As I sat to write this last column of 2024, I wanted to write something reflective, an authentic refection, honest, revealing our vulnerabilities, and the strength of our hope.

A challenge to find optimism while standing amid the shards of morals, values and integrity.

The new America emerging from the cathartic election seems empty, harsh and vulnerable to political parasites questing for absolute power.

The common electorate were misled. In frenzies of hope, they flocked to the polls to reclaim their country. What we witness leading up to the official transfer of power offers a glimpse into the darker side of authoritarian rule.

It was never about concern for forgotten Americans. It has always been about the deep pockets of the top 1% gaining positions of control. Politics and the economy are deeply intertwined, both driven by an insatiable pursuit of wealth. 

The last two federal elections reveal the parallel tracks of the economy and politics. The 2020 and 2024 campaign financing, and campaign spending reveals their connected roles.

Here is a look into the numbers.

Total spending is projected to reach $15 billion. $1.2 billion was spent on political ads in Pennsylvania. A record spending for one state.

Billionaire Elon Musk, it is reported, spent $277 million through various political action committees (PACs). He gave random awards of $1 million to individuals who registered as Republicans leading up to election day.

The various media outlets were the primary beneficiaries. The pollical advertising revenue that poured into coffers underscores the critical role media plays. These outlets were also the conduits through which messaging shaped the perceptions of the electorate.

Television networks captured nearly 72% of campaign ad spending. Fox News was a dominant source of political messaging. The network’s strong viewership attracted record political revenue.

Digital platforms also shared in the influx of advertising revenue. Google, Meta (Facebook and Instagram) exceeded $1.35 billion during the election cycle. Local and national radio stations experienced a revenue boast of $750 million. Print media $250 million.

Overall, a significant windfall of advertising revenue from this election cycle.

The narratives, the negative messaging of information, misinformation, and disinformation channeled through these various media proved effective. More than 155 million people cast ballots in 2024.

According to the University of Florida Election Lab, nearly 64% of eligible voters cast ballots. The second highest turnout in the last 100 years, only the turnout in 2020 was higher. Seventy-one percent of the electorate were white voters.

Reproduction rights and immigration were two policy issues that drew on the values of the electorate. Approximately 23 million women voted; forty-six percent of the 38 million eligible Latinos voted for candidate Trump despite his policy stance on immigration.

President-elect Trump won 49.9% of the popular vote.  The below fifty percent of the popular vote falls short of an “unprecedented” and “powerful mandate.”

It’s not uncommon for presidents to over-read their election victories.

There is infighting within the MAGA camp over immigration, and the failure to adhere to their pre-inauguration ploy to dictate House policy and shut down the government. Elon Musk wanted the debt ceiling increase included in the stopgap measure.

The Republican House defied the mandate. We are not certain of how long their courage will last. The Democrats are standing their ground.

Feature Image: Rev. Norman Franklin. Photo provided

The post America in transition: Money and power are the objectives appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

In 2024, Black Americans encountered a series of political events that tested their resilience and commitment to justice. From court rulings affecting civil rights to landmark political milestones, 2024 was a year of challenges and pivotal achievements.

Presidential Election and Kamala Harris’s Historic Nomination

Vice President Kamala Harris made history as the first Black woman to lead a major party’s presidential ticket. Most experts viewed her nomination as a breakthrough in representation and a continuation of the fight for equity. Harris’s campaign, which didn’t begin until President Joe Biden dropped out of the race in July, focused on protecting voting rights, promoting economic justice, and addressing racial inequities.

Despite those efforts, the 2024 election resulted in Donald Trump’s return to the White House. His campaign rallies were marred by controversy, including appearances in former sundown towns and speeches at Madison Square Garden laced with racially charged rhetoric. The return of Trump to power stunned pundits and raised alarms within Black communities about Civil Rights protections.

“Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous, and his choice of venues speaks volumes,” said Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr., president of the National Newspaper Publishers Association.

Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records in a New York hush money trial made him the first U.S. president ever convicted of a felony. The conviction meant little, as did the more than 50 other charges, as Trump still won the presidential election.

Project 2025 and Its Implications for Black Americans

Project 2025, a 900-page ultra-conservative roadmap drafted by Trump allies, details plans to restructure the U.S. government in ways that could severely impact Black Americans. The Legal Defense Fund (LDF) released an in-depth analysis showing how Project 2025 would weaken anti-discrimination laws, dismantle the Department of Education, threaten Black political power, and exacerbate health disparities.

“The most important part of the report is how Project 2025 will have an impact on individual lives and how those individual lives will be upended through the policy proposals,” Karla McKanders, director of the LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute, explained.

The report warned that dismantling the Department of Education would harm programs like Head Start, where 28% of enrollees are Black children, and cutting Pell Grants would disproportionately affect Black college students. The plan also recommends replacing career civil servants with political appointees, which could undermine the integrity of agencies like the Census Bureau and result in undercounting Black communities, impacting political representation and federal funding.

