Wednesday, January 14, 2026

'Disgrace': Furor as Pete Hegseth's Pentagon partners with Elon Musk

Stephen Prager,
 Common Dreams
January 13, 2026 


Elon Musk and U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth laugh at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025 in this screengrab obtained from a video. REUTERS/Idrees Ali

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and the owner of the social media app X, has faced a mountain of outrage in recent weeks as his platform’s artificial intelligence chatbot “Grok” has been used to generate sexualized deepfake images of non-consenting women and children, and Musk himself has embraced open white nationalism.

But none of this seems to be of particular concern to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Despite the swirl of scandal, he announced on Monday that Musk’s chatbot would be given intimate access to reams of military data as part of what the department described as its new “AI acceleration strategy.”

During a speech at the headquarters of SpaceX, another company owned by Musk, Hegseth stood alongside the billionaire and announced that later this month, the department plans to “make all appropriate data” from the military’s IT systems available for “AI exploitation,” including “combat-proven operational data from two decades of military and intelligence operations.”

As the Associated Press noted, it’s a departure from the more cautious approach the Biden administration took toward integrating AI with the military, which included bans on certain uses “such as applications that would violate constitutionally protected civil rights or any system that would automate the deployment of nuclear weapons.”

While it’s unclear if those bans remain in place under President Donald Trump, Hegseth said during the speech he will seek to eschew the use of any AI models “that won’t allow you to fight wars” and will seek to act “without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications,” before adding that the Pentagon’s AI will not be “woke” or “equitable.”

He added that the department “will unleash experimentation, eliminate bureaucratic barriers, focus our investments, and demonstrate the execution approach needed to ensure we lead in military AI. He added that ”we will become an ‘AI-first’ warfighting force across all domains.

Hegseth’s embrace of Musk hardly comes as a surprise, given his role in the Trump administration’s dismantling of the administrative state as head of its so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) last year, and his record $290 million in support for the president’s 2024 election campaign.

But it is quite noteworthy given the type of notoriety Grok has received of late after it introduced what it called “spicy mode” for the chatbot late last year, which “allows users to digitally remove clothing from images and has been deployed to produce what amounts to child pornography—along with other disturbing behavior, such as sexualizing the deputy prime minister of Sweden,” according to a report last month from MS NOW (formerly MSNBC).

It’s perhaps the most international attention the bot has gotten, with the United Kingdom’s media regulator launching a formal investigation on Monday to determine whether Grok violated the nation’s Online Safety Act by failing to protect users from illegal content, including child sexual abuse material.

The investigation could result in fines, which, if not followed, could lead to the chatbot being banned, as it was over the weekend in Malaysia and Indonesia. Authorities in the European UnionFranceBrazil, and elsewhere are also reviewing the app for its spread of nonconsensual sexual images, according to the New York Times.

It’s only the latest scandal involving the Grok, which Musk pitched as an “anti-woke” and “truth-seeking” alternative to applications like ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini.

At several points last year, the chatbot drew attention for its sudden tendency to launch into racist and antisemitic tirades—praising Adolf Hitler, accusing Jewish people of controlling Hollywood and the government, and promoting Holocaust denial.

Before that, users were baffled when the bot began directing unrelated queries about everything from cats to baseball back to discussions about Musk’s factually dubious pet theory of “white genocide” in South Africa, which the chatbot later revealed it was “instructed” to talk about.

Hegseth’s announcement on Monday also comes as Musk has completed his descent into undisguised support for a white nationalist ideology over the past week.

The billionaire’s steady lurch to the far-right has been a years-long process—capped off last year, with his enthusiastic support for the neofascist Alternative for Germany Party and apparent Nazi salute at Trump’s second inauguration.

But his racist outlook was left impossible to deny last week when he expressed support for a pair of posts on X stating that white people must “reclaim our nations” or “be conquered, enslaved, raped, and genocided” and that “if white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered,” necessitating “white solidarity.”

While details about the expansiveness of Grok’s use by the military remain scarce, Musk’s AI platform, xAI, announced in July that it had inked a deal with the Pentagon worth nearly $200 million (notably just a week after the bot infamously referred to itself as “MechaHitler”).

In September, reportedly following direct pressure from the White House to roll it out “ASAP,” the General Services Administration announced a “OneGov” agreement, making Grok available to every federal agency for just $0.42 apiece.

That same month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Hegseth warning that Musk, who’d also used Grok extensively under DOGE to purge disloyal government employees, was “gaining improper advantages from unique access to DOD data and information.” She added that Grok’s propensity toward “inaccurate outputs and misinformation” could “harm DOD’s strategic decisionmaking.”

Following this week’s announcement, JB Branch, the Big Tech accountability advocate at Public Citizensaid on Tuesday that, “allowing an AI system with Grok’s track record of repeatedly generating nonconsensual sexualized images of women and children to access classified military or sensitive government data raises profound national security, civil rights, and public safety concerns.”

