Saturday, July 11, 2026

Trump weighed national emergency to bypass election agency before firing leaders: report

Bennito L. Kelty
July 10, 2026 
RAW STORY


Marty Myers begins to put away the booths used for voting as Michigan polls close, in Kalamazzoo, Michigan, U.S., November 5, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Osorio/File Photo

The Trump administration plotted ways to bypass an election agency before firing its leaders, according to reporting by Reuters.

According to four anonymous sources who spoke to Reuters, the White House "spent months" mulling ways around Election Assistance Commission guidelines for state voting machines. Earlier this week, Trump fired two Democratic members of the commission and allowed its lone Republican commissioner to resign just months before the midterms.

Some Trump White House officials wanted the EAC to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement for the national mail voter registration form. Others, as far back as last fall, considered whether to declare a national emergency, according to Reuters.

The idea of declaring a national emergency came from a recommendation by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The emergency declaration would be followed by the creation of a federal task force that would compel states to address vulnerabilities in their voting systems, sources told Reuters.

Reuters noted that the report with those recommendations was never published, and the ODNI did not respond to a request for comment. However, two sources told Reuters that complaints about the commission continued since those recommendations came up last fall.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security, ODNI, and the White House also met with EAC leaders around the same time to discuss flaws in voting machines that they believed "could have contributed to abnormalities in 2020," sources told Reuters.

According to Reuters, the Trump administration has not made it immediately clear why it ousted the last remaining heads of the EAC, but Reuters' sources say that the administration was "frustrated" with how slowly the commissioners were updating voting machine guidelines.


‘A Pathetic Power Grab’: Trump Purges Bipartisan Election Assistance Commission

“This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration,” said Arizona’s secretary of state.



Election Assistance Commission officials Thomas Hicks and Christy McCormick appeared at a House hearing on May 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Jul 10, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US President Donald Trump late Thursday forced out the remaining three members of an independent, bipartisan commission that assists state election officials across the country, a move that critics condemned as a “pathetic power grab” ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The two Democratic members of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks, were fired, and Republican Commissioner Christy McCormick resigned at the White House’s request, according to ProPublica. The agency, established by Congress more than two decades ago, now lacks leadership and any ability to make decisions, just months before the 2026 elections.

The EAC, as its website states, is “an independent, bipartisan commission whose mission is to help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process.” In an executive order last year, Trump ordered the EAC to implement proof-of-citizenship requirements in the federal voter registration process, along with other changes. The president’s effort to impose his policy demands on the EAC was mostly blocked in federal court.

Trump, who has said he wants his administration to “take over” voting nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterms, has since taken other steps that watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers say amount to an attempt to preemptively subvert the coming elections, including a sweeping assault on mail-in voting—which is also facing legal challenges. Legislatively, Trump is pushing Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that experts say would prevent millions of Americans from voting.

Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, said Thursday’s EAC firings “are deeply concerning in light of President Trump’s relentless efforts to try to interfere in elections.”

“These removals leave the agency without leadership and unable to carry out its major responsibilities,” said Waldman. “The guardrails Congress placed on this agency are clear and must be followed: The Election Assistance Commission was designed to be bipartisan with four members, no more than two of which can be from the same political party. The agency cannot make any significant decisions or take any significant actions unless three confirmed commissioners agree. Until bipartisan replacements are confirmed, the agency cannot lawfully make any decisions that affect how Americans vote.”

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said Trump’s termination of EAC commissioners underscores that “he’s scared of the voting power of the American people.”

“This move is another pathetic attempt to sow doubt in our elections, which are safely and expertly run by states and localities,” said Gilbert. “This agency deserves a steady hand and expert leadership. That said, it is important for voters to know that states and localities, not the EAC, run our elections. Even more importantly, it is the voters who decide who takes office.”

The EAC firings came less than two weeks after the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court handed Trump the power to purge independent agencies at will with its Trump v. Slaughter ruling, erasing around 90 years of precedent.

Election law expert Rick Hasen warned in a blog post on Thursday that Trump “could try to direct the commissioner-less EAC to do his bidding, for example by stating that the EAC must amend the federal voter registration form that states must accept for federal elections to include documentary proof of citizenship.”

“Trump’s first voting-related EO tried to do this, and he was stymied. But that was acting through the commissioners and before the Slaughter case,” Hasen noted. “If he tries anything like this, it will be high-profile and very important litigation that will end up at the Supreme Court on the emergency docket over the summer.”