The dismantling of agencies like the EPA and FEMA would leave Black communities vulnerable to environmental disasters. “The resources that the federal government provides when there’s a natural disaster are instrumental in getting communities back on their feet,” McKanders noted.

Rollbacks on Affirmative Action and DEI Programs

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard dismantled affirmative action policies in higher education, igniting a wave of state and corporate rollbacks targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In the months that followed, legislative efforts and legal challenges have accelerated the dismantling of these programs, further showing that opportunities for Black and brown communities are being systematically eroded.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation banning the use of state funds for DEI programs in public universities, leading to the immediate closure of DEI offices and the cancellation of diversity-related initiatives. Texas quickly followed suit, eliminating diversity offices and mandatory diversity training, mandating that hiring practices in public institutions remain “color-blind and sex-neutral.” Alabama joined the effort by shutting down DEI offices at its public universities, enforcing laws that prohibit the teaching of so-called “divisive concepts” regarding race or sex.

Legal battles in the private sector have mirrored these state-level rollbacks. The Fearless Fund, which provides grants to businesses owned by women of color, was forced to suspend its operations after a federal appeals court ruled the program may violate Civil Rights laws. The lawsuit, brought by Trump-backed conservative legal groups, claims the fund’s mission of supporting minority women discriminates against other races. The case has set a troubling precedent, signaling that diversity-focused business initiatives could be vulnerable to similar challenges.

Corporate DEI programs are also facing intense scrutiny. Southwest Airlines recently faced legal action over a program that offered free flights to Hispanic students, with a lawsuit alleging the program discriminated against non-Hispanic students. Boeing encountered resistance when a judge rejected its plea deal in a separate case, raising concerns about the company’s commitment to diversity in selecting a compliance monitor. Once an industry leader in DEI, Walmart announced a rollback of its diversity policies, opting to abandon practices prioritizing suppliers based on race or gender to avoid potential litigation.

Civil Rights leaders said the erosion of DEI policies reflects a broader movement aimed at reversing gains made in racial and gender equity since the Civil Rights Era. The rollbacks, framed by their proponents as efforts to ensure fairness, have drawn sharp criticism from advocates who view them as deliberate attempts to undermine progress.

“Without affirmative action, Black and brown students face higher barriers to entry. These rollbacks are designed to push us backward,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson.

Justice System and Legal Fights

Civil Rights attorney Ben Crump has remained at the forefront of the fight for accountability in 2024, securing justice in several significant police misconduct cases and advocating for systemic reforms.

In June 2024, Crump secured a historic $45 million settlement for Richard “Randy” Cox, a Black man left paralyzed from the chest down after an arrest by New Haven police officers in Connecticut. This settlement is the largest ever recorded in a police misconduct case, surpassing the previous record set in the case of George Floyd.

Crump also represented the family of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man who died in January 2023 after being beaten by Memphis police officers during a traffic stop. In October 2024, three former Memphis police officers were convicted of obstruction of justice in federal court, though they were acquitted on the most serious Civil Rights charges.

In November, Crump led the legal effort that resulted in a $98.65 million jury verdict in a federal civil lawsuit against former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger for the 2018 killing of Botham Jean in his own apartment. Crump called the verdict a powerful testament to Botham’s life and the profound injustice of his death, pointing to critical issues of racial bias and police accountability.

Crump continued his advocacy by representing other victims of police misconduct in 2024. He sought transparency in the case of Roger Fortson, a 23-year-old Black U.S. Air Force airman fatally shot by a Florida deputy in his apartment, noting a witness’s claim that police entered the wrong apartment. In another case, he pursued justice for the family of Sonya Massey, a Black woman shot and killed in her home by an Illinois deputy after she called 911 to report a prowler. Crump also took on the case of D’Vontaye Mitchell, a Milwaukee man who died after being restrained by hotel security guards, demanding accountability for the excessive use of force.

“We can’t allow these injustices to become normalized,” Crump stated. “Every fight, every case, is about ensuring that we live up to the promise of equal justice under the law.” Meanwhile, in United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court allowed Texas officials to arrest and deport migrants, which raised more concerns about state overreach.

Former Mississippi sheriff’s deputy Hunter Edward was sentenced to 20 years in prison for torturing two Black men in January 2023, a rare case of accountability for racial violence.

Fani Willis and the Fight for Accountability

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis remained at the forefront of efforts to hold Donald Trump accountable for alleged election interference in Georgia. Despite political pressure and threats, Willis won re-election in November. However, a Georgia appellate court in December disqualified Willis from the case.

Congressional Black Caucus Milestones and Losses

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) grew to a record 62 members, enhancing its legislative influence. The CBC also honored Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman in Congress, for paving the way for current and future generations.

Tragedy struck with the death of long-serving Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee in July 2024 from pancreatic cancer. During her 15 terms representing Texas’s 18th district, Jackson Lee was known for her fierce advocacy on Civil Rights, health care, and criminal justice reform. Her daughter, Erica Lee Carter, was elected to fill her seat, continuing her mother’s legacy.