“Deploying Grok across other areas of the federal government is worrying enough, but choosing to use it at the Pentagon is a national security disgrace,” he added. “If an AI system cannot meet basic safety and integrity standards, expanding its reach to include classified data puts the American public and our nation’s safety at risk.”

Pentagon Partners With Musk’s AI Chatbot Despite Child Porn Scandal and Owner’s Embrace of White Nationalism

“If an AI system cannot meet basic safety and integrity standards, expanding its reach to include classified data puts the American public and our nation’s safety at risk,” said a tech expert at Public Citizen.


Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stands with Elon Musk at the headquarters of his company SpaceX in Starbase, Texas on January 12, 2025.
(Photo from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth)

Stephen Prager
Jan 13, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and the owner of the social media app X, has faced a mountain of outrage in recent weeks as his platform’s artificial intelligence chatbot “Grok” has been used to generate sexualized deepfake images of nonconsenting women and children, and Musk himself has embraced open white nationalism.

But none of this seems to be of particular concern to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Despite the swirl of scandal, he announced on Monday that Musk’s chatbot would be given intimate access to reams of military data as part of what the department described as its new “AI acceleration strategy.”

During a speech at the headquarters of SpaceX, another company owned by Musk, Hegseth stood alongside the billionaire and announced that later this month, the department plans to “make all appropriate data” from the military’s IT systems available for “AI exploitation,” including “combat-proven operational data from two decades of military and intelligence operations.”

As the Associated Press noted, it’s a departure from the more cautious approach the Biden administration took toward integrating AI with the military, which included bans on certain uses “such as applications that would violate constitutionally protected civil rights or any system that would automate the deployment of nuclear weapons.”

While it’s unclear if those bans remain in place under President Donald Trump, Hegseth said during the speech he will seek to eschew the use of any AI models “that won’t allow you to fight wars” and will seek to act “without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications,” before adding that the Pentagon’s AI will not be “woke” or “equitable.”

He added that the department “will unleash experimentation, eliminate bureaucratic barriers, focus our investments, and demonstrate the execution approach needed to ensure we lead in military AI. He added that ”we will become an ‘AI-first’ warfighting force across all domains.




Hegseth’s embrace of Musk hardly comes as a surprise, given his role in the Trump administration’s dismantling of the administrative state as head of its so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) last year, and his record $290 million in support for the president’s 2024 election campaign.

But it is quite noteworthy given the type of notoriety Grok has received of late after it introduced what it called “spicy mode” for the chatbot late last year, which “allows users to digitally remove clothing from images and has been deployed to produce what amounts to child pornography—along with other disturbing behavior, such as sexualizing the deputy prime minister of Sweden,” according to a report last month from MS NOW (formerly MSNBC).



It’s perhaps the most international attention the bot has gotten, with the United Kingdom’s media regulator launching a formal investigation on Monday to determine whether Grok violated the nation’s Online Safety Act by failing to protect users from illegal content, including child sexual abuse material.

The investigation could result in fines, which, if not followed, could lead to the chatbot being banned, as it was over the weekend in Malaysia and Indonesia. Authorities in the European UnionFranceBrazil, and elsewhere are also reviewing the app for its spread of nonconsensual sexual images, according to the New York Times.

It’s only the latest scandal involving the Grok, which Musk pitched as an “anti-woke” and “truth-seeking” alternative to applications like ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini.

At several points last year, the chatbot drew attention for its sudden tendency to launch into racist and antisemitic tirades—praising Adolf Hitler, accusing Jewish people of controlling Hollywood and the government, and promoting Holocaust denial.

Before that, users were baffled when the bot began directing unrelated queries about everything from cats to baseball back to discussions about Musk’s factually dubious pet theory of “white genocide” in South Africa, which the chatbot later revealed it was “instructed” to talk about.

Hegseth’s announcement on Monday also comes as Musk has completed his descent into undisguised support for a white nationalist ideology over the past week.

The billionaire’s steady lurch to the far-right has been a years-long process—capped off last year, with his enthusiastic support for the neofascist Alternative for Germany Party and apparent Nazi salute at Trump’s second inauguration.

But his racist outlook was left impossible to deny last week when he expressed support for a pair of posts on X stating that white people must “reclaim our nations” or “be conquered, enslaved, raped, and genocided” and that “if white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered,” necessitating “white solidarity.”



While details about the expansiveness of Grok’s use by the military remain scarce, Musk’s AI platform, xAI, announced in July that it had inked a deal with the Pentagon worth nearly $200 million (notably just a week after the bot infamously referred to itself as “MechaHitler”).

In September, reportedly following direct pressure from the White House to roll it out “ASAP,” the General Services Administration announced a “OneGov” agreement, making Grok available to every federal agency for just $0.42 apiece.

That same month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Hegseth warning that Musk, who’d also used Grok extensively under DOGE to purge disloyal government employees, was “gaining improper advantages from unique access to DOD data and information.” She added that Grok’s propensity toward “inaccurate outputs and misinformation” could “harm DOD’s strategic decisionmaking.”