Adrian Fontes, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state, said in a statement late Thursday that the EAC purge was “irresponsible and dangerous,” accusing the administration of remaining “dead set on causing chaos for our election officials across this country.”

“This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration,” Fontes added.

Trump wipes out entire election agency —and nobody's sure what happens next


U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a Rose Garden Club Lunch 
at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 6, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci

July 10, 2026 

President Donald Trump fired all three remaining members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission on Thursday, abruptly disabling the only federal agency devoted solely to election administration at a moment when Trump has sought to reshape federal voting rules.

The two Democratic commissioners, Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland, were notified by email. “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” the email said. It was signed by Morgan DeWitt Snow, deputy director of presidential personnel in the Executive Office of the President.

The third commissioner, Republican Christy McCormick, was allowed to resign, according to three sources within the agency. McCormick declined to comment when reached by phone. The agency’s fourth commissioner, Republican Donald Palmer, voluntarily departed the agency earlier this year to join the Heritage Foundation.


The firings leave the four-member commission with no commissioners, meaning it cannot take official action until new members are installed. They also come days after the Supreme Court granted the president power to fire leaders of independent agencies, weakening a legal framework that for decades had insulated bipartisan federal commissions from direct White House control.

The EAC was created by Congress after the 2000 election to help states improve election administration without federalizing elections.Its role is mostly supportive: distributing federal election funds, maintaining the national mail voter registration form, testing and certifying voting systems, and offering best practices and guidance to state and local election officials.


Trump cannot simply install replacement EAC commissioners on his own. Commissioners must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and no more than two can come from the same party.

Neither the White House nor the EAC immediately responded to a request for comment.

A possible legal test after Supreme Court rulings


The Supreme Court issued two major removal-power decisions at the end of its term in late June. In Trump v. Slaughter, the court overturned decades of precedent and said that the president may remove leaders of independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, which was the subject of the case.

In a separate case involving the Federal Reserve, however, the court recognized a different rule for Fed governors, pointing to the long historical independence of central banking institutions.

Whether bipartisan election agencies fall into the first category, the second, or some yet-undefined exception remains unresolved.


“It’s an open question about the EAC and the [Federal Election Commission],” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA. “The question has not been tested as to whether political entities created with bipartisan balance might be subject to another exception.”

Earlier this year, Trump fired Ellen Weintraub, a Democratic commissioner on the FEC who had served for years in holdover status after her term expired. Weintraub did not sue, leaving unresolved whether the president can fire members of bipartisan election commissions at will.

If any of the fired EAC commissioners challenge their removals, the case could become the first direct test of whether the Supreme Court’s new removal-power doctrine extends to federal election agencies structured around bipartisan balance.

The Help America Vote Act, which created the EAC, says the president is supposed to consider recommendations from the Senate and House majority and minority leaders when nominating new EAC commissioners.


In practice, Hasen said, that means both parties typically work with the administration to identify nominees. But “that’s more a custom than something that’s in the statute itself.”

That means Trump could try to nominate Democrats acceptable to him, though they would still need Senate confirmation. HAVA does not appear to create a separate shortcut for temporary commissioners: Vacancies are filled “in the manner in which the original appointment was made,” meaning presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. A recess appointment could raise separate legal questions.

A bipartisan agency with no commissioners left

The EAC does not run elections or tell local officials how to run them, but the agency has long been politically contested. Congress designed it as a bipartisan commission, with no more than two members from the same party, but vacancies, partisan fights, and leadership turmoil have repeatedly limited its ability to act. Election officials and watchdogs have also criticized the agency at different points for failing to assert itself on election security, even as its responsibilities became more urgent after Russian interference in the 2016 election.


Hicks, the commission’s chair, had served on the EAC since 2014 and previously worked for Democrats on the House Administration Committee, which oversees federal election law and election administration. Hovland joined the commission in 2019 after being unanimously confirmed by the Senate and had previously served as acting chief counsel to the Senate Rules Committee and as a senior counsel on election matters.

McCormick had served on the EAC since 2014 and previously worked as a senior trial attorney in the voting section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

What happens while the EAC is frozen

The immediate practical effect is clear: The EAC cannot act.