Baltimore and Maryland Progress

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott was re-elected for a second term, affirming community support for his public safety and youth development initiatives. Maryland Governor Wes Moore issued pardons for over 175,000 individuals with low-level marijuana convictions. He posthumously honored abolitionist Harriet Tubman as a one-star general in the Maryland National Guard on Veterans Day.

Reparations and Racial Justice in California

In Palm Springs, the city council approved a $5.9 million reparations settlement for Black residents displaced in the 1960s. Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation to address the legacy of racial discrimination. “California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy,” Newsom stated.

Social Unrest and Extremism

Neo-Nazi marches in Ohio underscored the rise of extremist movements, while pro-Palestinian protests erupted on college campuses, including a high-profile occupation at Columbia University. Hundreds of students were arrested after New York City officials ordered the dispersal of protests, accusing demonstrators of antisemitism.

Looking Ahead

“We’re not asking for special treatment — we’re demanding the equal justice that America promises to all,” Crump remarked.

The post Rollbacks, rallies, and resilience: Black America’s battle for equity appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Sylvia Lu, University of Michigan

Artificial intelligence harms, problematic social media content, data privacy violations – the issues are the same, but the policymakers and regulators who deal with them are about to change.

As the federal government transitions to a new term under the renewed leadership of Donald Trump, the regulatory landscape for technology in the United States faces a significant shift.

The Trump administration’s stated approach to these issues signals changes. It is likely to move away from the civil rights aspect of Biden administration policy toward an emphasis on innovation and economic competitiveness. While some potential policies would pull back on stringent federal regulations, others suggest new approaches to content moderation and ways of supporting AI-related business practices. They also suggest avenues for state legislation.

I study the intersection of law and technology. Here are the key tech law issues likely to shape the incoming administration’s agenda in 2025.

AI regulation: innovation vs. civil rights

The rapid evolution of AI technologies has led to an expansion of AI policies and regulatory activities, presenting both opportunities and challenges. The federal government’s approach to AI regulation is likely to undergo notable changes under the incoming Trump administration.

The Biden administration’s AI Bill of Rights and executive order on AI established basic principles and guardrails to protect safety, privacy and civil rights. These included requirements for developers of powerful AI systems to report safety test results, and a mandate for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to create rigorous safety standards. They also required government agencies to use AI in responsible ways.

Unlike the Biden era, the Trump administration’s deregulatory approach suggests a different direction. The president-elect has signaled his intention to repeal Biden’s executive order on AI, citing the need to foster free speech. Trump’s nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission, Andrew Ferguson, has echoed this sentiment. He has stated his opposition to restrictive AI regulations and the adoption of a comprehensive federal AI law.

With limited prospects for federal AI legislation under the Trump administration, states are likely to lead the charge in addressing emerging AI harms. In 2024, at least 45 states introduced AI-related bills. For example, Colorado passed comprehensive legislation to address algorithmic discrimination. In 2025, state lawmakers may either follow Colorado’s example by enacting broad AI regulations or focus on targeted laws for specific applications, such as automated decision-making, deepfakes, facial recognition and AI chatbots.

Data privacy: federal or state leadership?

Data privacy remains a key area of focus for policymakers, and 2025 is a critical year to see whether Congress will enact a federal privacy law. The proposed American Privacy Rights Act, introduced in 2024, represents a bipartisan effort to create a comprehensive federal privacy framework. The bill includes provisions for preempting state laws and allowing private rights of action, meaning allowing individuals to sue over alleged violations. The bill aims to simplify compliance and reduce the patchwork of state regulations.

These issues are likely to spark key debates in the year ahead. Lawmakers are also likely to wrestle with balancing regulatory burdens on smaller businesses with the need for comprehensive privacy protections.

In the absence of federal action, states may continue to dominate privacy regulation. Since California passed the Consumer Privacy Rights Act in 2019, 19 states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. Recent state privacy laws have differing scopes, rights and obligations, which creates a fragmented regulatory environment. In 2024, key issues included defining sensitive data, protecting minors’ privacy, incorporating data minimization principles, and addressing compliance challenges for medium or small businesses.

At the federal level in 2024, the Biden administration issued an executive order authorizing the U.S. attorney general to restrict cross-border data transfers to protect national security. These efforts may continue in the new administration.

Cybersecurity, health privacy and online safety

States have become key players in strengthening cybersecurity protections, with roughly 30 states requiring businesses to adhere to cybersecurity standards. The California Privacy Protection Agency Board, for example, has proposed rulemaking on cybersecurity audits, data protection risk assessments and automated decision-making.

Meanwhile, there is a growing trend toward strengthening health data privacy and protecting children online. Washington state and Nevada, for example, have adopted laws that expand the protection of health data beyond the scope of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Numerous states, such as California, Colorado, Utah and Virginia, have recently expanded protections for young users’ data. In the absence of federal regulation, state governments are likely to continue leading efforts to address pressing privacy and cybersecurity concerns in 2025.