Following this week’s announcement, JB Branch, the Big Tech accountability advocate at Public Citizensaid on Tuesday that, “allowing an AI system with Grok’s track record of repeatedly generating nonconsensual sexualized images of women and children to access classified military or sensitive government data raises profound national security, civil rights, and public safety concerns.”

“Deploying Grok across other areas of the federal government is worrying enough, but choosing to use it at the Pentagon is a national security disgrace,” he added. “If an AI system cannot meet basic safety and integrity standards, expanding its reach to include classified data puts the American public and our nation’s safety at risk.”
'We're not going to back down': UK hits back at Trump admin over Elon Musk probe

Ewan Gleadow
January 14, 2026 
RAW STORY


Elon Musk walks on Capitol Hill on the day of a meeting with Senate Republican Leader-elect John Thune (R-SD), in Washington, U.S. December 5, 2024. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

The UK government has hit back at a US administration official's threat over a probe into Elon Musk and X.

Online safety watchdog OFCOM is investigating the social media app for the sharing of non-consensual sex images which are artificially generated through the Grok tool, Sky News reported. Concerns over the deepfakes spread on the platform have since been aired in the UK's House of Commons, the elected house of representatives.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said, "I have been informed this morning that X is acting to ensure full compliance with UK law. If so, that is welcome, but we're not going to back down, and they must act."

"We will take the necessary measures. We will strengthen existing laws and prepare for legislation if it needs to go further, and Ofcom will continue its independent investigation."

Donald Trump's administration representative, Sarah B. Rogers, weighed in on the investigation into X yesterday (January 13).

Rogers, an under secretary of state for public diplomacy, says the department will wait for the verdict of OFCOM on Musk's platform before it responds.

Rogers, speaking to GB News, said, "I would say from America's perspective... nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let's wait and see what OFCOM does and we'll see what America does in response. This is an issue dear to us, and I think we would certainly want to respond."

"Our leadership understands this because President Trump was himself a target of censorship," Rogers said. "President Trump was banned by Twitter - the old regime before Elon bought it."

"You have to take that comparison seriously. That's why our President cares about this issue - because people couldn't deal with his popularity, they couldn't deal with his success, and they tried to just shut him up so no one could hear him."

OFCOM's powers fall under the Online Safety Act, which states that online platforms have to make sure they're not hosting illegal content.

If X is found to not comply with the Online Safety Act, Ofcom can issue a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue or £18m, and if that is not enough, can go as far as getting a court approval to block the site.

Trump admin issues ominous threat as UK mulls banning Musk's X: 'Nothing is off the table'

Ewan Gleadow
January 13, 2026 
RAW STORY




The Department of State has warned "nothing is off the table" should the UK move to ban Elon Musk's social media platform, X.

Donald Trump's administration representative, Sarah B. Rogers, weighed in on the investigation into X. Rogers, an under secretary of state for public diplomacy, says the department will wait for the verdict of OFCOM on Musk's platform before it responds. OFCOM, the UK's online safety and communications watchdog, is investigating X over concerns about AI-generated deepfakes spread on the platform.

Rogers, speaking to GB News, said, "I would say from America's perspective... nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let's wait and see what OFCOM does and we'll see what America does in response. This is an issue dear to us, and I think we would certainly want to respond."

The Department of State representative said there was an increased interest from Trump and the administration in the investigation because the President and Vice President, JD Vance, are "huge champions" of free speech.

"Our leadership understands this because President Trump was himself a target of censorship," Rogers said. "President Trump was banned by Twitter - the old regime before Elon bought it."

"You have to take that comparison seriously. That's why our President cares about this issue - because people couldn't deal with his popularity, they couldn't deal with his success, and they tried to just shut him up so no one could hear him."

The Prime Minister of the UK, Keir Starmer, says the government will act fast should X fail the OFCOM investigation. He said, "If X cannot control Grok, we will - and we'll do it fast, because if you profit from harm and abuse, you lose the right to self regulate."

Despite Rogers' claims for protecting free speech, it appears Vice President JD Vance is on the side of regulating the social media app's AI tool. According to Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, both he and Vance are in agreement on what needs to happen with Grok's AI-generated images.

Lammy told The Guardian last week, "We discussed Greenland and I also raised with him the Grok issue and the horrendous, horrific situation in which this new technology is allowing deepfakes and the manipulation of images of women and children, which is just absolutely abhorrent. He agreed with me that it was entirely unacceptable."

"I think he recognised the very seriousness with which images of women and children could be manipulated in this way, and he recognised how despicable, unacceptable, that is and I found him sympathetic to that position. And in fact, we’ve been in touch again, today, about this very serious issue."

Keir Starmer slams Nigel Farage for defending Elon Musk over Grok creating sexualised images of women and children
Today
Left Foot Forward

'This is weaponising images of women and children that should never be made and that’s why we’re acting.'



Prime Minister Keir Starmer has slammed Nigel Farage for defending Elon Musk after a backlash occurred against the tech billionaire’s chatbot Grok from governments around the world after a recent surge in sexualized images of women and children generated without consent by the artificial intelligence-powered tool.

