race and sex-based hiring quotas and unlawfully tied executive pay to diversity targets.

OAKLAND SCHOOLS IN HOT SEAT OVER ‘STUDENTS OF COLOR’ PROGRAM WHILE TAKING MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDING

A federal judge dismissed that case in February 2026, finding that Missouri had not identified a resident who was actually harmed by the policies. The state appealed the ruling.

Starbucks previously disputed Florida’s allegations, telling Fox News Digital after the lawsuit was filed that its programs and benefits were open to everyone and lawful.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Our hiring practices are inclusive, fair and competitive and designed to ensure the strongest candidate for every job, every time,” a company spokesperson said at the time.

Fox News Digital’s Rachel del Guidice and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

EDITOR’S NOTE:This story was updated to reflect Starbucks’ commitment to not using race-and sex-based goals, quotas and preferences in employment practices companywide.

Stepheny Price is a Writer at Fox News with a focus on West Coast and Midwest news, missing persons, national and international crime stories, homicide cases, and border security.

韩咏红：中美AI大佬的“冷战叙事”争议

2026年9月18日 05:00 / 联合早报

当美国AI巨头呼吁减速发展，并将技术竞争嵌入冷战叙事，中美两国却罕见地同时拒绝。大国博弈与生存焦虑交织下，全球共治的出路究竟在哪？

美国人工智能（AI）企业巨头Anthropic的首席执行官达里奥·阿莫迪9月12日发表一篇长文，大声疾呼通过前沿AI企业接受第三方评估、民主国家协调和全球合作，放缓前沿AI模型的发展速度。 （法新社示意图）

美国人工智能（AI）企业巨头Anthropic的首席执行官达里奥·阿莫迪（Dario Amodei）9月12日发表一篇长文，大声疾呼通过前沿AI企业接受第三方评估、民主国家协调和全球合作，放缓前沿AI模型的发展速度，否则AI有可能在六到12个月内“掌控整个互联网”。

阿莫迪的公开信回应了几天前刚离开Anthropic的年轻AI研究员雅各布·科克森（Jacob Coxon）的焦虑。科克森9月8日在社媒X上宣布，他当天刚辞职，原因是他过去三年分别在OpenAI和Anthropic工作，发现这两家公司的“行为都不负责任”，都在朝着研发能自我增强的超级智能狂奔而去，“拿我们（人类）的生命做赌注”。27岁的科克森还警告，如果任由这个趋势发展，AI有可能在2030年让人类灭亡。

科克森的贴文至今获得1.72亿浏览量。在他的前东家一把手阿莫迪的公开信于12日发表后，OpenAI首席执行官山姆·奥特曼和马斯克随即表示赞同，美国舆论场上瞬间燃起一片有关“AI末日论”的焦虑与讨论。

订户专享，请登录解锁全文

US judge strikes down Education Department’s anti-DEI grant policy

2026-09-17T22:57:34.564Z / Reuters

An American flag and a U.S. Department of Education flag fly outside the US Department of Education building in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 1, 2025. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon Purchase Licensing Rights

BOSTON, Sept 17 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Thursday struck down a policy that was adopted early in US President Donald Trump’s administration that required the US Department of Education ​to terminate millions of dollars in grants funding diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

US ‌District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston

ruled
in favor of eight Democratic-led states that had continued to challenge the Education Department policy even after the US Supreme Court in April 2025 allowed the administration to proceed with ​terminating the teacher training grants.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

The judge said the policy provided no discernible criteria for ​what programs would be considered “DEI” and disfavored for funding. The department also ⁠failed to consider how canceling the grants would impact those who relied upon the funding, ​she said.

“The Directive does not acknowledge the fact that thousands of teachers, as well as teachers ​in teacher-training pipelines, would be affected, upending the careers of much-needed educators,” Kelley wrote.

The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The states sued after the Education Department in February 2025 announced ​it was canceling more than $600 million in grants because they were used to train teachers ​and education agencies on “divisive ideologies,” including DEI and social justice activism.

The K-12 teacher preparation grants had been issued ‌through ⁠the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grant programs.