Social media and Section 230

Online platform regulation has been a contentious issue under both the Biden and Trump administrations. There are federal efforts to reform Section 230, which shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, and federal- and state-level efforts to address misinformation and hate speech.

While Trump’s previous administration criticized Section 230 for allegedly enabling censorship of conservative voices, the Biden administration focused on increasing transparency and accountability for companies that fail to remove concerning content.

With Trump coming back to office, Congress is likely to consider proposals to prohibit certain forms of content moderation in the name of free speech protections.

On the other hand, states like California and Connecticut have recently passed legislation requiring platforms to disclose information about hate speech and misinformation. Some existing state laws regulating online platforms are facing U.S. Supreme Court challenges on First Amendment grounds.

In 2025, debates are likely to continue on how to balance platform neutrality with accountability at both federal and state levels.

Changes in the wind

Overall, while federal efforts on issues like Section 230 reform and children’s online protection may advance, federal-level AI regulation and data privacy laws could potentially slow down due to the administration’s deregulatory stance. Whether long-standing legislative efforts like federal data privacy protection materialize will depend on the balance of power between Congress, the courts and the incoming administration.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sylvia Lu, University of Michigan

Read more:

• AI, cryptocurrencies and data privacy: Comparing the Trump and Harris records on technology regulation
• AI harm is often behind the scenes and builds over time – a legal scholar explains how the law can adapt to respond
• Reining in AI means figuring out which regulation options are feasible, both technically and economically

Sylvia Lu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: The incoming Trump administration is poised to shake up tech regulation. Adam Gray/AFP via Getty Images

The post Tech law in 2025: A look ahead at policies under Trump appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

As Black America and other minority groups brace for hostility and uncertainty under the incoming administration of Donald Trump, the death of former President Jimmy Carter has reignited an appreciation for a leader who championed equality, justice, and humanity over self-interest and division. Carter, who died at 100, leaves a legacy rooted in humility and service, demonstrating what true leadership can accomplish.

Carter’s presidency from 1977 to 1981 brought meaningful progress in civil rights and inclusion. He appointed Patricia Harris as the first Black woman to a presidential cabinet, naming her Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and later Secretary of Health and Human Services. Andrew Young served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, further demonstrating Carter’s commitment to inclusion. His administration included a record number of Black federal judges, strengthened rules preventing discriminatory schools from claiming tax-exempt status, and expanded food aid programs for impoverished communities, many of which benefited Black families in rural areas.

In a previously published interview, Deputy Assistant to the President for Reorganization Jay Beck spoke fondly of Carter’s dedication to fostering opportunity for marginalized groups. “One of the things that’s happened through President Carter over the years, he’s brought in people to the government to work, prove themselves, learn skills, and move up so that the next time there’s a job opening in management or whatever, they’re there. Boom, they can move up,” Beck told television station WALB.

Many observers said Carter’s relationship with Black voters and Civil Rights leaders formed the foundation of his leadership. Martin Luther King Sr., known as “Daddy King,” was an advisor and confidant, guiding Carter on policies to advance Civil Rights. Coretta Scott King, Andrew Young, and other Civil Rights leaders saw Carter as someone who could carry the movement’s progress forward. “He was an upright man, different from the other Southerners,” said Bobby Fuse, a Civil Rights activist who supported Carter’s gubernatorial campaign in 1970.

Carter’s ability to rise above the racism entrenched in his Southern roots defined much of his political career. As a young school board member in Plains, Georgia, he resisted pressure to join the White Citizens’ Council and objected to his church’s exclusion of Black worshippers. Rachel Clark, a Black woman who worked on the Carter family farm, helped influence his moral compass. She taught him about selflessness and community, lessons that guided him throughout his life. “He even got teased in school for sounding Black,” said Jonathan Alter, author of “His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life.”

When Carter ran for governor of Georgia in 1970, his campaign initially used dog whistles to appeal to White voters. However, after his victory, his inaugural address declared, “The time for racial discrimination is over.” Carter appointed Black judges, supported fair housing laws, and challenged systemic racism in ways that surprised even his critics. Martin Luther King Sr. praised Carter, writing, “I know a man I can trust, Blacks can trust, and that man is Jimmy Carter.”

After leaving the Oval Office, Carter’s commitment to service never waned. Over four decades, he and his wife Rosalynn partnered with Habitat for Humanity, building thousands of homes for needy families. Mark Minick, a Friends of Jimmy Carter Board member, described Carter’s relentless dedication. “He was initiating it, he was asking for volunteers,” Minick stated in a 2023 interview. “He never minded asking you to do anything, and if he did ask you to do something, you’d figure out how to do it.”

Carter’s human rights advocacy extended globally. His negotiation of the Camp David Accords remains a pivotal achievement, securing peace between Israel and Egypt. Even later in life, Carter stood firm on controversial issues like Palestinian freedom. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement recognizing Carter’s courage. “President Carter was a humanitarian role model,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. “Even when he faced vitriolic attacks for his prescient book ‘Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid,’ he stood firm.”