It comes after Starmer last week said that he had asked media regulator Ofcom for “all options to be on the table” after it emerged that child sexual abuse images had been generated using X’s AI chatbot, Grok, as X users continue to generate thousands of pictures of women and children undressed using Grok’s AI, including in sexualised poses and in bikinis.

Addressing concerns over sexualised images of adults and children being produced by Grok, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: “This is disgraceful. It’s disgusting. And it’s not to be tolerated… Ofcom has our full support to take action in relation to this.”

During today’s PMQs Starmer said that it was astonishing that Nigel Farage is defending Elon Musk over Grok’s images.

He said: “It is astonishing that Reform defend Musk on this issue, I said the images are disgusting their position is disgusting on this. This is weaponising images of women and children that should never be made and that’s why we’re acting. Reform refuse to do anything about it, but more than that they would scrap the Online Safety Act that stops children accessing content like pornography, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders.

“They’re an absolute disgrace.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
RACIST MISOGYNY
Pregnant mom dies as red state docs fear abortion — and leave heart crisis untreated
RAW STORY
Ciji Graham and her son, SJ Courtesy of the Graham family

When Ciji Graham visited a cardiologist on Nov. 14, 2023, her heart was pounding at 192 beats per minute, a rate healthy people her age usually reach during the peak of a sprint. She was having another episode of atrial fibrillation, a rapid, irregular heartbeat. The 34-year-old Greensboro, North Carolina, police officer was at risk of a stroke or heart failure.

In the past, doctors had always been able to shock Graham’s heart back into rhythm with a procedure called a cardioversion. But this time, the treatment was just out of reach. After a pregnancy test came back positive, the cardiologist didn’t offer to shock her. Graham texted her friend from the appointment: “Said she can’t cardiovert being pregnant.”

The doctor told Graham to consult three other specialists and her primary care provider before returning in a week, according to medical records. Then she sent Graham home as her heart kept hammering.

Like hundreds of thousands of women each year who enter pregnancy with chronic conditions, Graham was left to navigate care in a country where medical options have significantly narrowed.

As ProPublica has reported, doctors in states that ban abortion have repeatedly denied standard care to high-risk pregnant patients. The expert consensus is that cardioversion is safe during pregnancy, and ProPublica spoke with more than a dozen specialists who said they would have immediately admitted Graham to a hospital to get her heart rhythm under control. They found fault, too, with a second cardiologist she saw the following day, who did not perform an electrocardiogram and also sent her home. Although Graham’s family gave the doctors permission to speak with ProPublica, neither replied to ProPublica’s questions.

Graham came to believe that the best way to protect her health was to end her unexpected pregnancy. But because of new abortion restrictions in North Carolina and nearby states, finding a doctor who could quickly perform a procedure would prove difficult. Many physicians and hospitals now hesitate to discuss abortion, even when women ask about it. And abortion clinics are not set up to treat certain medically complicated cases. As a result, sick pregnant women like Graham are often on their own.

“I can’t feel like this for 9mo,” Graham wrote her friend. “I just can’t.”

She wouldn’t. In a region that had legislated its commitment to life, she would spend her final days struggling to find anyone to save hers.

Graham hated feeling out of breath; her life demanded all her energy. Widely admired for her skills behind the wheel, she was often called upon to train fellow officers at the Greensboro Police Department. At home, she needed to chase her 2-year-old son, SJ, around the apartment. She was a natural with kids — she’d helped her single mom raise her nine younger siblings.

She thought her surprise pregnancy had caused the atrial fibrillation, also called A-fib. In addition to heart disease, she had a thyroid disorder; pregnancy could send the gland into overdrive, prompting dangerous heart rhythms.

When Graham saw the first cardiologist, Dr. Sabina Custovic, the 192 heart rate recorded on an EKG should have been a clear cause for alarm. “I can’t think of any situation where I would feel comfortable sending anyone home with a heart rate of 192,” said Dr. Jenna Skowronski, a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina. A dozen cardiologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists who reviewed Graham’s case for ProPublica agreed. The risk of death was low, but the fact that she was also reporting symptoms — severe palpitations, trouble breathing — meant the health dangers were significant.

All the experts said they would have tried to treat Graham with IV medication in the hospital and, if that failed, an electrical shock. Cardioversion wouldn’t necessarily be simple — likely requiring an invasive ultrasound to check for blood clots beforehand — but it was crucial to slow down her heart. A leading global organization for arrhythmia professionals, the Heart Rhythm Society, has issued clear guidance that “cardioversion is safe and effective in pregnancy.”

Even if the procedure posed a small risk to the pregnancy, the risk of not treating Graham was far greater, said Rhode Island cardiologist Dr. Daniel Levine: “No mother, no baby.”

Custovic did not answer ProPublica’s questions about why the pregnancy made her hold off on the treatment or whether abortion restrictions affect her decision-making.