That could stall not only routine commission business, but also any attempt by the Trump administration to use the agency to alter the federal voter registration form or voting-system standards before the 2026 midterms.The EAC also oversees the federal testing and certification program for voting systems, accrediting labs and certifying whether machines meet federal standards known as the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. Many states rely on that certification before allowing voting equipment to be purchased or used.

The EAC has been without a quorum before. For years, vacancies rendered the agency unable to perform major parts of its work, contributing to long delays in updating voting-system guidance. The agency regained stability only after the Senate confirmed new commissioners in 2019.

Now, with the 2026 election cycle underway, the agency is again frozen — this time not because commissioners resigned or terms expired, but because the president removed all of them at once.

Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

Trump blitzed by Wall Street Journal for 'destroying US jobs and raising prices'

Tom Boggioni
July 10, 2026 
RAW STORY


Donald Trump speaks with members of the media. REUTERS/Anna Rose Layden

President Donald Trump's boast on Truth Social that his tariff war spurred Toyota to move its Tacoma truck manufacturing operations to the U.S. was drowned in derision by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal this week.

The conservative WSJ board on Thursday rained on Trump's parade by pointing out that the manufacturing move should be celebrated, but, in the larger picture, his tariffs have been a disaster and Americans are still furious.

"The President is right that his tariffs are at work—in destroying U.S. jobs and raising prices," the editors wrote.

"Mr. Trump’s Section 232 national security tariffs on autos and parts have cost $35.2 billion through April of this year, and his steel and aluminum tariffs another $17.5 billion, according to U.S. government data."

Since taking office in January, the U.S. has hemorrhaged roughly 75,000 manufacturing positions. More than one-third evaporated directly from the automotive and related parts sectors—the industries Trump claims to be protecting.

The board argued the administration's tariff experiment has obliterated American manufacturing.

"Mr. Trump and his advisers claim that foreigners pay his border taxes, but the evidence shows that U.S. companies, workers and consumers are picking up most of the tab," the board wrote.

Add to that, they asserted Trump is forcing consumers to balk at buying new cars over economic uncertainty.

"Many are driving clunkers for longer—and paying more for repairs if they break down—or buying used cars," the editorial stated. "New vehicle sales have averaged 15.9 million in the first half of this year, down from the 17 to 18 million in the five years before the pandemic.

"When people buy fewer cars, auto makers don’t need as many workers. His trade oscillations and border taxes are a major reason the economy hasn’t performed as well as during his first term, and why Americans are so unhappy."
JD Vance walloped on Fox Business as analyst groans he 'does not understand' economics


Matthew Chapman
July 10, 2026 
RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks with the media as he arrives at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., May 28, 2026. Matt Rourke/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Vice President JD Vance took a severe tongue-lashing on Fox Business Friday, as hosts continued to react to his strange recent statements attacking legendary conservative economist Milton Friedman.

"I think JD Vance, on economics, just generally does not understand the role of capitalism and investment and so forth," said analyst Liz Peek, to the approval of her peers Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow.

Friedman, a Nobel laureate and founding member of the influential "Chicago school" of economics, often faces criticism on the left — but it's rare to see it from a Republican.

Vance gave the remarks during an interview with The Daily Wire.

“Milton Friedman’s ideas made more sense in the 1980s because they were being advocated in a country that still had a very rich and powerful institutional Christianity,” said Vance. “If you look at modern Britain and the result of Margaret Thatcher’s policies, you would say that her policies actually got Britain further away from that ideal and not closer to that ideal. I think that meritocracy can steal from us a sense of what really, really matters.”

Vance added that “American economic policy on the right is now much more Alexander Hamilton than it is Milton Friedman. I think that’s obviously a good thing.”

Moore, himself a former Trump strategist, penned a scathing response to these comments in the Marshall Independent, writing that Vance "sounded much more like a Mitt Romney, big-government RINO than a Trump or Ronald Reagan."


Trump's struggling fair evacuated again in another setback on its final day

Bennito L. Kelty
July 10, 2026 
RAW STORY


Alessandra Buttice, 14, leans against her father as they watch a large screen and listen to U.S. President Donald Trump speak at a Fourth of July rally, at The Great American State Fair, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 4, 2026. REUTERS/Cheney Orr

Trump's Great American State Fair suffered another evacuation on its closing day, according to an announcement.

In a post on X, Freedom 250, the Trump-backed organization that put together the fair, announced, "The Great American State Fair has been postponed," and requested that participants "please make your way safely and carefully to the nearest exit."