Over 90% of grants awarded through those programs were canceled as a result of a directive to terminate ones supporting DEI, according to Thursday’s ruling. The 109 terminated grants included 40 awarded to universities and other institutions ​in the eight states.

The ​states, led by California, ⁠Massachusetts and New Jersey, had previously convinced a different judge, who was originally assigned their case, to order the grants be reinstated. But the ​6-3 conservative-majority Supreme Court put that order on hold.

Kelley, who was ​appointed by ⁠Democratic President Joe Biden, said any lawsuits trying to recover money lost as a result of those grant terminations would now need to proceed in a different, specialist court, the Court of Federal ⁠Claims.

But ​she said she retained the ability to determine if the ​original February 2025 agency directive that led to their termination complied with the Administrative Procedure Act. She concluded it ​did not and was arbitrary and capricious.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Aurora Ellis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.

Screwworm infests US horse before port reopens to Mexican livestock

2026-09-17 23:55:22 UTC / Reuters

By Tom Polansek

September 17, 2026 11:55 PM UTC Updated 2 mins ago

A sample of screwworms collected in the morning are displayed at the veterinary clinic as the Mexican government and ranchers struggle to control the spread of this flesh-eating pest, in Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico July 4, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Becerril/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

CHICAGO, Sept 17 (Reuters) – The U.S. confirmed a case of New World screwworm in a horse in New Mexico on Thursday, as the federal government prepared to ​resume imports of Mexican livestock into the state after blocking trade ‌in an attempt to keep out the flesh-eating parasite.

Screwworm infested a horse in Grant County, New Mexico, in the southwest corner of the state near the Mexican border, according to the U.S. ​Department of Agriculture’s website. It was the state’s second confirmed case since screwworm entered ​the U.S. from Mexico in June.

Keep up with the latest medical breakthroughs and healthcare trends with the award-winning Reuters Health Rounds newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on ⁠Wednesday that USDA was preparing to reopen a New Mexico port of entry ​to livestock trade next week after it was closed because of screwworm.

Jenny Green, a ​spokesperson for the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, said on Thursday she had no immediate update about whether the latest case would affect those plans. USDA did not immediately respond to a request ​for comment.

The U.S. halted livestock imports from Mexico last year to keep out ​screwworm but resumed trade last month at an Arizona port as part of a phased reopening plan. ‌The halt ⁠helped tighten U.S. cattle supplies and push beef prices to record highs for American consumers.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Rollins held a news conference at the Santa Teresa, New Mexico, port on Thursday to discuss plans to reopen trade there on September 24. The horse case had not ​been confirmed at ​the time of the ⁠news conference, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture said.

Last week, the first U.S. horse to be infested with screwworm was detected in ​southern Texas near the Mexican border.

Reuters has reported on growing ​concerns that smuggled ⁠animals, including horses, could be possible hosts for screwworm. Green said officials were investigating how the horse in New Mexico became infested.

The U.S. has three active screwworm cases, including ⁠the horses ​in New Mexico and Texas and a dog ​in Texas, according to USDA. A previous screwworm outbreak killed thousands of animals in the U.S. before the ​pest was declared eradicated in the 1960s.

blob:https://www.reuters.com/ce3df9fc-0b17-4a1d-b743-8d65a70de698

Reporting by Tom Polansek; Editing by Stephen Coates

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

JD Vance’s telling ‘give us another chance’ flub

2026-09-17T20:44:24.338Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/17/politics/vance-another-chance-comment

Vice President JD Vance this week asked voters for “another chance” — something that is decidedly contrary to President Donald Trump’s midterm messaging — before seeming to catch himself.

“Give us another chance — or, give us another couple of years to continue to work on the amazing things that we’ve been doing for the past two years,” Vance said on the “All In” podcast.

A couple of reflections.

The first is that Vance seemed to think better of the phrase he had just uttered and tried to change it. Indeed, asking for “another chance” sure makes it sound like Republicans haven’t succeeded with the chance they’ve been given.

His comment is also decidedly different from what Trump says, which is all about the “golden age” and how everything is so great in the United States.