The next day — as her heart continued to thump — Graham saw a second cardiologist, Dr. Will Camnitz, at Cone Health, one of the region’s largest health care systems.

According to medical records, Graham’s pulse registered as normal when taken at Camnitz’s office, as it had at her appointment the previous day. Camnitz noted that the EKG from the day before showed she was in A-fib and prescribed a blood thinner to prepare for a cardioversion in three weeks — if by then she hadn’t returned to a regular heart rhythm on her own.

Some of the experts who reviewed Graham’s care said that this was a reasonable plan if her pulse was, indeed, normal. But Camnitz, who specializes in the electrical activity of the heart, did not order another EKG to confirm that her heart rate had come down from 192, according to medical records. “He’s an electrophysiologist and he didn’t do that, which is insane,” said Dr. Kayle Shapero, a cardio-obstetrics specialist at Brown University. According to experts, a pulse measurement can underestimate the true heart rate of a patient in A-fib. Every cardiologist who reviewed Graham’s care for ProPublica said that a repeat EKG would be best practice. If Graham’s rate was still as high as it was the previous day, her heart could eventually stop delivering enough blood to major organs. Camnitz did not answer ProPublica’s questions about why he didn’t administer this test.

Three weeks was a long time to wait with a heart that Graham kept saying was practically leaping out of her chest.

Camnitz knew about Graham’s pregnancy but did not discuss whether she wanted to continue it or advise her on her options, according to medical records. That same day, though, Graham reached out to A Woman’s Choice, the sole abortion clinic in Greensboro.

North Carolina bans abortion after 12 weeks; Graham was only about six weeks pregnant. Still, there was a long line ahead of her. Women were flooding the state from Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina, where new abortion bans were even stricter. On top of that, a recent change in North Carolina law required an in-person consent visit three days before a termination. The same number of patients were now filling twice as many appointment slots.

Graham would need to wait nearly two weeks for an abortion.

It’s unclear if she explained her symptoms to the clinic; A Woman’s Choice spokesperson said it routinely discards appointment forms and no longer had a copy of Graham’s. But the spokesperson told ProPublica that a procedure at the clinic would not have been right for Graham; because of her high heart rate, she would have needed a hospital with more resources.

Dr. Jessica Tarleton, an abortion provider who spent the past few years working in the Carolinas, said she frequently encountered pregnant women with chronic conditions who faced this kind of catch-22: Their risks were too high to be treated in a clinic, and it would be safest to get care at a hospital, but it could be very hard to find one willing to terminate a pregnancy.

In states where abortions have been criminalized, many hospitals have shied away from sharing information about their policies on abortion. Cone Health, where Graham typically went for care, would not tell ProPublica whether its doctors perform abortions and under what circumstances; it said, “Cone Health provides personalized and individualized care to each patient based on their medical needs while complying with state and federal laws.”

Graham never learned that she would need an abortion at a hospital rather than a clinic. Physicians at Duke University and the University of North Carolina, the premier academic medical centers in the state, said that she would have been able to get one at their hospitals — but that would have required a doctor to connect her or for Graham to have somehow known to show up.


Had Graham lived in another country, she may not have faced this maze alone.

In the United Kingdom, for example, a doctor trained in caring for pregnant women with risky medical conditions would have been assigned to oversee all of Graham’s care, ensuring it was appropriate, said Dr. Marian Knight, who leads the U.K.’s maternal mortality review program. Hospitals in the U.K. also must abide by standardized national protocols or face regulatory consequences. Researchers point to these factors, as well as a national review system, as key to the country’s success in lowering its rate of maternal death. The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is more than double that of the U.K. and last on the list of wealthy countries.

Graham’s friend Shameka Jackson could tell that something was wrong. Graham didn’t seem like her usual “perky and silly” self, Jackson said. On the phone, she sounded weak, her voice barely louder than a whisper.


When Jackson offered to come over, Graham said it would be a waste of time. “There’s nothing you can do but sit with me,” Jackson said she replied. “The doctors ain’t doing nothing.”

Graham no longer cooked or played with her son after work, said her boyfriend, Shawn Scott. She stopped hoisting SJ up to let him dunk on the hoop on the closet door. Now, she headed straight for the couch and barely spoke, except to say that no one would shock her heart.

“I hate feeling like this,” she texted Jackson. “Ain’t slept, chest hurts.”

“All I can do is wait until the 28th,” Graham said, the date of her scheduled abortion.

On the morning of Nov. 19, Scott awoke to a rap on the front door of the apartment he and Graham shared. He’d been asleep on the couch after a night out with friends and thought that Graham had left for work.

A police officer introduced himself and explained that Graham hadn’t shown up and wasn’t answering her phone. He knew she hadn’t been feeling well and wanted to check in.

Most mornings, Graham was up around 5 a.m. to prepare for the day. With Scott, she would brush SJ’s teeth, braid his hair and dress him in stylish outfits, complete with Jordans or Chelsea boots.