The Great American State Fair, which was hosted on the National Mall, has been panned by critics because of poor attendance. Last week, organizers were forced to suspend the event amid a heat wave. On Thursday, the fair was evacuated due to "severe weather."

The latest disruption came as the National Weather Service in Baltimore/Washington warned that a few storms could bring locally damaging wind gusts and isolated flooding across the D.C. area on Friday afternoon and evening.

Although the event is supposed to wrap up on Friday, July 10, Freedom 250 wrote, "We plan to reopen for the evening concert" despite asking everyone to leave. Organizers did not share why the event was evacuated and postponed.


Op-Ed: The shallow approach to automation vs jobs is proving labour and tech experts right, but it’s messy

DIGITAL JOURNAL
July 7, 2026

Investors are awaiting the release of key US jobs data this week 
– Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP SCOTT OLSON

Even the theory of automation vs jobs isn’t stacking up. Layoffs and subsequent rehires are making news daily. Frontline managers are finding out that automation creates more unpaid non-core business work in just finding fixes. The simplest description of the hype for the transition to automation is that it’s absurd. Experts in technologies have been saying endlessly that automation simply can’t and shouldn’t do many things on its own.

Labour experts agree. Many critics have said that even the idea that automation instantly replaces jobs simply proves that management knows less than nothing about those jobs. They often only see reports, not the realities of the work.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has spelled out very clearly and patiently the mix of perceptions about automation and the future of work. That future is looking very indecisive right now.

Perceptions vs facts

Carnegie nailed some issues regarding the perceptions of automation very effectively. The fear of replacement could now be called a global psychosis, particularly at the white-collar level. Nor is the role of AI well understood in any practical context regarding actual work roles.

There’s an emerging view of AI as “drop-in remote workers”, according to Carnegie, for example. Given the ongoing somewhat hysterical and hyper-expensive prejudice against human remote workers, it’s interesting to watch this logic suffocate itself in contradictory arguments against itself.

This is a big unsolved cultural problem and the problem, not the solution, is making the decisions on the fly. This myopic worldview clearly lacks practical comprehension, and “ideological executive blindness” based on unrealised and often poorly defined perceived savings is making it worse.

Are people cheaper and better?

The baseline theory that automation saves money by reducing the cost of wages is so wrong and so far off target that it’s excruciatingly absurd. It could also be the exact opposite, and brutally expensive.

To start with:

How is it cheaper to adopt a whole class of major technologies at a much higher initial cost than the fixed costs of existing jobs?

Human jobs can be designed to deliver values on a clear cost-to-outlay basis. Automation starts as a cost, and you have to derive value out of it. 

The most basic operational rules, practices and laws related to automation and labour are barely at the foetal stage. Even China recently enacted laws prohibiting and restricting AI layoffs.

Humans don’t need the sort of 24/7 unquantifiable expenses that automation imposes. Technologies in the workplace inevitably need costly assessments, maintenance, upgrades, at-call SaaS, and eventually replacement in relatively short cycles.

Tech is an ongoing acquisition process with never-ending mixed results in direct and indirect costs.


Technologies become redundant faster than people, particularly in AI.

Then there’s fitting automation into that tactless thing called business reality. Most business tech is a patchwork of various vintages of technology, safe or unsafe to use in the modern business environment. Fraud alone is becoming a tech sector in its own right, let alone spreadsheet blunders.

AI makes and often can’t fix its own mistakes, especially when those mistakes show up on balance sheets and require more outlay. Those mistakes could well be based on situations and issues any experienced person would automatically avoid. Expertise is a real value, not a perceived value.

The net takeaway from this elegant if verbose presentation of the glaringly obvious is that “automation uber alles” is definitely no way to run a hot dog stand. The lack of depth in due diligence evaluation of automation is downright dangerous.


Finding the right fits for real-world applications

Every business, every market, every customer base, every job, and every workplace is different. There simply can’t be a One Size Fits All in automation at any level.

Productivity is a case in point in matching jobs to people. Let’s start with HR. Trying to fit a human being into a job isn’t usual practice. It’s more likely the person will be stuffed into a job with varying degrees of good fit or otherwise. High staff turnover means a lot of bad fits. You couldn’t call it productive in any sense.