Vance has been offering a more nuanced and conciliatory message to voters who might be disillusioned, as his speech last week at the Republican midterm convention made abundantly clear. In that speech, in his “All In” appearance and in closed-door remarks to House Republicans this week, Vance made a point to acknowledge the concerns of voters who might not like everything the administration has done, like the Iran war, or are struggling financially.

“Right now, we have a country where people are frustrated. You got to level with them,” he advised GOP lawmakers, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by CNN.

But there’s a difference between “I feel your pain” or acknowledging discontent, and “give us another chance.”

This is also the latest evidence that Vance, despite being the odds-on favorite for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028, just isn’t that gifted a messenger. Everyone assumes he’s the heir to Trump’s political movement, but he’s not a natural on the stump, by any means, and his ability to lock down the Trumpian base is very much to be determined.

But perhaps the biggest point is that whichever version of this talking point Vance offers — be it “another chance” or “another couple of years” — it’s virtually irreconcilable with the campaign that Trump ran in 2024.

The message back then wasn’t just that Trump would fix the problems created by then-President Joe Biden; it was that he would do so thoroughly and quickly.

I ran through some of the promises a week before Trump took office:

• “We will be slashing energy and electricity prices by half within 12 months – at a maximum 18 months.” (Energy prices have instead gone up — by a lot.)
• “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” (Inflation has continued and is higher today than when he took office.)
• On ending the Russia-Ukraine war: “I’ll have that done in 24 hours.” (The war is still going, 20 months later.)
• “We’re going to have more auto production in the United States than we’ve ever had before, and it’s going to happen very fast. … I’ll get that done in less than 100 days. I’ll get that done in the first two weeks.” (The longstanding decline has continued.)
• After talking about the border, drug cartels, China-Taiwan tensions, the war in Ukraine, rigged elections, abortion and inflation, Trump said: “In six months to a year, many of the problems, almost all of the problems that you and I have just spoken about, will be solved.” (The border has been largely shut down and there is still no evidence of rigged elections, but everything else conservatives consider problematic largely remains.)
• “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.” (He has, in fact, started a war with Iran.)

The 2024 campaign was hardly the only time Trump promised voters the world. This is a guy who in 2016 literally said, “I will give you everything.”

But the broken promises are much more difficult to ignore when the consequences are so roundly despised by voters. Maybe Trump didn’t make everyone rich like he promised in 2016, but the economy was still pretty strong before Covid. Today, his promise to lower prices instantly looks worse with each passing day, and three-quarters of Americans think he’s neglected the issue.

Ditto the Iran war. It’s so contrary to how Trump pitched himself, and it won’t go away.

And that’s what makes Vance’s comments particularly jarring.

Even more than his somewhat conciliatory speech last week at the GOP midterm convention, they suggest he knows the Trump administration hasn’t delivered on what it promised.

Before he said “another chance,” he listed a number of administration accomplishments. But none of them were about lowering prices across the board or delivering a new “golden age” for the American people. They were narrower items like “no tax on tips” and securing the border.

And that’s a pretty remarkable lack of an endorsement, from Trump’s own VP.

特朗普称将就伊朗战事作出重大决定

2026年9月18日 07:04 / 联合早报

9月16日，特朗普出席北卡罗来纳州共和党参议院候选人的竞选活动后，飞抵马里兰州安德鲁斯联合基地。 （法新社）

美国总统特朗普说，伊朗战争已进入关键阶段，他正权衡是否重新发动大规模打击，以结束这场冲突。

特朗普星期四（9月17日）接受美国新闻网Axios专访时说：“我有一个重大决定要做。我是要彻底消灭他们，还是不这么做？这是一个重大抉择。我可能做出任何决定。”

尽管特朗普此前也曾发出类似威胁，但此次表态的时机颇为微妙。下周二（22日）联合国大会在纽约召开期间，特朗普将与沙特阿拉伯、阿拉伯联合酋长国、卡塔尔、巴林、科威特、阿曼六国首脑举行会晤。