When Scott walked into their bedroom, Graham was face down in bed, her body cold when he touched her. The two men pulled her down to the floor to start CPR, but it was too late. SJ stood in his crib, silently watching as they realized.

The medical examiner would list Graham’s cause of death as “cardiac arrhythmia due to atrial fibrillation in the setting of recent pregnancy.” There was no autopsy, which could have identified the specific complication that led to her death.

High-risk pregnancy specialists and cardiologists who reviewed Graham’s case were taken aback by Custovic’s failure to act urgently. Many said her decisions reminded them of behaviors they’ve seen from other cardiologists when treating pregnant patients; they attribute this kind of hesitation to gaps in education. Although cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in pregnant women, a recent survey developed with the American College of Cardiology found that less than 30% of cardiologists reported formal training in managing heart conditions in pregnancy. “A large proportion of the cardiology workforce feels uncomfortable providing care to these patients,” the authors concluded in the Journal of the American Heart Association. The legal threats attached to abortion bans, many doctors have told ProPublica, have made some cardiologists even more conservative.

Custovic did not answer ProPublica’s questions about whether she felt she had adequate training. A spokesperson for Cone Health, where Camnitz works, said, “Cone Health’s treatment for pregnant women with underlying cardiac disease is consistent with accepted standards of care in our region.” Although Graham’s family gave the hospital permission to discuss Graham’s care with ProPublica, the hospital did not comment on specifics.

Three doctors who have served on state maternal mortality review committees, which study the deaths of pregnant women, told ProPublica that Graham’s death was preventable. “There were so many points where they could have intervened,” said Dr. Amelia Huntsberger, a former member of Idaho’s panel.

Graham’s is the seventh case ProPublica has investigated in which a pregnant woman in a state that significantly restricted abortion died after she was unable to access standard care.

The week after she died, Graham’s family held a candlelight ceremony outside of her high school, which drew friends and cops in uniform, and also Greensboro residents whose lives she had touched. One woman approached Graham’s sisters and explained Graham had interrupted her suicide attempt five years earlier and reassured her that her life had value; she had recently texted Graham, “If it wasn’t for you, I wouldn’t be here today, expecting my first child.”

As for Graham’s own son, no one explained to SJ that his mother had died. They didn’t know how to describe death to a toddler. Instead, his dad and grandmother and aunts and uncles told him that his mom had left Earth and gone to the moon. SJ now calls it the “Mommy moon.”

For the past two years, every night before bed, he asks to go outside, even on the coldest winter evenings. He points to the moon in the dark sky and tells his mother that he loves her.
Pentagon accused of 'participating in a strategic suicide pact' with Trump as war looms

Tom Boggioni
January 14, 2026 
RAW STORY


General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a press conference following a U.S. strike on Venezuela where President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured, from Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., January 3, 2026. 
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

While the focus of most Americans in on the invasion of Minnesota by lawless masked agents of the Department of Homeland Security who are grabbing U.S. citizens off the streets, former conservative campaign advisor Rick Wilson raised the alarm that the Pentagon appears to be going full steam ahead with plans for a Greenland invasion.

Wilson warned on his Substack platform that the Joint Chiefs of Staff appear supportive of military action, at the expense of the NATO alliance.

Wilson wrote that the Joint Chiefs, tasked with preventing military adventurism and unnecessary conflicts, are instead "trying to figure out how to drape a flag over an impending crime of such sweeping malice, stupidity, and toxicity that it will shame this nation for generations."

He criticized military participation in what he characterized as a "colonial land-grab" demanded by Trump. "Here is the terrifying part: the Joint Chiefs of Staff, men who have spent four decades wearing the uniform, men who talk endlessly about 'honor,' 'integrity,' and the 'rules-based international order,' are currently sharpening the knives."

Wilson dismissed assessments that Greenland poses any strategic threat, noting that neither China nor Russia harbors territorial ambitions there despite Trump's claims.

Rather than characterizing the proposal as merely "controversial," Wilson warned of catastrophic consequences. "They are participating in a strategic suicide pact that will dismantle seventy-five years of American alliances in a single afternoon," enabling China to invade Taiwan and Russia to seize Baltic states while continuing its war against Ukraine, the ex-strategist added.

Wilson argued that a U.S. military presence in Greenland without invitation would effectively end NATO. "The moment an American boot hits Greenlandic soil without an invitation, NATO, the most successful military alliance in the history of the world, is dead. Article 5 becomes a cruel joke, a relic of a time when America's word actually meant something."

He concluded with stark warnings about geopolitical consequences: "In Moscow, Vladimir Putin is salivating. He has worked for a quarter-century to fracture the West, and Trump is handing him the pieces on a silver platter. A U.S. invasion of a NATO ally is the ultimate 'Go' signal for Russian tanks to roll into Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius. If America won't respect the borders of its friends, why should Russia respect the borders of its 'near abroad'?"

You can read more here.
ICE protester permanently blinded after feds shoot him point blank with 'nonlethal weapon'

Travis Gettys
January 14, 2026
RAW STORY


Kaden Rummler dragged by DHS agent/X

A protester claims immigration agents taunted and laughed at him after blinding him by firing a non-lethal weapon directly at his face at close range during a confrontation in southern California.