There’s now even an AI tool for predicting staff resignations. This somewhat ironic development reflects a need to manage experience, expertise, handling tasks at all levels, and the most basic production fluencies in the workplace. In-house learned capabilities are crucial to smooth workflows.

These almost invisible skill sets dictate real productivity throughout the entire food chain of doing business. Turnover loses those skills and their productive values.

So, losing people is likely to be a net own goal, particularly when you lose all your in-house productive fluencies. Again, automation doesn’t solve these problems. It makes them harder to manage. Good fits for people are the only way any business has ever worked.


It’s not automation or jobs. It’s both.

The emerging picture is very different from the “jobs vs automation” scenario. According to MIT, positive impacts are emerging even in the much-misunderstood world of coding time usage and productivity. Reduced burnout was one of the findings. It also strongly refutes the idea of cost-cutting, particularly for junior-level staff. Training was actually enhanced using generative AI, adding skill values.

The clearest indicators are that automation is reconfiguring work, not merely automating it. The short-term cost-based thinking just doesn’t work. An isolating effect of AI was also seen as a problem, reducing essential collaboration.

There’s another horizon here, and it’s the real story that hasn’t been written yet. Jobs aren’t static things. Tasks change, objectives change, and priorities change. Unknown roles and whole new environments are likely to be the new frontier of work.

__________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
OP-ED

New normal of Trump’s America: bigotry, cowardice and blind obedience

 Common Dreams
July 9, 2026


A sign and candles during a vigil after the fatal shooting of Mexican motorist Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by an ICE agent in Houston, Texas, U.S., July 8, 2026. REUTERS/Antranik Tavitian see less

On July 7, an Immigration Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican national. According to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Araujo “weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer resulting in our officer firing his weapon in self-defense.” As of the time of this writing, the agency has yet to provide any evidence.

This shooting comes days after a massive surge in ICE arrests. Between June 26 and June 30, 10,000 people were reportedly detained by immigration agents.

This is a tragic story—one that we have seen many times before.

Silverio Villegas González: On September 12, Villegas González, a Mexican national, was shot and killed by an ICE agent. This occurred during the agency’s “Operation Midway Blitz” in the Chicago area.

Araujo was not the first of ICE’s victims. So long as the agency exists, he will not be the last.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleged that the ICE agent “was hit by the car and dragged a significant distance. Fearing for his own life, the officer fired his weapon.” DHS further claimed that the agent “sustained multiple injuries.”

These were lies. Bodycam footage collected by Franklin Park police officers show the ICE agent saying he “got dragged a little bit” and describing his own injuries as “nothing major.” Surveillance video shows that Villegas González did not drive toward or hit either agent. Several eyewitnesses further refute DHS’ narrative.

Marimar Martinez: On October 4, Martinez, a US citizen, was shot five times by Border Patrol agent Charles Exum. In a statement, DHS described this as “defensive fire.” They alleged, without evidence, that Martinez and her fellow “domestic terrorists” “ambushed” and “rammed federal agents with their vehicles.” On social media, FBI Director Kash Patel posted a video—from an unrelated incident—of a black SUV aggressively ramming an agent’s truck as “proof” of Martinez’s crime.

These, too, were lies. Bodycam footage shows the agents already had their weapons drawn as one of them turned the steering wheel toward Martinez’s car. One agent can be heard saying, “It’s time to get aggressive.”

Text messages reveal the “big time” support Exum received from then-Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks, and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in the aftermath of this incident. Hours after the shooting, Bovino even offered to extend Exum’s retirement with CBP “in light of [his] excellent service in Chicago.” He added, “you have much yet left to do!”

In a group chat, Exum bragged about how he “fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes.”

Renee Nicole Good: On January 7, Noem alleged that Good, a US citizen, “weaponize[d] her vehicle” and “attempted to run” over ICE agent Jonathan Ross. This act of so-called “domestic terrorism” justified Ross’s lethal action.

Once again, more lies. Footage captured on that day definitively showed—from multiple camera angles—that Good was turning away from Ross as he opened fire. He was never in danger.

Six months later, her murder has yet to be properly investigated. This was always the government’s plan. The day after her death, Vice President JD Vance insisted that the officer had “absolute immunity.” A few weeks afterwards, six federal prosecutors resigned over the Justice Department’s reluctance to investigate Ross. An FBI agent who had opened a civil rights investigation into Good’s death also resigned after she was ordered to reclassify it as an investigation into an assault on the ICE agent.