这次会晤可能影响对伊战争下一阶段的走向：是重回外交斡旋轨道，还是升级军事对抗。若特朗普有意重启大规模军事行动，必须先争取地区盟友的支持与配合。

特朗普近日已多次说，这场战争很快就会结束。但一些美国官员警告称，伊朗战争已陷入一种难以持续的“不战不和”僵局。他们认为，如果在美国中期选举之后仍未能达成协议，特朗普可能会重新诉诸大规模作战行动。

特朗普在访问中明确说，他希望利用此次联合国大会期间的会晤，直接听取地区盟友对战争下一步走向的意见。

特朗普拒绝透露他将在美国中期选举之前还是之后决定下一步行动。

被问及下周是否会在纽约会见以色列总理内坦亚胡时，特朗普答：“可能会”。

报道称，白宫也在筹划一项战后战略，旨在凝聚地区力量共同遏制伊朗，同时进一步推动以色列与邻国关系正常化。

Fox News Poll: 71% think Trump administration lacks plan to end Iran war

September 17, 2026 6:00pm EDT / Fox News

Support for Israelis drops to record low

By Victoria Balara, Fox News

Former Deputy Commander of U.S. CENTCOM Robert Harward joins ‘America Reports’ to discuss President Donald Trump’s upcoming decisions on the conflict with Iran.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/060444e3-df76-498d-a9d0-0dbb26023adb

Listen to this article

5 min

Nearly seven months into the war with Iran, a new Fox News national survey finds views souring as voters feel the Trump administration lacks a clear strategy for ending the war, a growing number think the conflict will make the U.S. less safe and a majority believes the decision to take military action was wrong.

Seven in 10 voters think the Trump administration lacks a clear strategy for ending the conflict, including 95% of Democrats, 83% of independents and 43% of Republicans.

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

In addition, a growing 47% of voters say the conflict will make the U.S. less safe in the long run, up from 39% in April. By comparison, 32% think it will make the country safer, and 20% say there will be no difference. The rise in concern is largest among White voters, voters under 45 and independents.

Sixty percent say U.S. military action against Iran was the wrong decision, while 37% say it was right, widening the margin to 23 points, up from 17 points in June (58% to 41%). Attitudes against the war have increased modestly across most demographic groups, with the largest shifts among Hispanic voters, voters under age 30, moderates and voters 65 and over.

FOX NEWS POLL: ECONOMIC ANXIETY AND CANDIDATE CONCERNS DEFINE OHIO SENATE RACE

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

“Typically, the public rallies around the president in response to a foreign policy crisis,” said Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson. “But two things are different here. First, President Trump hasn’t consistently and forcefully made the case for the war, and the U.S. doesn’t have boots on the ground. Both of those things matter for public opinion.”

FOX NEWS POLL: SQUEEZED BY COSTS, FRUSTRATED VOTERS TURN TO THE DEMOCRATS

Trump’s overall job performance stands at 39% approval and 61% disapproval.

The president’s ratings on foreign policy are underwater by 24 points. His 37% approval is a second-term low and is just one point above his first-term low of 36% in September 2019.

When asked to name the most important issue facing the country, in their own words, only 4% of voters say Iran and a miniscule 1% name foreign policy in general. By comparison, 34% mention the top issue of the cost of living.

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

Meanwhile, by a 10-point margin, more voters say the Democrats are better equipped to handle foreign policy than the Republicans, a reversal from the previous midterm cycle when Republicans were more trusted by 6 points in September 2022.

Israel and Ukraine

A low of 48% say they side more with the Israelis than the Palestinians (38%) in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. That is down from 54% in June and a high of 68% at the conflict’s outset in October 2023.

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

Since 2023, the sharpest decline in support for Israel — down at least 20 points — comes from women, Hispanic voters, voters under age 45, voters with a college degree and Democrats. Republican support has fallen 10 points during the same time.

On Ukraine, voters favor the U.S. continuing to provide financial aid to fight Russia by 16 points (55% to 39%), roughly unchanged during the past two years. Democrats favor supporting Ukraine, while Republicans and independents are divided.