Video shows a Homeland Security agent grab a protester and drag them away, and then another federal officer fires a non-lethal weapon point blank at 21-year-old Kaden Rummler as he steps forward from the group holding a megaphone, reported the Los Angeles Times.

The demonstrators had gathered Friday outside a federal building in Santa Ana to protest the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good two days before in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.

Rummler was permanently blinded in his left eye, he told the newspaper, and he said his tear duct was destroyed and the “flaps of my eye are barely holding on."

“[Doctors] pulled a piece of plastic the size of a nickel from my eye,” Rummler said, and he said they also found pieces of plastic and glass in his skull, metal in his stomach lining and metal lodged millimeters way from his carotid artery. "[I'll have to live with metal pieces there for the rest of my life."

“I focused on the voices of the people, the voices of my friends and comrades,” Rummler added. “I believe that’s what kept me alive, hearing them continue the fight despite how aggressive our oppressors were.”

Rummler said he begged federal agents to call an ambulance, but he said said they instead taunted him, “laughing at the fact that I would never get to see out of my left eye again,” he said.

The first protester, Skye Jones, was taken into custody during the incident and held for nearly three days until his release Monday.

“When confronting those who enforce ICE terror, they will snatch us out of a crowd, they will shoot us point blank with pepper-ball bullets, and they will throw us to the ground,” Jones said. “Repression is inevitable when demanding justice, so we must not cower at it.”

Santa Ana police said demonstrators tossed orange cones at federal agents, but said they were unaware of any other violence at the event, and Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin disputed accounts by Rummler and Jones.

“This is absurd. DHS law enforcement took this rioter to the hospital for a cut and he was released that nigh," McLaughlin said. "Make no mistake: Rioting and assaulting law enforcement is not only dangerous but a crime.”






‘Britain isn’t talking honestly about how geopolitics is driving the cost-of-living crisis’


Storm over parliament
©Shutterstock/MartiBstock

The Prime Minister’s critics say he is too focused on foreign policy. They’re wrong. His real mistake is failing to say plainly that Britain’s cost-of-living crisis is in large part being driven from abroad. Russia is deliberately using war, energy disruption and instability to make Europe poorer and more divided, in a world that has already become less predictable.

Starmer is right to link foreign policy and the cost of living

At a meeting of Labour MPs last night, Keir Starmer tried to make this case. Defending the two and a half months he has already spent abroad during his premiership, Starmer argued that his international interventions are directly linked to the pressures facing British households. “The cost-of-living crisis will not be solved by isolationism,” he told MPs. “You have to be in the room to tackle the issues working people care about.” Peace in Ukraine, energy stability, and trade deals for companies like Jaguar Land Rover, he said, cannot be delivered through “gesture politics”.

And so Keir Starmer clearly understands the connection between geopolitical instability and Britain’s cost-of-living crisis, the issue is he hasn’t been willing to make this explicit to the public.

Global insecurity is driving the cost-of-living crisis

The government continues to frame the cost-of-living crisis as a problem that can be solved largely through domestic policy choices. Announcements focus on price caps, fare freezes and measures like free school meals and breakfast clubs to ease pressure on family budgets. But these treat the symptoms, not causes. In a world increasingly shaped by war and instability, affordability and security are now inseparable.

Too often, the government talks about these issues as if they were unconnected. Ukraine is one conversation, energy security another, cyber threats, defence spending and growth each treated on their own. What Starmer is trying to say, but hasn’t yet landed, is that these are not parallel challenges, they are one and the same.

Energy prices show this most clearly. The volatility feeding through into bills is the result of geopolitical conflict and the deliberate weaponisation of supply. Since invading Ukraine, Russia has been explicit that economic disruption in Europe is not an unfortunate byproduct of war but one of its strategic aims. That’s because higher bills, political anger and social division weaken European governments and erode public support for Ukraine.

Russia’s actions sit within a broader shift in the global order. We live in a much more transactional geopolitical climate, with a China willing to use economic pressure, and an America whose future commitment to European security can no longer be taken for granted. The assumptions that once underpinned cheap energy, stable trade and predictable alliances no longer hold.

A conversation Britain needs to have

Other European governments have begun to speak more openly to their citizens about this reality. Germany, Sweden and Denmark are publicly debating conscription, food stockpiles and supply-chain resilience.

Britain hasn’t yet started this conversation. Defence spending is still framed as a competing priority. Energy security is argued over as a purely environmental issue.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on BlueskyWhatsAppX and Facebook.

None of this will surprise the Prime Minister or his advisers. In private, officials acknowledge that global instability and domestic living standards are intrinsically linked. What’s missing is a clear, public explanation of what that linkage means and what trade-offs it entails.

The Prime Minister isn’t alone in avoiding that conversation. No British political leader has been willing to confront the public with the scale of the challenge now facing Britain, and Europe as a whole.

