It’s hard to keep up with all the prosecutions launched by the Trump DOJ, targeting all his perceived enemies. More and more, these attempts are failing. Today a grand jury refused to indict Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified to congress about what she knew of the events of January 6, 2021, the day of the Capitol riot. I watched her testimony live, as did 13 million other Americans. She seemed completely credible. There was one piece of testimony she provided about a second-hand conversation she had heard about Trump. Trump allegedly had tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential vehicle in an attempt to go to Capitol Hill to be with the rioters. She wasn’t an eye-witness to this, and she said so at the time. She was just repeating something she heard — and she made that clear. So what’s her crime? I should think Trump would WANT his supporters to think he wanted to be there with them. In a way, Cassidy Hutchinson did him a favor. Some thought Trump looked weak because he didn’t go to Capitol Hill to be with his supporters that day. But that’s not the point. Retribution against anyone who makes Trump look bad is the point. Trump’s relentless pursuit of cases like this has now become embarrassing. Justice Department officials must be shaking their heads in dismay. It will be interesting, once Trump leaves office, to see how all these White House operatives, Justice Department officials and cabinet members attempt to justify the lengths they went to in order to try and keep President Trump happy — even when their actions could hurt people very directly, truth and fairness be damned. Remember David Hearn, the Olympian accused of vandalizing the Reflecting Pool, even though the administration already knew the real problem was shoddy workmanship? Trump will likely pardon everyone around him, so they might not need to worry about any legal peril. But they will still have to live with themselves — and the scrutiny they will face. Enough is enough. People are sick of all the division, the anger, the corruption and the shenanigans. Let’s hope the day of reckoning is finally upon us and we see a return to sanity.
By Jeff Hall
A decade ago, drones seemed to be just the latest toy on the market. Who knew then that they would become AI-powered killing machines? AI-powered drones, referred to as autonomous weapons, identify and fire at targets based on information gathered by artificial intelligence. The fully autonomous models do not require human input before shooting a combatant. Low-cost drones have changed the character, economics, and speed of war. AI is being used by the military to pinpoint locations, prioritize their importance, and evaluate whether the targeting is lethal. This shortens the amount of time between a target being identified and struck, which allows more targeted attacks per day. Drones are also small, effective, and a fraction of the cost to manufacture compared to a missile or military aircraft. These characteristics have made them popular in many recent military conflicts, including those in Ukraine, Gaza, Venezuela, and Iran. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDR) Director Robin Geiss said that AI is “on track to crowding out human decision-making” in the defense sector. America has been investing in AI for years. The Defense Department has allocated $75 billion to AI-driven programs since 2016, and the Pentagon requested $13.4 billion to develop autonomous weapons in 2026 alone One of the main AI systems the military uses is called the Maven Smart System. The Maven Smart System has been in development for over a decade between the tech industry and the Defense Department. Despite all of this invested time and money, the AI remains imperfect. In 2024, Maven’s algorithms could only detect a tank in good weather 60% of the time and in snowy conditions 30% of the time. On top of this, foundation models have created false or misleading analyses that sound persuasive, but are inherently wrong. During the heat of war, action could be taken on these suggestions without true analysis, casting unforeseen threats to both troops and civilians alike. The algorithm also has hidden biases towards muslim and black individuals that leads to the misidentification of civilians as combatants. According to The Independent, five children a day are killed or injured by explosives around the world, and that number is increasing due to autonomous weapon attacks. In 2024, the White House released a memorandum issuing certain guardrails for AI use in national security, but also gave agencies the ability to waive these safeguards if they “create an unacceptable impediment to critical agency operations.” The Pentagon has its own directive on autonomous weapons which requires senior Defense Department leaders to review the weapons judgment before signing off on its use. The number of leaders, however, have now been cut in half after the Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation restructured. This restructuring was ordered by Pete Hegseth in collaboration with the Department of Government Efficiency last year. This comes at a time when the military is looking to further expand AI use in operations. The Department of War announced a new Autonomous Warfare Command called AUTOWARCOM last week that will be operational by October 1, 2027. The heads are the current director of the Defense Innovation Unit, Owen West, as the CEO, and Navy SEAL Senior Chief Max Strasiser as the COO. “We face an … urgent revolution,” wrote West and Strasiser. “Since the Cold War, American power projection has rested on a small number of sophisticated, expensive weapons. That model has been disrupted.” At what point does having an advantage over adversaries justify the cost of innocent human lives? Our federal government needs to reevaluate the true military necessity of autonomous weapons before it kills more innocent people. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Adrihanna Collins
This past Sunday, October 25, marked a monumental political development in the Republic of Serbia, as longtime political leader Aleksandar Vučić and his Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) were defeated in snap parliamentary elections. What is particularly notable about this defeat is that it came at the hands of a student-led, anti-corruption group, aptly named The Student List (Studentska lista). The student-led coalition won 140 out of 250 parliamentary seats, gaining 52.65% of the seats in the body. This is especially significant given Vučić’s longstanding relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the support he has received from Moscow. Vučić’s authoritarian government style has also led to the dominance of state-controlled and aligned media. With all these challenges in place, how did The Student List persevere through them, and what implications does it have for grassroots democracy around the world? The Student List came about after protests concerning the 2024 collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad, which killed 16 people. It was suspected by many Serbian citizens that corruption and inadequate oversight had contributed to the catastrophe, and students began to demand accountability from the government. The early formations of the Student List organized student demonstrations and blockades at universities in Serbia, demanding transparency from Vučić’s government. This unrest later developed into a larger movement, in which students began to use university assemblies, known as Plenum, to choose and deliberate on who the candidates should be. In typical grassroots and anti-corruption fashion, the Student List picked those who were outside the establishment politics in Serbia. Some of the candidates included cardiologist and University of Novi Sad Professor Ilija Srdanović, former Serbian basketball player and former EuroLeague Basketball President Dejan Bodiroga, and economist and former Serbian National Bank Governor Dejan Šoškić. Perhaps the most important realization from Serbia’s election is the new possibility of increased grassroots democracy and youth involvement in politics. Rather than stopping at demonstrations, these students have now built something real. They fostered a group of candidates that are truly in politics for service and the betterment of the republic. This landmark outcome offers a reminder that political participation does not have to begin with large donors, established parties, or career politicians. Although The Student List has a long way to go and must still prove that it can turn its electoral success into meaningful reforms against corruption, its rise shows something more important: that people care about doing the right thing and holding those in office accountable if need be. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Theodore Maher
Follow Us