One more thing…

Ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s upcoming visit to the U.S., more than twice as many voters say Trump is not tough enough on China (45%) as say he is too tough (20%). Three in 10 (30%) say his approach is about right.

There is bipartisan agreement on this: the largest share of Democrats (44%), Republicans (47%), and independents (44%) say Trump is not tough enough on China. Republicans are more split, with 43% saying his approach is about right.

CLICK HERE FOR CROSSTABS AND TOPLINE

Made with Flourish•Create a chart

Conducted September 11-14, 2026, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,211 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (96) and cellphones (821) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (294). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points.

Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education and area variables to ensure the demographics are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the most recent American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis and voter file data.

Josh Shapiro wades into AI debate with call for ‘strict guardrails’

2026-09-17 7:05 PM ET / CNN

By Arlette Saenz

PUBLISHED Sep 17, 2026, 7:05 PM ET

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro delivers the keynote speech during the AI Horizons Summit at Bakery Square on Thursday, in Pittsburgh.

Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on Thursday called for greater federal regulation of artificial intelligence while criticizing President Donald Trump for minimizing concerns, saying “We cannot ignore the warning signs nor downplay the very real risks.”

“I am not a doomer. I don’t think that it is inevitable that AI is going to take over the world, or that someone will misuse it to kill us or to do harm,” Shapiro said at an AI summit in Pittsburgh on Thursday. “But I do have real concerns, as do many Pennsylvanians and many Americans, and I don’t think that the very real concerns of our neighbors that they overwhelmingly express about this technology is a hoax, as our president has called it.”

Debate about whether to regulate the rapidly advancing technology has escalated amid calls from industry leaders to slow down AI development. Democrats eyeing potential White House runs in 2028, like Shapiro, are grappling with how to approach AI amid increased concerns about the technology’s progress, and President Barack Obama recently encouraged those considering running for president in the coming years to prioritize AI policy in their forthcoming agendas.

Shapiro called for the federal government to “develop strict guardrails” on AI, including third party oversight of frontier models, greater transparency in the development process, and safety prioritization.

Related article President Donald Trump speaks with reporters while in flight on Air Force One from Shannon, Ireland to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on September 13. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP The real reason why Donald Trump is so furiously against AI guardrails 6 min read

The governor also pushed for building international consensus on regulating the technology, arguing Trump should prioritize discussing “practical guardrails to reduce risks to the American people” in his conversations with China’s President Xi Jinping next week. He criticized Speaker Mike Johnson for sending the House into recess without action on AI.

Trump has pushed back on calls for greater government regulation, calling concerns about AI a “HOAX” and part of a “sick conspiracy.” On the other end of the spectrum, Sen. Bernie Sanders has called for a ban on superintelligence that could subvert human control.

In his speech, Shapiro sought to strike a middle ground, saying “There’s something in between accelerating and ignoring the road ahead and slamming on the brakes and refusing to move forward.”

Shapiro delivered the speech several weeks after issuing an executive order aimed at limiting AI-generating data centers in Pennsylvania by ending fast-track approvals and establishing new development requirements. That move came one year after Shapiro touted Amazon’s $20 billion investment in data centers in the state and stated his administration was “all in on AI.”

As frustration over data centers has risen, Shapiro has run data center focused attack ads against his GOP opponent Stacy Garrity in this year’s governor’s race, calling her “Pennsylvania’s number one fan of data centers.” Garrity has pushed back with her own spot, though on a much smaller spending scale, calling out Shapiro’s initial embrace of Amazon’s investments.

In his speech Thursday, Shapiro also called out those within the AI industry potentially working to thwart regulation efforts going forward.

“Some of those same companies who have been calling for regulation in public have been funding the groups in private who have been fighting against it,” he said. “They don’t get to claim the moral high ground by saying one thing publicly and doing another thing privately, because people are pretty smart. They can see right through that.”

Trump ordered DOJ not to appeal ruling that loosened limits on “gangster weapons,” sources say

2026-09-17T19:02:15-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-doj-gangster-weapons-gun-restrictions-appeal/

Washington— President Trump ordered the Justice Department not to appeal a court ruling that loosened restrictions on firearms known as “gangster weapons,” sources familiar with the matter told CBS News, a move that will let some Americans possess or sell short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and silencers with less government oversight.