Perhaps politicians of all parties have convinced themselves that voters can’t handle hard truths; that admitting bills may stay high or taxes may rise is electoral suicide. But the reality may be different. People understand the world has changed. They see the war in Ukraine, feel the instability, and recognise that the assumptions of the past no longer hold. What they lack is leadership willing to explain what that means and to chart a course through it.

Politics has become dominated by the promise of simple fixes when the reality is far more unsettling. The truth is that bills may not fall quickly, taxes may have to rise, public spending priorities may have to change, and even assumptions about how we live our lives may no longer hold. This is the world Britain is moving into. Pretending otherwise might feel safer but it leaves the country unprepared and is no longer credible.


‘Thames Water creditors’ sewage deal will not wash with customers’


Photo: Jessica Girvan/Shutterstock

In Roald Dahl’s “Matilda” the headteacher Miss Trunchbull who throws children across the playground gets away with it by going “the whole hog”. She says “Make sure everything you do is so completely crazy it’s unbelievable”.

Thames Water’s creditors have certainly been taking lessons from her. Their latest bid to Ofwat is to be allowed to release sewage, outside of legal limits, until 2040.

It’s the government’s job to not get so distracted by all the other crazy things going on in politics that they can’t spot this unacceptable behaviour. And step in to stop it.

Our new polling of Thames Water customers – the first of its kind – shows households in the region are desperate for them to do so.

Labour’s sewage reduction targets and new water legislation will be irrelevant if a whole new precedent is created to increase pollution for the next 14 years.

The polling by Survation reveals that a majority of 1000 Thames Water customers believe that the creditors’ deal is unacceptable, that Ofwat should reject it and should put the company into special administration. 68% of Thames Water customers believe that the company should be nationalised and run in the public sector.

Negotiations over the deal should have concluded before Christmas but haven’t because of the demands for environmental leniency.

If you are a Labour MP now is the time to tell Ofwat and the government that this deal or anything like it cannot be allowed. The government must bring Thames Water into special administration immediately, enabling it to slash far more of the debt than any alternative (40-55% compared to the creditors’ offer of 25%).

In this context it is also quite unbelievable that yesterday former MP Natascha Engel wrote a piece in the Times commenting that “punishing Thames Water will make things worse”. She acknowledges that the country’s mood is to condemn fat-cat chief executives and shareholder dividends – on that we agree!

But her arguments on behalf of private investors are deeply flawed and assume the learned helplessness of a government that believes nothing can be done without the private sector (while simultaneously – and rightly – bringing rail franchises into public ownership).

Engel argues that the government can’t afford to fund water companies, missing the obvious point that they are profitable assets because customers pay bills every month. The problem under privatisation is that a huge chunk of that money gets extracted in dividends and leaves the country instead of being invested in improving infrastructure. This is a state sanctioned rip off and billpayers’ patience is wearing thin.

Our polling shows that 79% consider Thames Water’s recent 35% bill increase to be unreasonable. Over one third (34%) say they can’t afford this bill increase.

Engel argues that we mustn’t discourage investors. But we need investors like Thames Water’s creditors like a hole in the head. Research by the University of Greenwich shows that shareholders have contributed less than nothing since privatisation in 1989.

When asked how much shareholders should be compensated if the entire water sector came into public ownership, the most popular option from Thames Water households was ‘no compensation’, with 36% of respondents in favour. This is a powerful statement.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on BlueskyWhatsAppX and Facebook.

Instead of ongoing shareholder rule, customers want real, meaningful accountability with environmental groups being on Thames Water’s board (66% in favour) as well as households (77% in favour) and Thames Water employees (64%).

A key argument that Engel links to is that the “fiscal rules” must be defended – but surely they are in place to show sound financial management? It is putting the cart before the horse to force extra costs onto billpayers and achieve a smaller haircut on debt from the creditors simply to have a nominally lower national debt.

The cost of the government tying its own hands on Thames Water is extremely high – the trashing of our environment and households who are getting poorer and angrier about the cost of living by the day. The political cost includes the disillusionment, cynicism and fury of people who believed this government was on their side.

Nigel Farage is ready to harness these emotions and has said – if disingenuously – that shareholders must lose all their money and not be bailed out. A third of Thames Water customers said that the future of the company was likely to influence their vote at the next General Election.

Tony Blair’s government chose to defend the public interest at the cost of angering shareholders over their compensation levels when Railtrack collapsed. This government must bite the bullet and do the same.

It’s the government’s job to restore order to the chaotic, failed privatised water system instead of defending the status quo. If 35 years of privatisation had succeeded we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Water ministers must stop putting themselves in the unenviable position of defending a failed system when nine out of ten countries run water in public ownership.

We are contacting all 79 Thames Water MPs this week, asking them to sign an open letter to Ofwat calling on them to reject the outrageous deal being proposed by the creditors.

Thames Water households have made their position very clear in our new polling. It’s time for the government to stop letting a handful of creditors set their own crazy rules. They have already demonstrated that there is no limit to what they will try to get away with.