To these names, there are many we can add: Ruben Ray Martinez (shot and killed), Alex Pretti (shot and killed), Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis (shot), Jesus Javier Gomez Islas (shot, left permanently blind in his right eye), Keith Porter Jr. (shot and killed), Carlitos Ricardo Parias (shot).


Trump’s bigotry, Congress’ cowardice, and the Supreme Court’s blind obedience; a government devoid of checks and balances at war with its own people—this is America after 250 years.

This is the new normal of Donald Trump’s America—federal agents flood our neighborhoods. A poorly trained, gun-happy immigration agent kills someone. The administration alleges, without evidence, that the victim was responsible. No proper investigation is conducted. No one is held accountable. A family is torn apart. A community traumatized. Rinse and repeat.

We do not yet know all the details surrounding Araujo’s death. Perhaps we will never.


For now, there are two things we can take as certainties: First, any official narrative put forth by ICE, DHS, or the Trump administration cannot be trusted. They have repeatedly lied to the public, defended their killers, and blamed the victims. In their view, if you are killed by ICE, protest ICE, criticize ICE on social media, or even write a strongly worded email to ICE, then you are the criminal. You are the “domestic terrorist.”

Second, Araujo was not the first of ICE’s victims. So long as the agency exists, he will not be the last. The next victim could be anyone. Regardless of race or legal status, we are all vulnerable to Trump’s taxpayer-funded secret police.

This is the reality that we all find ourselves in—one that is nurtured and sustained by every aspect of the federal government: the Trump administration’s militarized immigration enforcement and crackdown on political dissent; a Congress that continues, despite the deaths, to provide billions to ICE and DHS; and a Supreme Court that gives ICE agents legal immunity to racially profile minorities and that paves the way for DHS to strip noncitizens of their protection status.


Trump’s bigotry, Congress’ cowardice, and the Supreme Court’s blind obedience; a government devoid of checks and balances at war with its own people—this is America after 250 years.

On Facebook, Araujo’s son, Ronaldo Salgado, wrote: “My father has been in this country for nearly 35 years, working in construction to provide for myself, my two brothers, and my mother. He was in the process of obtaining his work permit through the legal process. He was on his way to work, picking up his workers. My father did not deserve this.”

None of ICE’s victims deserved this.

We cannot allow ICE to continue tearing families apart. We cannot continue to suffer politicians and institutions that prioritize war and violence over helping the people they are meant to serve.

Despite the dangers, we must continue to protest ICE. We must advocate for progressive candidates and policies. The situation is bleak, but things will only get worse if we do nothing. The White House will not save us. The Supreme Court will not save us. Congress, as it stands, will not save us. We must save ourselves.



Trump backs off his standoff in dispute over Canadian bridge


Matthew Chapman
July 10, 2026 
RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump reaches for his phone as he makes an announcement about a trade deal with the U.K., in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 8, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo

President Donald Trump is quietly backing off an aggressive trade posture against Canada, which some were suspicious was an under-the-table handout to major GOP donors.

According to Politico, "Canada’s Housing and Infrastructure Department and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced Friday" that the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a new suspension bridge connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, "will open July 27. A statement from the Canadian government said the agreement was made 'with the support of the United States Government.'"

The bridge has sat closed for months after its completion, because President Donald Trump refused to open it, ostensibly in protest of Canadian trade practices unfair to the United States.

"Trump demanded at the time that the U.S. be given at least half ownership of the bridge, which has been under construction since 2018 and funded by a corporation owned by the Canadian government," said Politico — a contrast to the original agreement, under which "the U.S. and Canada would split toll revenue from the bridge 50/50 after Canada had recouped the amount it spent financing the project."

However, some political observers pointed out that the Gordie Howe Bridge stands to compete with the Ambassador Bridge, a privately owned bridge across the Detroit River under the control of a powerful family of trucking magnates that contributed to Trump's super PAC.

Whitmer cheered the development, saying in a statement, “This bridge is a testament to the enduring partnership between Michigan and Canada and what we can get done when we think big and bet on our shared future together. Thank you to our allies in Canada and to the Michiganders who advocated for years to get this done. Let’s keep working together to build a bright future for Michigan and Canada.”
Vonage brings carrier-backed fraud checks to Canada

Digital Journal Staff
July 6, 2026

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels

Fraud teams have spent years asking customers to prove they are not criminals. Vonage is betting Canadian mobile networks can take on more of that work in the background.