Carter’s connection to the Black Press also marked a historic milestone. In 1977, he invited Black journalists to the White House for the first time and issued Proclamation 4507, declaring Black Press Day. That year coincided with the 150th anniversary of “Freedom’s Journal,” the nation’s first Black newspaper.

“Whenever I had a chance to spend time with President Carter, it was clear that he didn’t just profess these values,” said former President Barack Obama. “He embodied them. He made that choice again and again over the course of his 100 years, and the world is better for it.”

From a peanut farmer to President of the United States, “his incredible life, legacy, and leadership are a testament to the power of the American dream,” said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. “His commitment to humility, kindness, and service to others will continue to be a North Star for future generations of public servants.”

Vice President Kamala Harris added, “After leaving office, President Carter continued his fight for peace, democracy, and human dignity through the Carter Center. His life and legacy continue to inspire me—and will inspire generations to come. Our world is a better place because of President Carter.”

Carter once said during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, “God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace.”

Feature Image: Photo provided

The post As Trump era begins, Carter’s legacy of inclusion endures appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Federal judges are expressing concern over the future of justice for January 6 defendants as Donald Trump prepares to retake office and considers pardoning the participants in the Capitol attack. This week’s arrests and sentences of more alleged offenders show effort by the Department of Justice hasn’t stopped as they continue to attempt to hold those involved accountable for the violence that disrupted American democracy.

On December 18, a Texas man and a Virginia man were arrested for allegedly assaulting law enforcement during the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. Authorities said their actions contributed to the chaos that interrupted the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory. Earlier in the month, a South Carolina man was sentenced to prison for four misdemeanors related to the attack. On the same day, a judge sentenced a Georgia man to prison after his conviction for assaulting police officers during the riot.

The ongoing arrests and sentences come nearly three years after a mob stormed the Capitol, injuring over 140 police officers—including more than 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and over 60 from Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department. The siege caused extensive damage, with losses estimated at over $2.8 million. In total, at least 1,561 people have faced federal charges.

However, Trump has remained adamant that those convicted are “hostages,” and “patriots.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has presided over numerous Jan. 6-related cases, acknowledged her waning confidence in reassuring law enforcement that the rule of law still applies. “I’m not sure I can do that very convincingly these days,” Chutkan remarked during a recent sentencing hearing.

Chutkan isn’t alone. Fellow jurists appointed by Repubilcans and Democrats have fretted over the possibility of Trump granting clemency to those convicted.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by President Barack Obama, recently condemned efforts to downplay the Capitol attack. “The rewriting of the history of Jan. 6, 2021, is incredibly disturbing,” Howell said during a sentencing hearing.

Judge Reggie Walton, a George W. Bush appointee, cautioned that continued false claims about election outcomes could tear the nation apart. “We’re headed for a breakup of this country,” Walton warned, adding, “America isn’t a third-world country.” Walton also noted that Democrats accepted their defeat in 2024 without spreading misinformation. “Mr. Trump won,” he stated. “He won legitimately just like he lost legitimately.”

According to Politico, several judges have openly criticized Trump’s rhetoric and impact on defendants’ attitudes toward the court. The outlet reported that Walton clashed with defendant Michael Bradley, who was convicted of attacking police officers with a baton. Bradley defied Walton’s authority, questioning his integrity and claiming he was “being convicted without a victim.”

Some Jan. 6 defendants have recently requested permission to attend Trump’s second inauguration, Politico noted. The Justice Department has opposed these requests, arguing that allowing defendants to return to the “scene of the crime” would dishonor the officers who defended the Capitol that day. Yet on Thursday, Chutkan permitted one defendant, Eric Peterson, to attend, issuing a terse, one-sentence order without explanation.

Judge Royce Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee, captured the frustration of the judiciary in a 13-page opinion accompanying a Jan. 6 sentencing. “The true story of what happened on January 6, 2021, will never change,” he wrote, rejecting attempts by some defendants to portray themselves as victims of government persecution.

“They trashed it,” Chutkan said of the rioters’ actions in the Capitol. “They treated it like a motel room after a concert. Engaging in an act of destruction and violence in order to halt the peaceful transfer of power has to be met by consequences.”

Feature Image: Photo provided by NNPA

The post Federal judges sound alarm as Jan. 6 arrests, sentences continue appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

     The three-letter acronym for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, conjures up a plethora of emotions, suspicions and reactive behaviors with the mere mention of it.

     These emotions and reactive behaviors are experienced by the political elites, social activist, and the common citizens, and are a mixture of fear, anger, distrust, and a lament for justice.

     The emotional and psychological reactions to the “mention” vary based on the tone and tenor, and the individual’s perception of authority.

     The authoritarian President-elect Donald Trump’s contentious relationship with the agency reflects a broader challenge with maintaining trust, loyalty, and aligning the independent law enforcement agency with his agenda.

