Jack Smith, Former Special Counsel, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, September 29, to answer questions about his investigations and criminal prosecutions of President Donald Trump. During the hearing, Smith testified, defending the decisions and investigation methods he and his team used against President Trump. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith special counsel on November 18, 2022. His primary responsibilities were to oversee two investigations: one investigation concerning Trump’s efforts to interfere with the transfer of power after the 2020 U.S. election and another investigation involving classified documents and presidential records at Mar-a-Lago resort. Political polarization has become increasingly familiar in American public life, shaping how people view political opponents and national issues. Americans have expressed frustration on issues such as the government’s handling of the economy, inequalities of wealth, and polarization over domestic issues. Even though both of Smith’s cases were dismissed in 2024, the questions surrounding them remain. Moreover, last Tuesday’s hearing shows the controversy over Smith’s actions has not faded from the political spotlight. The circumstances surrounding those cases raise a larger question: What should congressional oversight look like when the investigation itself has already ended? In my view, congressional oversight means shifting the conversation toward the issues and evidence being examined rather than personal attacks on those who testify. During Tuesday’s hearing, Republican senators argued that Smith’s decision to bring criminal charges against Trump during the 2024 election cycle was politically motivated. The Trump campaign has characterized Smith’s prosecutions against him as “witch hunts”. The Senate Hearing also included personal attacks directed at Smith. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri), called Smith “a total dirtbag”. In my view, personal insults shift the discussion away from the investigations and toward personal attacks. A congressional hearing should examine how much power federal prosecutors should have when investigating a president and what limits should apply regardless of which political party occupies the White House. That, in my view, is what makes Tuesday’s hearing more significant than the political arguments surrounding it. The hearing should not simply become another chapter in the continuing political battle between President Trump and his opponents. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was another Senator present before the Senate Committee that challenged Smith over his team’s use of phone records from Republican lawmakers. Smith responded that obtaining the records wasn’t abuse of power, and he said he won’t remain silent in the face of ongoing threats directed at him. The exchange illustrates how difficult it can be for congressional oversight to remain separate from partisan conflict when lawmakers disagree over the conduct being investigated. How then should the House and Senate approach Congressional hearings? Congress should create an environment where lawmakers can scrutinize government actions, question witnesses and debate the limits of federal power without allowing personal attacks to overshadow the issues at hand. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Felipe Cisternas
The United Nations’ contradictory and hypocritical imposition of sanctions on Iran and Israel demonstrates a massive lapse in applying international laws and statutes with consistency and fairness. Iran has faced a slew of sanctions in the last 20 years affecting their military and economy, while Israel has not faced any considerable or comparable sanctions, despite decades of avoiding nuclear weapons transparency and damning allegations of human rights abuses in both the Palestinian territory and Lebanon. The circumstances regarding the two Middle Eastern nations and their accused offenses are certainly different, but regardless, it prompts the question: Why has Iran faced a mountain of UN sanctions and condemnation from the international community, while Israel remains with practically no UN sanctions and comparatively better standing? Nuclear Program Oversight and the NPT Iran is one of the clearest examples of UN sanctions being put in place regarding nuclear activities. In 2006, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1696, demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment, after the International Atomic Energy Agency raised concerns. It did not take long for the Iranians to refuse this demand. Subsequently, in December 2006, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1737, which banned the supply of enrichment-related materials and froze assets of companies assisting in Iranian uranium enrichment. Additional UN sanctions were put in effect after Iran’s long-standing refusal in 2007, 2008, and 2010, which now included an arms embargo and travel restrictions on the nation. Interestingly enough, Iran has been a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1968, which seeks to foster peace through safe and legal nuclear development. Israel has never signed the Treaty and has expressed no intent to do so. They maintain nuclear ambiguity, refusing to acknowledge the existence of a nuclear program or weapons arsenal. As most can likely infer, despite its denial, Israel is widely suspected of possessing an estimated 90 nuclear warheads. This should make it evident to the world that Israel is just as dangerous, if not more than Iran, when it comes to the question of nuclear capability. Israel often cites Iran as a dangerous power with unknown nuclear capabilities, when in reality, that description also fits Israel quite well. What often fuels the one-sided concern and fear over Iran is that they can be held to the NPT. Israel’s absence from this treaty, coupled with their nation only being recognized in 1948, often results in concerns being downplayed by the international community. This is unacceptable, as all member states should be shown the same consideration under international law. Further biased treatment by the UN will most likely result in the UN’s global integrity falling. Human Rights Abuses Nuclear proliferation and oversight are not the only factors regarding the case for increased sanctions on Israel. Not only has current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu been issued an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2024 for crimes against humanity, but the UN Commission on Human Rights concluded in 2025 that Israel had committed genocide in the Gaza Strip. A more concerning factor in the abuse of human rights lies in Israel’s continued use of white phosphorus against civilians in Lebanon and Gaza. White phosphorus is a munition that burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and can instantly melt flesh and bones. Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) outlaws the use of White Phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas. Unsurprisingly and similarly to the NPT, Israel has never signed this agreement. Israel has also employed other tactics against civilians, including the shelling of an IVF clinic, blocking of humanitarian aid, purposeful starvation, murder, bombing of hospitals, and sexual abuse committed against prisoners by both the IDF and guards in Israeli prisons. The UN Commission on Human Rights has found Israel guilty on every single account, leading to the conclusion of genocide. The Question of Selective Punishment The conditions here are very clearly different, but the principle of legal violations is certainly not. Iran has faced a mountain of sanctions from the UN regarding its nuclear program and capabilities. Israel faces mere scrutiny over a plethora of crimes that the international community still does not fully acknowledge, while also likely concealing its own nuclear program and arsenal. Sanctions are intended to penalize countries that violate international law and do not apply only to nuclear activities. Israel has repeatedly shown a lack of regard for international humanitarian law and investigations into such abuses, as they continue to condemn organizations like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and Amnesty International, which have played a pivotal part in protecting and upholding human rights around the world for decades. Ultimately, if the UN wishes to maintain its credibility as a legitimate diplomatic world body that applies international law with consistency and fairness, it needs to hold Israel accountable for the genuine violations of international law. The UN must uphold the law in all areas of its jurisdiction, regardless of political consequences, as that is the only avenue for true peace. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Theodore Maher
In early September, Dario Amodei of Anthropic published an essay to urge the slowdown of AI development. As the CEO of one of the leading AI companies, his call for more regulation is telling. Within days, competitors in the AI industry, such as Sam Altman of OpenAI and Elon Musk of xAI had endorsed his views. Soon after, on September 13th, House Speaker Mike Johnson argued that “If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate AI, we will lose the race to China, and that is a threat to every single American. So, we’ve got to have balance.” President Trump, meanwhile, dismissed the call for a slowdown, arguing on Truth Social, “We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies!” He went on to say: “There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China.” It was a strange spectacle: the builders of a technology asking for restraint, and the government that could impose it refusing. If the companies building the most powerful AI systems want someone to set limits, who can? The EU has set out a framework on AI regulation; in America, its industry leaders are calling for regulation, only for federal lawmakers to rebuff such attempts. Two Philosophies on AI Regulation The European Union wrote the AI Act, which came into force in August 2024. The law applies to all 27 member states and divides AI by the different risks it poses. At the top of the hierarchy are AI uses that are banned, including social scoring by governments. Next, we have “high-risk” AI uses, such as systems that help to decide who gets hired, whether a customer is eligible for a loan, or whether a student should be offered admission into university. These systems are allowed, under certain rules and conditions, including transparency regarding how these AI programs are used. AI-generated content, like Chatbots and LLMs (Large Language Models), carries lighter regulations to disclose what these tools are and how they are used. For the U.S., there is no equivalent federal law that governs AI. AI is still governed by older statutes on technology use, consumer protection, and copyright law. There is, however, a body of state law that is putting further scrutiny on how AI is used. Europe: The Rulebook & Slowdown Europe was first to regulate via the EU AI Act. However, making rules is one thing; implementing them effectively is another. Part of the problem is effective enforcement. By 2025, companies simply did not have the technology or set of standards needed to enforce key provisions. As a result, it became clear that key regulations, particularly for “high-risk” AI — which had greater reporting standards — would not be enforced on time. A second problem is the structure of the EU. Under Article 70 of the act, each member state had until August 2nd, 2025, to establish standards and enforce the law. However, that deadline was not met, and each of the 27 member states moved at different speeds. Each member state also has its own limits and ability to effectively implement complex regulations. This is a common issue with EU regulatory frameworks, and the problem is also prevalent here. Because of this issue, later in 2026, the European Commission made an amendment to the AI law, called the Digital Omnibus on AI. This law came into force in July of this year, as Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. The new timeline pushes obligations for stand-alone high-risk systems to Dec. 2, 2027. It would be easy to read this as Europe losing its willingness to regulate AI; however, that misses a few things. Firstly, the omnibus also tightened the law. It added a ban on AI practices that generate non-consensual sexual imagery, including child sexual material. Second, the delay left the rules for general-purpose models untouched. These are the large systems, like ChatGPT and Claude, that sit under other products. Their providers have carried obligations since August 2025, and those whose models may pose “systemic risk” must notify the European AI Office. Using a banned practice can still cost a company up to 35 million euros or 7 percent of worldwide annual turnover. Third, Brussels has already started to use these regulations. On Aug. 29, the AI Office sent its first formal requests for information: one set to developers of some of the most advanced models, and another to more than 30 companies on how they disclose their training data. How much further it will go is unknown, but the regulatory powers are real, and they are being used America: Rulebooks Under Development In December 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, which makes it federal policy to pursue global AI dominance through a “minimally burdensome” national framework and to check state laws the administration considers excessive. The order directs the attorney general to create an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge them in court. In July 2025, the Senate voted 99 to 1 to strip a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws from the president’s signature tax-and-spending bill. Opposition had come from both parties; Congress is not yet willing to federally regulate AI, but does not support stopping states from issuing their own. With that vacuum, some states have decided to act. California’s SB 53, signed in September 2025 and in effect since January of this year, is aimed squarely at frontier AI like ChatGPT and Claude. It requires developers of the largest models to publish safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents to the state, and protect whistleblowers, with civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation. Colorado, on the other hand, targeted algorithmic discrimination in decisions about employment, housing, health care, lending, and education. Colorado is also where the federal-state conflict became a lawsuit. In April of this year, Musk’s xAI sued to block the law, and the Justice Department joined the case on the company’s side, arguing
By Vaibhav Sinha
Follow Us