For more than 90 years, those types of arms have been among the most heavily regulated because they are generally considered to be particularly dangerous and easily concealable.

Under the National Firearms Act, first enacted in 1934, anyone wishing to sell, possess or make a firearm or device covered by the law has had to submit a detailed written application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They have also had to be fingerprinted and were required to register the weapons, which must be engraved with serial numbers, with the ATF.

But in August, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that most of the restrictions on all but two categories of specialized firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act are unconstitutional.

The president himself decided against appealing the ruling, several of the sources with knowledge of the matter said. Mr. Trump has also told some Republican members of Congress in a series of calls in recent weeks that he would ensure the Justice Department did not contest the decision, sources familiar with the discussions said.

Letting the lower court ruling stand runs counter to the recommendations of some career and politically appointed lawyers at the Justice Department across multiple offices who disagree with the court’s opinion, several of the sources said, adding that they have warned it is already beginning to adversely impact federal firearms prosecutions across the country.

It also runs afoul of the Justice Department’s “duty to defend,” a longstanding legal principle that says the department has a constitutional duty to defend the laws enacted by Congress, as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of those statutes, some of the sources said.

CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department and the White House for comment.

The judge’s decision came in two consolidated cases brought against the government by 15 red states and a number of Second Amendment gun rights groups and individuals, including the Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation.

Although the ruling applies only to the parties to the lawsuit, any current or future members of the gun groups that sued over the rules are covered. An annual membership to the Gun Owners of America, for example, costs $25.

The ruling does not apply to the country’s most popular firearms, such as AR-15s and Glock pistols, which are standard weapons available for sale commercially and regulated largely under a different federal law. That law also blocks certain people from owning guns, such as convicted felons, a prohibition that would still apply to buyers of so-called “gangster weapons.”

It also does not apply to machine guns or explosive devices, which remain primarily regulated under the National Firearms Act, a statute passed in 1934 that created a federal oversight regime for the types of guns used by mobsters like Al Capone, such as sawed-off shotguns and Tommy guns.

The Justice Department last month faced criticism from gun control groups after it failed to seek a stay of the judge’s order, a decision that allowed the injunction to go into effect on Aug. 13.

At the time, the Justice Department said it was still “assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”

The deadline to appeal the court’s ruling is Oct. 5.

Hendrix’s opinion was based on a decision by Congress last year to include a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that eliminated a $200 tax imposed on firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act when they are transferred or made.

By removing the government’s taxing authority over the weapons, he wrote, the portions of the statute that were being challenged are rendered largely unconstitutional.

“Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power,” the judge wrote. “And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”

Justice Department attorneys have argued that the government still has the legal authority to regulate the firearms at issue under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce across state lines.

They also have argued that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act left intact a separate tax that is imposed on businesses that manufacture, distribute or deal in the types of weapons at issue in the lawsuit.

One source familiar with the discussions believes that some Justice Department lawyers are more worried about their win-loss record than the president’s gun policies, adding that it is merely a scare tactic to suggest that not appealing will allow people to possess or sell sawed-off shotguns and suppressors without government oversight.

In his ruling, Hendrix imposed a permanent injunction on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that prevents the agency from enforcing the challenged provisions of the law.

Although the injunction only applies to the parties in the lawsuit, the judge said that it would also be applied to the plaintiff gun groups’ members and customers, “both current and future.”

His decision to cover “future” customers and members of the gun rights groups who are a party to the lawsuit has already started to cause problems for federal prosecutors.

In one criminal prosecution in the Middle District of Alabama, for example, the Justice Department earlier this month dismissed an indictment against a man named Cameron Silmon on a charge he knowingly received a silencer without a serial number, after his defense lawyer claimed his client had joined some of the gun rights groups after the Texas judge issued the injunction.