     In an era of political polarization, a call for the overhaul or dismantling of the agency will be implemented by the appointed agency head. The FBI has come to be viewed of late as a tool of oppression.   Those harboring this view have the authority to minimize the influence welded by the agency.

     The “mention” to persons of African descent, the “mention” to Civil Rights activist and social justice organizations conjures up thoughts of suspicion, remembrance of intimidation, reflections of oppressive measures exacted by the agency of J. Edgar Hoover.

     The 48-year tyrannical leadership of Hoover was a reign of abuse of power that intimidated groups on the social, political, and individual levels. It became his personal tool of oppression, intimidation, and manipulation.

     His amassed power intimidated and frustrated Presidents Truman, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson.

     Hoover’s agency conflated social justice activism with communism, and Civil Rights leaders as threats to national security.

    We can empathize with Pres. Elect Trump. Since the Civil Rights era, the marginalized Americans of melanin rich skin have cast a suspicious eye of mistrust on the FBI.

     In 1956, Hoover launched COINTELPRO to monitor, infiltrate, and disrupt social and political activism. Specifically targeting Civil Rights groups in the 1960s. The goal was to sow discord, discredit leaders, and prevent the rise of a “messiah” who could bring unity to the Black Liberation Movement.

     The FBI, a government agency, positioned itself as an enemy of social justice, and the guardian of the status quo. They employed a range of unethical, controversial practices to subvert progress toward social equality.

     Dr. King’s was subjected to wiretapping, smear campaigns and propaganda to discredit his character and reputation. The agency infiltrated the ranks of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Black Panther Party, and the Nation of Islam.

     The Agency played a significant role in the murder of Chicago Black Panther organizer, Fred Hampton. The FBI often failed to protect Civil Rights activists against violence, although often forewarned of potential violence erupting in opposition to the activist’s staged events.  

     We can empathize with the suspicion, the erosion of trust, and intimidation Pres. Elect Trump may be experiencing. The African American has been subjected to it for decades. We lacked authority to do anything about it. We were not positioned to fire the Director or restructure the agency to our advantage. We just wanted the right to vote.

     President Trump considers the FBI part of a “deep state” conspiracy that worked to undermine his presidency. There’s an irony embedded in his position.

     The Agency conspired to disrupt the efforts of Civil Rights organizations, discredit activist leaders, sow discord, and disrupt progress toward full participation in the dream American citizenship promised.  Only it wasn’t “deep state” conspiracy, it was agency policy.

     The irony of it all is that the marginalized, the people of melanin rich skin – Black and Brown, and Red, have historically maintained a tenor of suspicion of the FBI.

     More than likely, the level of suspicion will only grow more deeply ingrained, in perception and perspectives, with the new Director and the diminished independence of the restructured agency.

The post The irony of it all appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

While officials and residents of the District of Columbia gear up for a MAGA Republican takeover of the federal government, a large group of Democratic governors met in California to solidify a defense against certain attacks from Donald Trump’s incoming administration, a GOP majority in the House and Senate, and a hostile U.S. Supreme Court.

Democrats elected Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly to serve a full term as Chair of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) for 2025. The decision came during the DGA’s annual meeting in Los Angeles, where Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear was also elected as Vice Chair for 2025 and Chair-Elect for 2026.

Kelly began 2024 as DGA Vice Chair and assumed the Chair role in August after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz joined the Democratic national ticket. Under her leadership, the DGA successfully held onto every Democratic governorship in the 2024 election cycle. This included critical victories in battleground states such as North Carolina, where Josh Stein won, and Washington, where Bob Ferguson secured his governorship.

“I’m proud of the DGA’s success in 2024 and look forward to building on our momentum to win both competitive races in Virginia and New Jersey next year,” Kelly said. “As Democratic governors, we’re delivering real results for the people of our states and making lives better for millions of Americans by focusing on the issues that matter most. We’re keeping our foot on the gas and ready to get to work in 2025.”

During her time as governor, Kelly has focused on bipartisan progress. She attracted over $20 billion in new business investments and created over 70,000 full-time jobs, including the largest economic development project in Kansas history — a $4 billion initiative promising up to 4,000 new jobs. Kelly balanced the state budget, fully funded public schools, improved infrastructure, and brought Kansas back from years of fiscal mismanagement.

Beshear’s election as Vice Chair and Chair-Elect follows his historic re-election in 2023, which he won in deep-red Kentucky by a significant margin. His focus on economic growth has led to over 1,000 private-sector projects and more than 57,500 new jobs, including the state’s largest economic project—a Ford battery plant in Glendale. Beshear’s administration also legalized sports betting and prioritized infrastructure development.

“In Kentucky, we’ve shown that when you focus on the challenges families face every day, Democrats can win anywhere,” Beshear said. “I’m excited to build on that record to help elect and re-elect Democratic governors across the country.”