The Ericsson-owned company has launched its network-powered fraud prevention tools in Canada, giving enterprises and developers access to SIM Swap Detection and Silent Authentication through Vonage network APIs.

These APIs connect to carrier data through Aduna, a telecom API aggregator, and EnStream, a joint venture between Bell, Rogers, and Telus that provides access to mobile identity and network data.

This is key, because Vonage can use carrier data, including recent SIM changes, instead of forcing every customer through another one-time code. Vonage cites Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre figures showing 33,854 fraud cases and $544 million in losses in Canada in 2025.

CIOs and CISOs now have another control to weigh. Carrier-based checks may help at moments such as account recovery or payment changes, but someone still has to decide where the extra verification belongs.

SIM Swap Detection is designed to flag recent SIM card changes in real time, a common warning sign in account takeover attempts. Vonage says that the tool can improve fraud detection rates by 30% to 40%, based on estimates from prior implementations and fraud benchmarks.

Silent Authentication takes a different route. Instead of sending a one-time passcode, it uses mobile network intelligence to verify the user’s phone number and SIM association through the device’s active mobile data session. Vonage says the tool can fall back to RCS, WhatsApp, SMS, voice, or email when needed.

“As generative AI evolves and fraud tooling is becoming increasingly available, fraudsters are becoming increasingly more sophisticated, outpacing traditional security measures. This makes network-based verification a critical component for modern enterprises,” says Christophe Van de Weyer, president and head of business unit API at Vonage.

Ontario-based Storage Guardian is already using Vonage’s SIM Swap Detection in its incident response offering.

“By integrating Vonage’s network powered solutions into our Incident Response offering we are providing our clients with the tools to ensure seamless, secure communication during critical events,” says Omry Farajun, owner/operator of Storage Guardian.

The governance question now moves to implementation. If network signals become part of identity verification, Canadian technology leaders will need to decide who owns the risk model, who sees the data, and where customer friction is allowed to show up.


Final shots

CIOs now have another authentication option to assess, one that uses carrier data rather than relying only on app-level checks.

CISOs will need to decide where SIM swap detection and silent authentication belong in the fraud control stack.

The practical test is whether these checks reduce account takeover risk without turning every login or recovery flow into a customer support problem.
Inside CSE’s annual read on Canada’s cyber threats

Digital Journal Staff
July 7, 2026

Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels

Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSE) informs government decisions, defends critical systems, and counters threats to the country’s security and economy.

Specifically, CSE (now in its 80th year of service) provides intelligence on foreign signals, cyber security and information assurance, foreign cyber operations, and technical and operational assistance to federal partners.

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security is part of CSE, and as the public-facing agency, is positioned as the country’s technical authority on cyber security.

The agency’s 2025-2026 Annual Report, released June 29, is a public tally of what it spent the year defending against. It’s also valuable for technology leaders responsible for critical systems in Canadian organizations.

CSE produced 3,976 foreign intelligence reports for the federal government, documenting foreign-based threats and global events. They also acted against 10 of the most significant ransomware groups that sought to harm Canada and its allies, and ran 1,772 supply chain risk assessments to strengthen cyber resilience within the government.

The Cyber Centre responded to more than 3,200 cyber security incidents affecting federal institutions and critical infrastructure over the year. It issued 25 alerts, 995 advisories, and more than 97,000 notifications through the 1,363 organizations subscribed to the National Cyber Threat Notification System (NCTNS).

CSE also pointed to new work on modern secure digital infrastructure, stronger cyber defence capabilities, artificial intelligence, and post-quantum cryptography, funded by Budget 2025’s investment in defence.

“As CSE marks 80 years of service to Canada, we continue to adapt to a security environment, with cyber threats growing in scale and complexity,” said Caroline Xavier, Chief of CSE.

Two key numbers from the report for Canadian organizations are 1,363 (the number of NCTNS subscribers) and 97,000 (how many alerts the system sent).

The system is a free service available to Canadian organizations from any sector, and of any size, and can work in tandem with existing security measures. Subscribers receive notifications on potential system threats, including technical vulnerabilities, system compromises, and malware infections.