Bren McMaken, the assistant attorney general prosecuting the case, wrote that the government “disagrees with Silmon’s position that a District Judge in the Northern District of Texas has the power to stop the United States Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama from enforcing the criminal laws of the United States.”

He added that while the government was dropping the charge, its ongoing investigation had since uncovered evidence of more crimes. Among the new charges that Silmon now faces is illegal possession of a machine gun — one of the categories of firearms not covered by the court’s injunction.

Historically, the types of firearms covered by the court’s order are not commonly recovered at crime scenes because of the stringent regulations that govern them. Between 2017 and 2021, the NFA-covered firearms only accounted for about 5% of the closed gun-trafficking investigations, according to an ATF report.

However, there have been a number of high-profile criminal cases over the years that have involved some of the firearms in question.

Luigi Mangione, who pleaded guilty last month to shooting and killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Manhattan sidewalk, used a silencer on his weapon.

Emma Brown, the executive director of pro-gun control organization GIFFORDS, argued that deciding not to appeal would constitute a “failure to defend public safety.”

“The Trump Administration could bring us back to the days of Al Capone, where silencers and short-barreled shotguns were used to recklessly kill people,” Brown told CBS News.

If the Justice Department follows through on not appealing Hendrix’s ruling, there is still a chance that other interested parties, like states or counties, could try to ask the court for permission to intervene and appeal it themselves.

Congress could also reinstate the tax or pass a different law to regulate them, but doing so would likely require Democrats to regain a majority in the House and Senate.

“The ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ provision that quietly zeroed out the tax may ultimately do what no court, no Congress, and no administration has done in ninety years eliminate: the National Firearms Act, one of the primary American gun laws,” said Jeffrey Cohen, former associate chief counsel at the ATF.

美国允许伊朗领导人入境出席联合国大会

2026-09-18 07:29 / 联合早报

9月1日，伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬（左）和外长阿拉格齐（后排右）在吉尔吉斯斯坦比什凯克出席上海合作组织峰会会议。 （路透社）

美国国务院说，尽管美国和伊朗仍处于交战状态，且正为了结束战争而进行断断续续的谈判，但特朗普政府仍将允许伊朗高级官员出席下周在纽约举行的联合国大会。

路透社报道，美国国务院发言人星期四（9月17日）说，根据美国作为联合国东道国应尽的义务，美方将允许“来自伊朗政权的核心代表团”出席联合国大会。

这名发言人还说：“根据我们的政策，伊朗代表团的行程将受到限制，且被禁止购买奢侈品和其他商品。代表团的规模也比去年小。”

一名知情人士透露，这意味着伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬和外交部长阿拉格齐等官员将获得赴美签证。

过去，美国政府曾禁止伊朗代表团进入商店购物，并严格限制他们的活动范围，只能往返于联合国总部、伊朗驻联合国代表团驻地、伊朗驻联合国大使官邸和纽约肯尼迪国际机场之间。

伊朗外交部未立即回应路透社的置评请求。

美国总统特朗普17日接受美国新闻网Axios专访时说，伊朗战争已进入关键阶段，他正权衡是否重新发动大规模打击，以结束这场战争。

特朗普说：“我有一个重大决定要做。我是要彻底消灭他们，还是不这么做？这是一个重大抉择。我可能做出任何决定。”

第81届联合国大会的一般性辩论与高级别会议9月22日在纽约拉开帷幕。

联合国大会召开期间，特朗普将与沙特阿拉伯、阿拉伯联合酋长国、卡塔尔、巴林、科威特、阿曼六国首脑举行会晤。

特朗普政府16日宣布，将拒绝巴勒斯坦官员入境出席联合国大会，此举旨在延续自去年生效的禁令。美方称，巴方采取了“使以色列和哈马斯的冲突国际化”的行动，包括在国际法庭对以色列提起诉讼。

一名巴勒斯坦官员透露，美国拒绝向巴勒斯坦总统阿巴斯发放签证。

根据1947年联合国《总部协定》，美国通常有义务允许外国外交官进入设在纽约的联合国总部。不过，华盛顿方面称，基于“国家安全、恐怖主义及外交政策”等原因，美方有权拒发签证。