The DGA’s annual meeting took on added significance with a gathering of prominent Democratic leaders, some of whom are considered potential 2028 presidential candidates. Governors Gavin Newsom of California, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, and Tim Walz of Minnesota attended the Beverly Hilton alongside a packed crowd of donors, strategists, and lobbyists.

Despite the speculation, Kelly remained focused on near-term goals. “Trust me, we’re not thinking beyond ’26 at this point,” she said.

The meeting also highlighted Democratic governors’ plans to navigate the challenges of a second Trump administration. Some governors are preparing to push back against potential policies that threaten civil rights and democracy. “You come for my people; you come through me,” Pritzker asserted. In states like New York and California, governors are laying the groundwork to defend against federal overreach. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James announced plans to counter any regulatory threats from Washington, and Newsom called a special legislative session to prepare for potential clashes with the Trump administration.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee pointed to past experience resisting Trump policies. “We’ve already taken considerable efforts to prevent him from abusing our state financially and targeting us,” Inslee said. “You can’t say we’re ‘Trump-proofed,’ but we’ve made significant progress.”

As Democratic governors prepare for the 2025 and 2026 election cycles, their strategy blends defense against federal policies with a focus on delivering results at the state level.

“We will continue to do what we do, which is work with whoever we need to work with to get what we need for our states,” Kelly said.

Feature Image: Photo provided by NNPA

The post Democratic governors double down on Trump strategy appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have called on President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to issue a directive limiting the use of military personnel for domestic purposes, warning against potential misuse by President-elect Donald Trump after he takes office on Jan. 20. The senators emphasized the significance of establishing clear guidelines to prevent the deployment of the military against American citizens without explicit constitutional or congressional authorization.

The Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of federal troops in domestic law enforcement unless authorized by the Constitution or Congress, serves as the foundation for the request. While the Insurrection Act provides a narrow exception in cases of insurrection, rebellion, or extreme unrest, Warren and Blumenthal called for further restrictions to prevent abuse.

“Any deployment of federal forces must occur only when state or local authorities are overwhelmed and unable to ensure public safety,” the senators wrote. They also emphasized the importance of consulting Congress before deploying troops and ensuring service members understand their obligations to reject unlawful orders.

The senators’ letter notes growing concerns over Trump’s rhetoric and past actions. During his first term, Trump considered invoking the Insurrection Act to respond to Black Lives Matter protests, and some allies urged him to declare martial law after his 2020 election defeat. More recently, Trump has suggested using the military to deport immigrants without permanent legal status and relocating troops from overseas to the southern border. He has repeatedly referred to political opponents as “the enemy from within,” raising alarms about potential overreach.

In an interview with Fox News before the election, Trump said, “I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the—and it should be very easily handled by—if necessary, by the National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military.”

The Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that aims to limit presidential power, generally prohibits federal troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement. However, the Insurrection Act creates an exception, allowing the president to deploy military forces during extreme civil unrest. Critics, including civil liberties groups, have warned that Trump could exploit this loophole to misuse military power.

Joseph Nunn, a counsel at the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, has already raised concerns about the Insurrection Act’s broad discretion. “Unless Congress acts now to reform this dangerous and antiquated law, there’s little anyone could do to stop him,” Nunn wrote last year, pointing to fears that Trump would abuse his authority if re-elected.

Warren and Blumenthal urged Biden to issue a directive that clarifies the deployment of military forces domestically only when civilian authorities are unable to maintain order and protect civil liberties. They also stressed the importance of adhering to the Standing Rules for the Use of Force, respecting constitutional protections like the writ of habeas corpus, and ensuring transparency by publishing all relevant legal authorities.

The senators’ offices said their letter speaks for itself but appeared aimed at drawing public attention to the issue in hopes of deterring Trump from reversing any directive issued by Biden. “The Constitution is clear, and it is essential that we uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of all Americans,” they wrote.

Feature Image: Photo provided by NNPA

The post Democratic Senators urge Biden to restrict military deployment appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

    For months, Florida Congressman Byron Donalds has been seen on cable news defending Donald Trump. There have even been times when Rep. Donalds has been called out for misrepresenting or glossing over many of Trump’s assertions that “crime is on the rise in the United States and increasing because of illegal immigration.

     “You’re lying. You’re lying, Congressman,” exclaimed CNN political analyst Keith Boykin during an episode of Abby Phillip’s show News Night on Oct. 1 on the question of crime.

      “It’s true, I’m not lying,” Donald shot back. The moment was just one of many times the top Trump surrogate defended the President. Surprisingly, Donalds has yet to be chosen for a cabinet-level position in Trump’s Administration.

     Another dedicated Black surrogate, U.S. Senator Tim Scott, has yet to be selected by Trump to join the Administration.

     Both Donalds and Scott may be looking at other positions. Rep. Donalds is said to be weighing the possibility of running for governor of Florida as current governor Ron DeSantis’ term is limited. Senator Scott would have to resign from the U.S. Senate to serve in Trump’s Administration. If his history is a guide, Scott would likely be aware that the level of turnover during Trump’s first four-year term from 2017 to 2021 was filled with cabinet departures and short stints marked by controversy and, at times, chaos.