For something free and built to catch potentially debilitating attacks, that’s a short subscriber list.
Final ShotsCSE released its 2025-2026 Annual Report, tallying a year of foreign intelligence work, cyber defence, and action against major ransomware groups.
The Cyber Centre responded to more than 3,200 incidents and sent over 97,000 threat notifications through its National Cyber Threat Notification System.
The NCTNS is free and open to any Canadian organization, but only 1,363 have subscribed.
After the AI gold rush, Canadians are deciding what should stay human

Dr. Tim Sandle
DIGITAL  JOURNAL
July 6, 2026

Working in an office. — Image by © Tim Sandle

For the past two years, the dominant narrative around artificial intelligence has been one of rapid adoption. New tools have promised greater productivity, automation, creativity, and convenience. Businesses have invested heavily, governments have launched national AI strategies, and consumers have experimented with everything from chatbots to AI-generated content.

However, rather than asking what AI can do, many people are beginning to ask where AI should stop. A recent survey conducted by Hint App across 12,487 adults in North America (including Canada), Europe, Latin America, Australia, and the UK suggests that a growing number of people are deliberately setting boundaries around their use of artificial intelligence.

According to the survey, 44 percent of respondents have intentionally reduced their use of AI, while 42 percent no longer rely on AI for important personal decisions. Nearly half believe that emotional judgment and meaningful conversations should remain primarily human.

The findings do not suggest an anti-technology backlash; instead, the findings suggest a further step towards digital maturity.

Canada’s AI success story


Canada has been one of the world’s early AI leaders, producing pioneering researchers such as Geoffrey Hinton and helping establish globally recognized AI clusters in Toronto, Montréal, Edmonton, and Waterloo. The country’s new national strategy,

AI for All,” places artificial intelligence at the centre of economic growth, productivity improvements, and public-sector modernization. The federal government argues that AI can improve healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and public services while helping Canadian businesses remain globally competitive.

At the same time, Canadian policymakers have emphasised trust, responsible deployment, transparency, and public confidence as essential elements of future AI adoption. Concerns around privacy, job security, democracy, and human wellbeing feature prominently within the strategy. As AI becomes commonplace, the challenge is no longer convincing people to use it. Instead, the challenge may be determining where its use genuinely adds value.

Research from Toronto Metropolitan University’s Social Media Lab found that approximately two-thirds of Canadians have experimented with generative AI tools. However, only a minority use such tools regularly, and significant concerns remain regarding privacy, ethical risks, misinformation, and critical thinking. The study also found widespread uncertainty about how AI companies collect and manage personal information.

Similarly, KPMG’s Canadian Generative AI Adoption Index found that AI use in Canadian workplaces continues to rise, with many employees reporting productivity gains. Yet the same research identified concerns about technological change, workforce readiness, and the need for greater AI literacy and training.

These findings suggest Canadians are both enthusiastic and cautious

The rise of “AI-free” spaces

One of the most interesting elements of the Hint survey is the emergence of intentionally AI-free periods. Nearly one-third of respondents reported building regular breaks from AI into their lives.

This mirrors broader digital wellbeing movements that previously focused on social media use, smartphone addiction, and screen-time reduction. People increasingly recognise that technologies designed to maximize efficiency do not always improve wellbeing. The question that arises is whether every aspect of life benefits from algorithmic assistance.

For example, many people appear comfortable using AI to summarize documents, generate drafts, organize information, or assist with routine tasks. However, far fewer are comfortable turning to AI for relationship advice, emotional support, family decisions, or matters involving personal identity.

This distinction reflects a growing recognition that some forms of decision-making involve empathy, moral reasoning, lived experience, and interpersonal understanding, areas where humans continue to hold important advantages.

Perhaps the most interesting survey result is that 36 percent of respondents felt that reliance on AI had reduced trust in their own judgment. For decades, technologies have helped humans extend their capabilities. Calculators assist with mathematics. GPS systems guide navigation. Search engines provide access to information. AI represents a further step in that progression. However, AI differs because it increasingly performs cognitive tasks that many people previously considered uniquely human.

When individuals begin outsourcing writing, decision-making, problem-solving, and interpersonal reflection, questions naturally emerge about skill retention and confidence. Canadian researchers and policymakers have increasingly emphasised AI literacy not simply as a technical competency but as a means of enabling citizens to engage critically with AI-generated outputs. The objective is not blind acceptance or rejection, but informed use.

The early years of AI focused on experimentation. Many organisations and individuals rushed to discover what AI could accomplish. Future discussions may focus more on governance, boundaries, and human oversight.