     “Guess y’all were on the campaign trail betraying your people for NOTHING…Not even an opportunity Byron Donalds and Tim Scott. Y’all are the WEAKEST LINKS in the Black community,” wrote Nikki Barnes on the situation.

     But it’s not just that Donalds and Scott have been so far passed over. Trump has only chosen three Black or Hispanic nominees for his cabinet or senior staff: Former Texas state lawmaker and motivational speaker Scott Turner, who is Black, for Housing and Urban Development; Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), who is Hispanic, for Labor and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is likely to be confirmed as the first-ever Hispanic secretary of State.

     Several of the selections have been highly controversial. The resumes of Trump’s selection for Department of Defense and Attorney General, Fox News Host Pete Hegseth and Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, have been questioned. Both men have reportedly been investigated for sexual assault-related allegations.

     The lack of qualifications has won the attention of many because many MAGA Republicans have railed against what they believe is a problem regarding diversity in hiring. But the recent hires of Fox News host Hegseth, who has no management experience, and Gaetz, who has no experience as a Judge or a prosecutor cited as another reason why the Trump Administration is expected to be damaging to federal employees, democracy and the rule of law.

      “When your Attorney General pick couldn’t even pass an FBI background check to be a field agent, you know you’ve completely sacrificed merit. I don’t ever want to hear another word about “unqualified” Black people not getting a damned thing. Not ever,” wrote Tim Wise, an expert on racism in America, on Trump’s recent appointees.

     Lauren Victoria Burke is an independent investigative journalist and the publisher of Black Virginia News. 

Feature Image: (Pictured from Left to right:) Rep. Byron Donalds official photo, 117th Congress / Photo: United States Congress. Official portrait of U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) / Photo: U.S. Senate Photographic Studio-Renee Bouchard. Former Executive Director of the White House Opportunity & Revitalization Council Scott Turner delivers remarks at the 2019 National Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Conference Tuesday, Sep. 10, 2019/ Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead. Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida/ Photo: US Senate.

The post Trump has nominated only one Black American to administrative position appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Protests have erupted in South Korea’s capital, Seoul, where demonstrators clashed with soldiers and police following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law. The controversial order, which grants military authorities sweeping powers over governance, has sparked widespread opposition and is drawing concerns in the United States, where President-elect Donald Trump has expressed plans to invoke a similar Insurrection Act if reelected.

The U.S., a key ally of South Korea, expressed serious concerns about the developments. National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett confirmed that Washington was not informed of Yoon’s decision. “This crisis threatens not only South Korea’s democracy but also the stability of the alliance structure the U.S. has worked to strengthen in East Asia to counter North Korea and China,” former deputy director of national intelligence Beth Sanner said on CNN.

Martial Law Sparks Political and Civil Chaos

Inside South Korea’s National Assembly, lawmakers voted unanimously to revoke Yoon’s martial law declaration, invoking constitutional authority that requires the president to comply with their decision. However, Yoon has not rescinded the order, and military officials have stated it will remain in effect until the president acts.

In a televised address, Yoon defended the move as necessary to “defend the free Republic of Korea” and claimed it targeted “pro-North Korean anti-state forces.” He accused the opposition Democratic Party of obstructing his policies, including budget approvals and cabinet appointments, to destabilize the country.

Protesters demanded an end to martial law outside the Assembly and called for Yoon’s resignation. Chants of “End martial law!” filled the air as armed troops withdrew from the parliament building. The crisis marked the first imposition of martial law in South Korea in 1980, when the nation used it during a military dictatorship.

U.S. Concerns Over Executive Power and the Insurrection Act

The South Korean crisis is reverberating in America, where Trump’s reported plans to invoke the Insurrection Act have reignited debates over executive power. The Insurrection Act, originally enacted in 1792 and last updated in 1874, allows a president to deploy the military domestically in cases of rebellion, civil unrest, or obstruction of federal law.

Despite the act’s intended use for extraordinary circumstances, critics contend its ambiguous language poses a significant risk of abuse, especially from a president who has pledged to impose dictatorship from the start of his term. One provision empowers the president to use military force or “any other means” to address any “unlawful combination or conspiracy” that interferes with federal law. Legal experts warn that this broad discretion could enable a president to justify military deployments for almost any domestic issue.

Adding to the concern, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the courts cannot review a president’s decision to invoke the act. Congress can only counter such a decision by passing legislation to end the deployment, requiring a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., has introduced legislation to reform the act, describing it as a “giant loophole” in democratic safeguards. “Donald Trump’s plans illuminate his total misunderstanding of the U.S. military’s purpose. It exists to defend the nation, not to serve personal political goals,” Blumenthal said. “Unchecked military authority undermines democracy. Accountability and civilian governance are the cornerstones of freedom and must be protected at all costs.”

Feature Image: Wikimedia Commons

The post South Korea’s Martial Law crisis raises alarms in U.S. appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .