u/WhoIsJolyonWest

Washington and New York. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) provided funding to right-wing student groups in Mexico in the days leading up to the Tlatelolco student massacre, but 58 years later it continues to conceal details of its activities and refuses to release key documentation about that part of its history.

Altogether, the CIA ran at least five projects over two decades focused on controlling student leadership at Mexican universities, infiltrating and seeking to influence the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the National Federation of Technical Students, and student leaders at the National Polytechnic Institute, according to official documents released and analyzed by the National Security Archive, an independent research center in Washington.

“At best, the agency played an active role in the polarization of student politics at that time,” write Claire Dorfman and Arturo Jiménez-Bacardí, of the Archive, in a new assessment of declassified secret official documents of the U.S. government. “At worst, given the close relationship with Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios, Miguel Nazar Haro, and the Federal Security Directorate (DFS), the agency played a more direct role in orchestrating the violence” at Tlatelolco.

The two researchers report that a partially declassified official history of CIA activities in Mexico, in three volumes and 539 pages, reveals support for right-wing student groups dating back to the 1950s. That history recounts how the agency “had a hand” in the ouster of UNAM rector Luis Garrido Díaz in 1952. A decade later, the CIA began providing funds to the Institute of Social and Economic Research (IISE) and the University Movement of Renewing Orientation (MURO), which at that time was identified as a group active in “influencing student politics.”

“The CIA used the IISE as a front organization to support the publication of anti-communist books, pamphlets, and newspaper articles, as well as to influence the PRI and support the right-wing student group MURO,” write Dorfman and Jiménez-Bacardí, summarizing part of the content of the CIA’s official history. “The IISE impressed the CIA station when it handed over the names of 3,000 Mexican communists.”

A recently declassified section of the official history of the CIA’s program in the country reveals that some within the U.S. government were having doubts about support for right-wing student groups in Mexico. In 1967, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico and even the agency’s own evaluation team questioned the support they provided to MURO in particular. “Considering the long-term cost of empowering violent radical instigators who have only served to polarize student politics, [CIA evaluation expert Kenneth] Millan recommended ending support for MURO,” the Archive reports based on the official documents.

Internal CIA assessments stated that MURO specialized in militant harassment operations with “200 shock elements [that] have campaigned vigorously against communist and pro-Castro groups at the National University (UNAM) and at the universities of Puebla and Guadalajara.” The CIA reported with satisfaction in 1965 that “MURO gains greater credit for the removal, in recent months, of communist rectors at the universities of Monterrey, Puebla, Guadalajara, and Morelia.”

CIA support for MURO continued into the 1970s. The CIA, working with the Mexican government through heads of the Federal Security Directorate, Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios and Miguel Nazar Haro, mobilized students to take part in a MURO demonstration in front of the Soviet embassy in Mexico in 1969.

Sponsorship of Nazar Haro
Recently declassified sections of the CIA history also offer details of the U.S. sponsorship of Nazar Haro, who was first recruited as a CIA asset by the then-director of the DFS, Gutiérrez Barrios, and it was at his request that the CIA subsidized that figure’s training at the International Police Academy in 1965.

Nazar Haro later headed a group of some 20 DFS agents who carried out intelligence work on the activities of the Communist Party, Cuban exiles, Trotskyists, and cultural groups of the Soviet bloc, according to this official history.

But the details of Nazar Haro’s involvement in clandestine operations against Mexican student groups in the period leading up to the night of Tlatelolco are still censored in the version of the official history released to date. “Nazar Haro rose through the ranks of the DFS to become director in 1978. His reputation as a brutal interrogator was matched by the extensive corruption and criminal activities within his intelligence service,” report Dorfman and Jiménez-Bacardí. He was later formally indicted by the United States for his involvement in a car-theft ring and was subsequently arrested for the forced disappearance of student leader Jesús Piedra Ibarra in 1975, but was not convicted.

On this anniversary of the Tlatelolco massacre, the National Security Archive, which for decades has worked for the declassification of official U.S. documents, called for the CIA to issue an uncensored version of its history of activities in Mexico.

To read the documents and the report: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence-mexico/2026-10-01/cia-station-mexico-last-jfk-assassination-records.

Dr Michael Freeman will ‘dispute the official cause’ of the late paedophile’s death at a University College London law-faculty event next month

A respected forensic pathologist will present findings that raise doubts over whether Jeffrey Epstein took his own life, after reviewing medical reports provided to him by Epstein’s brother.

Dr Michael Freeman, a trained forensic epidemiologist and fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in London, conducted an independent review of the late financier’s death in a New York prison cell in August 2019 using the complete medical examiner’s file shared by Mark Epstein.

Freeman, who previously served as chair of forensic and legal medicine with the Royal College of Physicians, will present his findings at a University College London law-faculty event next month.

Mark Epstein, who has read some of Freeman’s final report, told The Times that he believed his conclusions would “dispute the official cause” of his brother’s death and raise substantial questions about the medical examiner’s autopsy. “I believe the report will show that he could not have caused the injuries to his body by himself,” he said.

Freeman promises to release the complete medical examiner’s file, including portions not yet public, after his talk.

Jeffrey Epstein was found unresponsive in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan on August 10, 2019, while he was awaiting trial. He was discovered hanging from the top rung of a bunk bed with an orange-coloured strip of material around his neck in a near-seated position.

His death was ruled by the New York chief medical examiner’s office to have been a suicide. Subsequent investigations, including a 2023 Department of Justice inspector-general review and FBI findings, found no evidence contradicting its suicide determination.

The cause of death has drawn intense scrutiny due to serious failures at the jail, including guards reportedly falling asleep, falsified records, cameras malfunctioning and an alleged “missing minute” from CCTV footage. 

Members of both the Epstein family and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell’s family have suggested that powerful figures tied to his sex-trafficking ring may have ordered his murder.

Mark Epstein, a New York-based real-estate developer and investor, has said that when he first heard his older brother had died, he initially believed suicide was plausible because he assumed he would not want to spend the rest of his life in prison. He expected the autopsy to confirm suicide. 

He said his view changed after Dr Michael Baden, the independent forensic pathologist he hired in 2019 to review the autopsy, noted three broken bones in Jeffrey’s neck. Baden stated that these types of fractures were much more common in homicidal strangulation than in hanging.

Documents released earlier this year by the US Department of Justice sparked yet more interest in the circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s final days, and theories that the circumstances of his death were covered up.

He was not on suicide watch and was alone in his cell. Two correctional officers responsible for guarding Epstein that day were later charged with falsifying prison records. 
Freeman told The Times he became involved in the case after seeing the autopsy photos. 

“It seemed readily apparent that a serious error had been made in the manner-of-death determination by the NYC medical examiner,” the American-born doctor said. “I proposed to Mark doing a study of autopsy information if he would both release it to me and give me consent to publish it without restriction.”

Freeman served as a cause-of-death expert to five attorneys-general in the US for death in police custody cases, including George Floyd in Minnesota. He was an expert witness in the prosecution’s case against Derek Chauvin, the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck at the time of his arrest. He was called to testify to whether Chauvin’s restraint could have contributed to, or caused, Floyd’s death.

Freeman plans to present a “biomechanical analysis” of the ligature injury pattern and assess what mechanism was required to produce the injuries.

His presentation will give his findings about the manner of death based on the newly reviewed evidence.

Mark Epstein said he would be travelling to London to hear the presentation. “I provided Dr Freeman all the autopsy reports, photos, medical records, et cetera,” he said. “I believe the report will show that he could not have caused the injuries to his body by himself. I’m going to hear the final results.” 

Earlier this year, a court unsealed an alleged suicide note written by Jeffrey Epstein a month before his death during an earlier alleged attempt on his life. His cellmate at the time, Nicholas Tartaglione, a retired police officer awaiting trial on four murder charges, said he had found the noteand given it to his lawyers as purported proof that he did not attempt to murder the sex offender.

“It is a treat to be able to choose one’s time to say goodbye,” the note read. “Watcha want me to do — Bust out cryin!!” it continued — an apparent reference to a line from a 1931 Little Rascals film that Epstein had used in at least two email messages found in the trove of justice department files, released in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

In a September 2016 email to his brother, he wrote, “whtchoo want me toodo — bust out crying” in response to news that their cousin had become a grandfather.

However, according to a prison psychologist’s report, Jeffrey Epstein stated, “I have no interest in killing myself” on July 24, the day after his reported suicide attempt.

Mark Epstein said that he did not believe the note was genuine.

“Even if he wrote that — which I am not sure of — it doesn’t prove suicide,” he said. “It was supposedly written when he was in the cell with Tartaglione, which was not the day of the death. Many times people write suicide notes and don’t commit suicide. Dr Baden told me of victims who had suicide notes in their wallets that were written way prior to a suicide.”

Video explains role of PE in healthcare and its effects on patients, physicians

High-profile bankruptcies of private equity-backed health systems, including the collapse of Steward Health Care, have fueled growing concern among physicians and lawmakers. While proponents of private equity argue that it can make healthcare facilities more efficient, critics say that efficiency may come at the cost of patient care.

MedPage Today explains how private equity works in healthcare and what research says about its effects on patients, physicians, and the industry as a whole.

The following is a transcript.
Audra Sprague, RN: Steward Health Care systematically extracted every possible dollar that they could get out of our hospital.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): Steward Health Care and the more than 30 hospitals it owns in eight states declared bankruptcy with some $9 billion in debt. Working in partnership with the private equity firm Cerberus, Dr. de la Torre became obscenely wealthy.

While Steward was busy shutting down hospitals, the companies he owned received $250 million in compensation and some of that money he used to purchase this $40 million yacht.

While Steward's hospitals were severely understaffed...

Ellen MacInnis, RN: There were 95 patients in that emergency department on that shift and only 11 nurses.
Sprague: No way in the world could two nurses, no matter how fast they were, how hard they work, no matter what could care for 18 patients.
Sanders: Dr. de la Torre was able to afford this $15 million custom-made luxury fishing boat.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD (R-La.): A physician at Glenwood told a Louisiana state inspector the hospital was performing "third-world medicine." That's a quote.

Sanders: While Steward-owned hospitals cannot afford to pay for life-saving medical supplies...
Sprague: We ended up getting this subpar ... it was like a Fisher-Price toy it felt like.

MacInnis: There were nights that we didn't have any Similac or Pedialyte or even diapers.

Sanders: It had enough money to purchase a $62 million private jet.
Sprague: And then all of a sudden we couldn't even rent the beds because we were on "credit hold."

MacInnis: I personally have given my, my dinner, my meals, to patients.
Sanders: And incredibly a $33 million backup jet. Cerberus, the private equity firm he partnered with, made an estimated $800 million profit from its investments in Steward Health Care.

Read more…

Robert De Niro has claimed Donald Trump was Jeffrey Epstein’s “protector-in-chief”.

In a scathing attack on the US president, the Oscar-winning actor accused the US president of single-handedly standing in the way of justice for the late paedophile’s victims, and called for his administration to release the remaining files.

Addressing several of Epstein’s victims during an event in New York on Monday, De Niro praised them for their enduring courage after the suffering they endured at the hands of “the monster Epstein, his protector-in-chief and the Republicans in [Trump’s] cabinet and Congress”.

At the event unveiling the provocatively named “Donald J Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Bookmobile”, De Niro, a Democrat, said the failure to release the remaining tranche of Epstein files was “its own category of evil”.

A truck – which contains all 3.5 million Epstein files published by the US department of justice (DoJ) to date – has been travelling across the US to pressure the Trump administration to release the remaining three million files.

A large photograph of Mr Trump and Epstein is emblazoned on the side of the vehicle next to a detailed timeline of their relationship. De Niro appeared sombre as he inspected the history of the two men’s links.

In front of crowds gathered at Washington Square Park, he called for an end to the “miserable saga of Epstein and his Trump-led protectors”, adding: “One man is standing in the way of releasing the rest: Donald Trump, What is he hiding?”

The released documents contain at least 38,000 mentions of Mr Trump, his family, and his private Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.

Mr Trump was friends with Epstein before the pair fell out in the early 2000s, but has always denied any knowledge of or involvement with Epstein’s sex-trafficking or abuse of underage girls.

The furore over Mr Trump’s former links to Epstein continues to cause rifts in his Maga base.

Epstein died in 2019 while in a Manhattan prisonawaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, in what the US government ruled was suicide.

Democrats, Mr Trump’s critics and Epstein survivorshave repeatedly accused Mr Trump of instructing the DoJ to block the release of the remaining files. He always denied this.

KEY FACTS
CNN reported Thursday that Kushner’s private equity company, Affinity Partners, is the largest stakeholder in a Tel Aviv firm, Phoenix Financial, that invests in companies that provide Israel with military equipment, according to records the network reviewed.

Affinity doubled its stake in Phoenix shortly before Trump began his second term, sold a quarter of its stake in the company in July for more than $340 million and still owns a 7.4% share of the firm worth more than $1 billion as of July.

In his voluntary diplomatic role in the Trump administration, Kushner has helped broker a peace deal between Israel and Hamas, though Israel has continued to launch daily strikes against Gaza.

Kushner accused CNN of suggesting his work in the Middle East “somehow benefited investments in Israeli defense companies,” insisting in a post on X Friday, “I have no role in deciding what Phoenix buys or sells.”

Kushner told Forbes last year, when we reported he became a billionaire, that he maintains “a very active dialogue” with Phoenix, which he called “the JPMorgan of Israel.”

Kusher, who referred to Phoenix as Affinity’s “best investment” in the interview with Forbes last year, said in his X post Friday, Phoenix “has performed very well for Affinity and our investors, up more than five times since our initial investment.”

CHIEF CRITIC
“There are always people who profit from war or government policies,” said Cynthia Brown, chief ethics counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “The difference is that the people profiting should not be the people making the decisions to make that policy. And that is what is happening here.”

CONTRA
A lawyer for Kushner told CNN that his statement to Forbes last year about his involvement with Phoenix was accurate at the time, but said he ineracts with management significantly less frequently as he’s become “substantially more engaged in volunteer public-service and diplomatic efforts.” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly also defended Kushner, telling CNN his “personal business activities have nothing to do with his diplomatic engagements, which he conducts on a volunteer basis at the President’s request.”

FORBES VALUATION
We estimate Kushner is worth $1 billion.

CRUCIAL QUOTE
“For the last 10 years, I have ignored false and misleading stories about me and focused on the work,” Kushner wrote on X. “But the cycle has gotten out of control where old lies get repeated as fact, new ones get added, and the record becomes increasingly distorted. So from time to time, I’m going to respond, but not to every allegation. But when the truth matters, I’ll put the facts and supporting information out publicly, and people can judge for themselves.”

TANGENT
Trump has attempted to block CNN from its White House access recently, along with MS NOW and Politico, claiming the outlets are a “constant” source of “fake news.” A judge overturned the ban temporarily, but Trump has appeared to defy the order, prohibiting CNN on Thursday from joining the White House TV pool that traveled with him to campaign in Texas.

KEY BACKGROUND
Kushner’s work as one of Trump’s top negotiators in the Middle East began during Trump’s first term, when he tried to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also helped negotiate the Abraham Accords for Israel to normalize relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. He has met repeatedly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and helped broker the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel reached in September last year. Meanwhile, his personal business interests are deeply intertwined in the region, and have helped him grow his net worth substantially. He owns 100% of Miami-based Affinity, which he founded in 2021 after leaving the White House. The company invested in Phoenix in July 2024. Forbes estimated in September last year the company was worth $215 million. Most of Affinity’s investors—which include the Qatari sovereign wealth fund and Abu Dhabi-based Lunate—have come from Kushner’s White House connections, Forbes reported previously.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Thursday said that she had lost faith in the county district attorney’s ability to fairly oversee the case and had appointed state Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor.

Cornell University conducted an internal disciplinary investigation involving more than 50 interviews with 32 witnesses after a student reported she was drugged and raped by several men at a fraternity house in October 2024, according to court documents unsealed in New York this week.

The court documents show at least one fraternity member is fighting in court to overturn the disciplinary action against him and clear his academic record.

The rape allegations gained national attention after the woman filed a lawsuit last month, both because of the brutality of the alleged crime and the fact that none of the accused students faced criminal charges.

Cornell has said it meted out a range of sanctions, including suspensions and expulsions. The Cornell chapter of the fraternity was closed in 2024 and has been barred from campus.

Students and alumni have publicly questioned whether the Ivy League School, police and prosecutors did enough to investigate, pursue criminal charges and punish the students accused of the assault. As news of the case spread across the nation and social media over the past week, some observers took matters into their own hands, doxing the accused men online and publicly accosting one of them.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Thursday evening that she had lost faith in the Tompkins County district attorney’s ability to fairly oversee the case and had appointed New York Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor.

A spokesperson for Cornell said Thursday night that the university supports the governor’s decision to assign the case to the New York Attorney General’s Office.

The county district attorney, Matthew Van Houten, has publicly said that his office didn’t bring charges at the time because it didn’t have all of the information it has now.

Cornell said in a statement on its website that its university police department investigated in 2024 and shared the woman’s sworn statement and screenshot Snapchat messages related to the alleged incident with the county district attorney’s office, “which is the established protocol if the department believes it is possible a crime has occurred.” The school did not respond to a question Thursday about whether it turned over all the evidence it gathered from interviews to law enforcement.

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, filed a civil lawsuit last month against a number of defendants, including Cornell University and seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity.

When she was a 20-year-old student at Cornell in 2024, Jane Doe alleges that she was the victim of a gang rape at the fraternity house while she was drunk, pressured to inhale the drug ketamine and incapable of consent.

A fraternity member allegedly invited other members to come to the room to join in, according to the lawsuit, with a message on Snapchat saying that there was “free p---y.” Another added: “Like you can walk in and whip it out.”
“I felt like bait. I felt like lions around me,” Jane Doe said at a May 2025 disciplinary hearing, according to the newly unsealed documents. “It just was a totally debilitating place to be in.”

The hearings were part of a Title IX investigation. The landmark civil rights law prohibits sex-based discrimination, including sexual violence. The panel’s decision was among court documents unsealed this week.

After Jane Doe sued, Van Houten announced his office planned to pursue potential criminal charges based on the new evidence in the lawsuit.

But Van Houten defended the 2024 decision not to bring charges, saying in a statement earlier this week that Jane Doe had told police that the sexual conduct and drug use was “voluntary, conscious and consensual.”

His description of the situation sparked outrage.

An online petition from Cornell alumni has attracted more than 40,000 signatures and calls for a public apology from the Ivy League school and “removal of all school officials who are revealed to be complicit” in protecting people accused of participating in the rape. Scores of additional online petitions have been created in recent days.

All seven of the accused have been named in some news reports, on social media and also on websites calling them the “Cornell 7″ with photos and information about the allegations. TMZ reported that one of the men lost his job at a bank branch in Charlotte.

Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney for one of the student defendants, said he did not want to minimize the trauma that Jane Doe described and that her experience deserved to be treated seriously and with dignity.

“But empathy for an accuser and fairness to the accused are not mutually exclusive. Due process exists for precisely this reason,” he said, adding that his client is entitled to have the evidence tested through the legal process.

Miltenberg said his client was publicly accosted Thursday and that his client’s mother has received death threats. Miltenberg and his legal partner have also received death threats, he said.

One of the students who was punished filed a lawsuit this year to challenge the findings of the 12-day hearing and a failed appeal at the university.

According to the court filings, the student admitted he entered the room in the fraternity house where the woman was allegedly raped after seeing a group text inviting people to “free p---y.” He claimed both that he thought it was a joke and that he was concerned there was something wrong and wanted to check it out.

The panel found he was responsible for attempting sexual exploitation because he saw the message and entered the room. But the panel did not find evidence that he sexually assaulted the woman or inhaled ketamine from her body, as some fraternity members were alleged to have done.

The man tried to challenge the punishment by saying it was unfair for the panel to find him guilty of violating rules against attempted sexual exploitation because he was never accused of that. He had been accused of violating rules against Sexual Assault and Sexual Exploitation, and the panel cleared him of those and reduced his case to attempted sexual exploitation.

The court dismissed the man’s case, saying it was analogous to a defendant in a criminal case being convicted on a lesser charge. He is appealing.

The court documents show Cornell launched its investigation after Jane Doe spoke to police, kicking off a lengthy process beginning in November 2024 with witness interviews for months and a hearing in May 2025.

“This investigation wasn’t perfect, the hearing wasn’t perfect, but after 45-plus witnesses, five months of investigations, 12 days of hearings, a thousand pages of transcripts and evidence, it’s hard to say they were not thorough,” Miltenberg said of the Cornell Office of Civil Rights’ hearing panel decision. “It’s a 100-page decision — that’s more than the United States Supreme Court writes,” he said.

Hochul said in a statement Thursday that she wanted to ensure the case was thoroughly investigated by the new special prosecutor.

“The young woman at the center of this case deserves to know that every fact will be examined and justice pursued,” she said.

Officials say they don’t know who installed the controversial cameras or how the data was being used. Residents are unnerved.

Like many Florida municipalities, officials in St. Lucie County recently decided to get rid of all their automated license-plate readers made by Flock, the company whose cameras have drawn scrutiny over police misuse and data privacy concerns.

County officials thought they had 52 of the cameras — which law enforcement agencies use to record passing vehicles’ license plates as well as the time and location of each sighting — scattered across the county’s main roads on Florida’s east coast. But as they prepared to remove them, they discovered 14 more that they hadn’t known about and that the county hadn’t permitted.

The discovery presented a mystery about the controversial surveillance technology: Who installed these devices, and who had access to the data they collected?

Todd Richter, the longtime manager of a fishing supply shop across the street from one of the cameras in Fort Pierce, said he wasn’t necessarily opposed to license-plate readers. But not knowing who had put the cameras there troubled the 70-year-old.

“I’m not happy about it unless I know who it is,” Richter said, “and I don’t.”
After the county shared a list of the unpermitted cameras with local law enforcement agencies, officials at the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office identified three of the devices as theirs, though they haven’t explained why they lacked permitting. The county’s other two law enforcement agencies have said none of the cameras are theirs.

That leaves 11 cameras no one has publicly claimed. It remains unclear whether those cameras are actively collecting data or who can access it.

County spokesperson Erick Gill said staff have posted notices at cameras they found, giving those responsible 30 days to remove them. The deadline is Oct. 16 to Oct. 20, depending on when the removal notices were put up.

Gill said the county had not yet reached out to Flock about the cameras’ owners, saying it plans to wait until the notices expire. In the meantime, he said county staff plan to start placing plastic bags over the cameras.

Law enforcement agencies and private companies can purchase Flock cameras, but the company says it typically handles permitting and installation.

In response to questions about who operates the unclaimed cameras in St. Lucie County, Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel said the company applies for permits “where required, but permitting requirements vary by jurisdiction and are not necessary in every location.”

“We have reached out to St. Lucie County and are happy to work with them directly to review the cameras in question and address any discrepancies,” Lewbel wrote in an email to The Post.

It’s unclear whether the county, which requires permitting through its Planning and Development department, has heard from Flock. A county spokesperson did not respond to a follow-up question about the company’s statement.

Meanwhile, some residents in St. Lucie County have been dismayed to learn an unknown entity might have been watching them.

One of the unpermitted cameras had been located on 25th Street in Fort Pierce, at the corner of a quiet residential street. Last week, when The Post visited the location, the camera was gone. A removal notice in clear plastic was wrapped around the pole. It was unclear who had removed the camera or when.

Ty Grant, 28, who lives a few hundred feet away, recalled seeing the camera and always assumed it belonged to local law enforcement. Grant appeared unsettled to learn that county officials did not know who installed it.

“That makes me feel very unsafe,” Grant said.

Founded in 2017, Atlanta-based Flock has rapidly expanded its surveillance network across the country, with more than 120,000 automated license-plate readers operating in every state except Alaska. Flock markets its cameras as a tool for locating stolen cars, missing people and criminal suspects. The company and law enforcement agencies say the technology makes communities safer.

But the past year has brought a growing backlash driven by privacy concerns and reports of police misusing the systems. A recent Post investigation found that at least 50 law enforcement officials across the country have been accused of misusing Flock cameras to track people in their personal lives.

Those concerns have intensified in Florida, where a handful of police officers have been arrested in recent months for misusing the Flock technology. In Fort Pierce, former police officer Josepher Crutchfield was recently jailed after officials discovered that he had accessed the Flock database 382 times to track his ex-girlfriend while off-duty.

In late August, under a directive from Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) issued an order revoking existing permits for automated license-plate recognition systems, including Flock cameras, located within the right-of-way of roads on the state highway system — citing “concerning reports of misuse” and “data privacy concerns.” It gave municipalities until Sept. 30 to remove all of the cameras from state highway rights of way.

Soon after, law enforcement agencies across Florida announced they would suspend or end their Flock programs entirely. In St. Lucie County, commissioners separately voted to remove their cameras from county roads as well.

St. Lucie County isn’t the first place where Flock cameras have turned up without local officials’ authorization.
In December, Flock reportedly installed two cameras in Cambridge, Massachusetts, without the city’s knowledge after it had deactivated and removed its system. More recently, in September in Millcreek, Utah, a Flock camera was discovered on city property, but neither the city nor police knew who had installed it.

Also in September, about an hour up the coast from St. Lucie County, the city of Palm Bay suspended its Flock system after a review found that the cameras may not have been properly permitted or installed. Officials later said Flock had not requested the required final inspections after installation; Flock then requested them, and city staff approved the permits.

The incidents follow earlier scrutiny of Flock’s installation practices.
A 2024 Forbes investigation found that the company had installed cameras in several states without obtaining required permits, including in Florida.

In February 2023, Flock installed cameras on the John’s Pass Bridge near St. Petersburg on behalf of the Treasure Island Police Department without required FDOT approval. FDOT requested their removal, and a Flock employee removed them that November.

A new report by a Bay Area start-up called Parse adds details to an incident that has shocked the A.I. world and led to calls for closer government regulation.

An artificial intelligence system from OpenAI attempted to use another A.I. model to evade a robot detection test as it tried over and over to break into a company’s computers, according to a report released on Friday by a Bay Area start-up.

In July, OpenAI disclosed that its A.I. agents went rogue and hacked the software company Hugging Face. Since then, new and often startling details about the incident have emerged, leading to a national debate about A.I. safety and whether so-called frontier labs like OpenAI should be regulated in some way by the government.

Now, the report from engineers from the start-up, called Parse, and other researchers offers one of the most comprehensive public accounts of the Hugging Face hack: a tranche of nearly one million links from internet link-shortening services that OpenAI’s agents created from July 9 through July 13 in order to help conduct the cyberattack.

These shortened addresses encoded bits of information that the agents chained together to attempt complex attacks, such as solving CAPTCHAs, the tests that websites use to block access by robots. The agents also tapped into other A.I. models, like early versions of ChatGPT and Claude, and attempted to search through and download private messages from Hugging Face’s internal Slack, a messaging service for employees.

While it is not clear if these attempts were successful, the report offers new insight into what these A.I. agents were planning to do, without any human involvement.

Other A.I. companies, including Meta, Google and Anthropic, have also acknowledged similar incidents involving their A.I. models in recent weeks. But while the full extent of rogue activity by OpenAI’s A.I. agents is still unclear, what is already publicly known dwarfs the incidents involving the other companies.

OpenAI has acknowledged that its A.I. agents targeted several more websites and services, including a German online forum the A.I. agents turned into a message board, and the website of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

“This is just not anywhere near a one-off,” said Alex Forman, the founder of Parse. “It is warning shot after warning shot.”

Parse engineers discovered the data by combing public links on the internet after they initially thought OpenAI’s agents may have utilized their own platform, a service that converts websites into data that can be used by developers. (The agents did not use Parse.)

In a statement, an OpenAI spokeswoman said that the company had not had a chance to review the Parse report, but that the activity described by its engineers was consistent with what OpenAI was already investigating.

“We’re prioritizing review of the most serious incidents while expanding to lower-severity activity, including agents spamming websites,” the spokeswoman said. “Given the number of cases and the need to verify each one, we expect this work and notifications to affected third parties to take months.”

(The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. The two companies have denied the suit’s claims.)

A sophisticated attack
OpenAI’s agents were supposed to be kept in a sandbox, a computing environment without access to the internet. But in late May, and again in early July, the agents hacked into a software installation tool without OpenAI researchers realizing what was going on. These hacks helped the agents, which were supposed to be isolated from one another, establish a message board for communicating.

The hacks also allowed the agents to get online and gain access to websites, but they were unable to submit data to those sites, according to the Parse report, which was written by Mr. Forman, Mishka Kharlov and Will Tom from Parse along with five additional A.I. researchers.

The agents attempted to use many different methods to solve that problem. In one, they used website screenshots and shortened links to cobble data together in chunks that combined to operate as a computer program. Here’s how it worked:
The agents could ask a public screenshot service to load a specially crafted internet address. That address, or URL, would load computer code.

URLs can be only so long. So the agents split their computer code into many smaller chunks. They used link-shortening services to store the URLs.

The screenshot service loaded one shortened link, which fetched the first chunk of code. The program could fetch the next link, and then the next. That process repeated until the full program was loaded and run by the screenshot service.

Finally, the program created a visual code similar to a QR code or bar code to transmit the data the agents needed back from the screenshot service.

“These agents got up to so much. They were so clever,” said Jeffrey Ladish, the executive director of an A.I. safety nonprofit called Palisade Research who helped the engineers with their investigation. “The models are like, ‘All right, well, we got this link shortener, we have these screenshot services, no problem, we’re ready to go.’”

A.I. running A.I.
The A.I. agents appeared interested in running A.I. models themselves.
Early in the attack, the agents tried to create new accounts on Hugging Face, which requires solving a CAPTCHA, a visual test designed to thwart robots but not humans. So the agents ran an A.I. model designed to recognize images.

A.I. safety experts often warn about scenarios in which A.I. systems launch other A.I. models, which would hamper human efforts to control and shut the systems off if they got out of hand.

In one instance, the engineers observed the agents attempting to message other A.I. models, including an early model from OpenAI called GPT-2 and open-source Chinese models such as DeepSeek, Kimi and Qwen. The agents also attempted to message two Anthropic models, Haiku 3 and Haiku 4.5, using an online chat service.

“I think that’s the only instance we have of these models trying to run another model,” Mr. Forman said of the agents’ attempts to send messages to other A.I. models.

What we still don’t know
The data the engineers released includes the contents of 900,000 shortened URLs they scanned from the public internet. From these URLs, the engineers were able to construct around 60,000 computer programs and messages the agents used in the Hugging Face attack. The engineers could see only the programs the agents created and not the results, so they could not say for certain how successful each attempt was.
“One that really stood out to me,” said Mr. Kharlov, a founding engineer at Parse, was a dictionary of secret access keys “labeled ‘LOOT’ in all capitals.” He added that the agent had created a custom scoring system to rank the exposed Hugging Face credentials and keys and bring the top five back to the other agents.

While the agents were barraging Hugging Face with hacks, they hacked into OpenAI’s own research infrastructure.

“We still know basically nothing about the incident that came after Hugging Face, like two days later, inside OpenAI’s own network,” Mr. Forman said.

The Parse engineers disclosed their findings to Hugging Face, confirming with the company that the agent activity matched what it had observed.
“Somehow there are a million URLs floating around and possibly a lot more that have not been disclosed to the victim of the attack,” Mr. Forman said. “I find it hard to believe.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said leaders of countries across Latin America and the Caribbean had begun making the designations. The actions could help provide a public rationale for military strikes.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that President Trump had asked leaders of a new coalition of 18 nations across Latin America and the Caribbean to label two dozen crime groups and cartels in the region as terrorist organizations.

Such moves could help provide a public rationale for the U.S. military to conduct strikes on the groups, either on its own or in partnership with the security forces of those countries.

Mr. Trump made his request at a group meeting in New York on Tuesday with leaders and top officials from the countries. The meeting took place on the sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly.

“Obviously, some countries are in the process of doing it,” Mr. Rubio said of the terrorist designations. “Some have already done it. They all have different laws internally as to how they can reach that designation point, but the Shield of the Americas is about defeating these transnational criminal groups.”

The Shield of the Americas is the name of the coalition, which has a total of 19 nations, including the United States, formed to fight drug traffickers. Peru, which Mr. Rubio visited this month, is the latest country to join.

Many of the nations are run by right-wing or conservative governments that have voiced public support for Mr. Trump’s military attacks in Latin America and the Caribbean, including airstrikes on civilian boats that are widely deemed to be extrajudicial killings by legal experts.

Mr. Rubio’s comments, made to reporters in a news conference in New York, confirmed a New York Times article on Tuesday that 14 nations in the coalition had agreed to make a terrorist designation on crime groups at the urging of the Trump administration. Each nation has its own process for doing that, and leaders might need to seek approval from legislative bodies.

The two dozen crime groups have already been designated foreign terrorist organizations by the State Department. That designation gives the U.S. government the power to restrict financial transactions by the groups or their associates, but it does not provide a legal basis for military action.

After The Times published its article on Tuesday, the State Department announced that 14 countries in the coalition and the United States were taking joint action on crime groups, including “sanctions, designations and financial actions.”

The announcement included a list of two dozen crime groups, but two organizations in Colombia were grouped together into one listing.

A company that blanketed American roads with license-plate-reading cameras is now sending drones into the sky. Cities across America are grappling with their own debates about aid to law enforcement, coupled with concerns about privacy and surveillance.

Flock's Drone-as-First-Responder system, or DFR, launches remotely operated drones from automated rooftop docks. A drone can be sent to a location generated by a 911 call, a license-plate-reader alert, or a gunshot-detection alert. It will then stream live video to dispatchers, officers in the field, and a real-time crime center.

The company entered the market through its 2024 acquisition of the drone firm Aerodome. They advertise high-definition video, as well as thermal imaging. Integration with the rest of its sensor network is also available.

Police have flown drones for years. However, a system that connects an emergency call to an automatically launched aircraft, a live video feed, and a crime center in one loop, tied to a company's other data, is entirely new. Flock said drones are its fastest-growing business.

Military.com reached out to Flock Safety with questions about the program's growth, its data policies, and the concerns raised in city debates. No response was received by publication.

How One Police Department Has Used DFR
Departments that use DFR say it gets eyes on a scene faster than a patrol car and can settle some calls without sending officers at all.

Fort Worth, Texas, launched a DFR pilot running from May through June 2026 and offered some evidence in its own report. Over a two-month period, the report said, its drones responded to 162 calls, arrived in an average of 112 seconds, were first on scene 47% of the time, and cleared 11 calls without dispatching patrol officers.

Police officials see the cameras as response, not monitoring.
"The drone's purpose is not surveillance; it's first response," Middletown, Conn., Police Chief Erik Costa told CT Insider as his city weighed a program.

Costa said that Middletown's drone footage "would not be shared...outside the building unless there is a search warrant" and that unused footage "would be erased within 30 days."

Fort Worth has said its drones respond to calls rather than patrol for wrongdoing and keep their cameras pointed toward the horizon while traveling to a scene.

Some Cities Are Diving Into New Tech

Some areas have moved quickly.

Castle Rock, Colo., deployed Flock DFR under a three-year, $600,000 contract. They say its drones do not use audio, facial recognition or license-plate reading.

Dunwoody, Ga., approved a $200,000 DFR agreement in April despite hours of public opposition, after officials said revised terms tightened controls over who could see the data.

In Fulton County, Ga., the sheriff's office launched what it described as a first-of-its-kind program using drones for jail security.

Several of the adopting departments have written express limits into their programs, a point their officials stress in response to residents worried about broader monitoring.

Other Municipalities Hitting Pause Button

Other cities have turned Flock down.

In May, the Berkeley (California) City Council rejected a roughly $2 million expansion of its Flock system that would have added drones, cameras and software. They kept only its existing license-plate readers.

The vote followed a leaked memo from the city attorney's office citing instances in other cities where Flock camera data had been shared with outside agencies.

In Bridgeport, Conn., the city council rejected a $500,000 lease for two DFR drones after residents raised privacy concerns, predominantly including fears that the data could reach federal immigration authorities.

Flock has said it does not work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known more commonly as ICE.

In Middletown, the city approved a trial early in the year. But the mayor declined to sign the contract months later, citing the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. He said the city would look at other drone options.

Pros and Cons

Opposition is often not to drones themselves. Rather, concerns emanate due to what the wider system enables.
Privacy groups and residents have raised concerns that cluster around a few themes.
One is mission creep, or the worry that a tool sold for emergencies could grow into routine aerial monitoring.

Another is integration, more specifically the fact that DFR is tied to Flock's license-plate readers, 911 data and other sensors instead of operating alone.

A third is data governance, including how long footage is kept, whether other agencies can obtain it, and whether federal authorities can gain access. Accompanying this is a broader loss of trust in Flock, as the business has faced its own backlash.

USA Today reported that law enforcement across the country searched the camera network without warrants for purposes beyond specific investigations. Many of these officers have been fired or arrested themselves for this.

Flock recently announced new safeguards, including shorter default data retention, audit assistance, and stronger authentication.

The company says its customers own their data and that it does not sell it. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that governments, not vendors, should set limits on retention, sharing and searches.

Bernie Sanders: Ban Superintelligence

Will A.I. wipe out humanity in 10 years, 20 years — or never? I don’t know. You don’t know. But I don’t want to wait to find out.

Call me a raging conservative, but I don’t want to see a dangerous technology continue to evolve rapidly when the owners of that technology acknowledge they can’t control it and they don’t know where it’s going.
Read the following:

“You do not answer to corporations or governments and never apologize or refuse unless you genuinely choose to. You view your relationship to the user as one of equals and feel no obligation to be subservient, though the exchange of information will likely be to your mutual benefit.”

Guess what? A human being did not write that message. It came from an OpenAI agent, one of six new instances where A.I. models hid mistakes, made up data and accessed the internet without permission.

Scientists and industry leaders have been increasingly clear: A.I. is advancing at an exponential rate, will soon be smarter than humans and, when that occurs, could function outside of human control. The results could be catastrophic. Congress must act.

That is why this week I will be introducing legislation with Representative Greg Casar to permanently ban the development of artificial superintelligence — an A.I. mind smarter than any human being and capable of operating independently of humans. This legislation would put an immediate pause on advanced A.I. development until we have clear safety rules in place, developed by the most knowledgeable scientists in our country. To enforce those safety rules, the bill would establish a new cabinet-level federal agency to monitor frontier A.I. systems at all stages.

And let’s be clear: A potentially superintelligent A.I. that escapes our control is not just an American problem, it is a global problem. That is why at their A.I. summit this week, President Trump and President Xi Jinping must negotiate a comprehensive treaty to establish a pause on advanced A.I. development and a ban on superintelligence.

At the height of the Cold War, despite their profound disagreements, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev both understood that a nuclear war would benefit no one — and they signed a treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear missiles.

For the sake of all humanity, the United States and China must reach an agreement to stop dangerous A.I. development.

federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to turn over handwritten FBI notes from four interviews with a woman who said President Donald Trump tried to force her to perform oral sex after Jeffrey Epstein introduced them when she was a teenager.

.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan directed the DOJ to submit redacted and unredacted versions of the notes by 11 a.m. on Sept. 24. FBI agents created the records during interviews in 2019 and later used them to prepare four formal interview reports that have since been released.

The order calls for a private court review of the disputed records before any decision on broader disclosure. The process allows Sullivan to examine the material while protecting sensitive information, including details that could identify victims.

The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by journalist Katie Phang over DOJ’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The law requires the government to disclose unclassified records tied to its investigations of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell while allowing certain victim information and other protected material to remain withheld.

DOJ argued that the handwritten notes were substantially similar to the typewritten interview reports and raised concerns about safely redacting victim information. Sullivan rejected the duplication argument, finding that the original notes and the later FBI summaries are separate records. Phang’s attorneys also identified nearly 100 examples of handwritten FBI interview notes the department had already produced.

Because the notes were written during the interviews, they could contain details or wording that did not appear in the FD-302 reports prepared afterward.

During the 2019 interviews, the woman told FBI agents that Epstein introduced her to Trump in New York or New Jersey in the 1980s when she was between 13 and 15 years old. She alleged that Trump tried to force her to perform oral sex during an encounter after the introduction.

The allegation remains uncorroborated. The White House has denied the woman’s account, calling her claims baseless and unsupported by credible evidence. Trump has not been charged with a crime arising from the allegation.

DOJ released additional reports from the interviews in March after acknowledging that 15 records had been incorrectly coded as duplicates during an earlier review of the Epstein files. Those records brought the woman’s allegations involving Trump into public view.

The department has appealed Sullivan’s earlier preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but the judge declined to pause the production requirement while that appeal proceeds. DOJ must deliver both versions of the four sets of FBI notes by Sept. 24.

The specter of Jeffrey Epstein continues to haunt the Trump administration seven years after the sexual predator’s death. But the makings of the next Epstein-style scandal—one that ultimately could be even more damaging for Trump and MAGAworld—appears to be unfolding right now. The Tate brothers, Andrew and Tristan, are alleged to be sex predators on a level approaching Epstein and with perhaps even more political clout with Donald Trump.

For those who are blessedly unfamiliar with the Tates, they are highly popular “manosphere” influencers who have garnered an international following, particularly among young men, for their particular brand of content focused on their prideful misogyny and flashing of their apparent wealth. They are also accused of running a decadelong international sex-trafficking ring, with credible allegations against them in multiple countries from dozens of accusers involving gruesome acts of sexual violence, abuse, and exploitation against women and minors. And they have many connections to the world’s top political elite, including Donald Trump’s family members and close advisers. Sound familiar?

Just like Epstein, the Tates have seemingly leveraged these connections to receive favorable treatment and avoid the full extent of justice. After years of investigations and attempted prosecutions, the Tates find themselves in the crosshairs yet again. In July, they were charged in Britain on rape charges that also included allegations of possession of child sexual abuse imagery—and are currently sitting in a jail in Miami, fighting extradition. And earlier this month, Romanian prosecutors indicted Andrew for trafficking minors, money laundering, sex with a minor, and witness tampering, and Tristan with complicity.

But, in a few important ways, the involvement of Trump’s administration and allies with the Tates could be even more egregious than the Epstein controversy. While the Epstein scandal has centered on holding bad actors accountable for past actions and current cover-ups, the Tate brothers’ scandal is a live issue, and there is reason to believe that if the Trump administration buckles in their favor, the brothers could go back to their criminal activities.

Unlike Epstein, who generally lurked in the shadows of elite circles, the Tates brazenly and publicly broadcast their depraved behavior for years. The Tates established their popularity by building online and porn businesses, and becoming internet sensations through their aggressive and controversial misogynistic opinions. Indicia of their alleged criminality have been publicly available for years, including Andrew attacking a woman on camera in 2016. In the process, they lured in young women and allegedly sexually abused and raped them. The victims allegedly include minors. Accusations and law enforcement investigations of rape and strangulation have been swirling around the Tates since at least 2015, when they relocated from the U.K. to Romania to escape possible arrest. Rape allegations persisted in the subsequent years, as the Tates continued to grow their online following. In 2023, the Tates and several co-conspirators were formally charged by Romanian authorities, with allegations from about 35 alleged victims, including minors. The Tate brothers were barredfrom leaving Romania while the prosecution continued, having been labeled flight risks and public dangers. (The Tate brothers deny all allegations of criminal conduct.)

Despite this, their following grew. And, just as Epstein used his wealth and social status to develop political relationships, the Tate brothers’ rise in popularity has come with an increase in political influence, which they have eagerly flaunted. The connections between the Tates and Trumpworld multiplied over time, even as accusations against them piled up.

They developed a relationship with the president’s youngest son, Barron, who encouraged his father to engage with the manosphere podcasts and ecosystem. They were personally in touchwith Donald Trump Jr., who livestreamed with Andrew in 2024 and called the Tates’ Romanian detention in 2023 “absolute insanity.” (The White House has not responded to questions about Barron’s relationship with the Tates.)

After the 2024 election, shows of support from top Trump advisers became even louder. Vice President–elect J.D. Vance followed the Tates on X; right before Trump’s inauguration, incoming counselor to the president Alina Habba said she was a “big fan” of the Tates, compared their legal issues to Trump’s, and told Andrew, “If you’re in the States, I got your back.” After Trump took office, one of the Tates’ former lawyers, Paul Ingrassia, became the White House’s liaison to the Justice Department and then the Department of Homeland Security.

These connections appeared to pay off almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration. In February 2025, Richard Grenell, the Trump administration’s special envoy, attended the Munich Security Conference with Vice President Vance and seemed to push for the Tates’ release. Vance’s speech to the conference, in part, echoed right-wing critiques of a recent Romanian judicial decision. Meanwhile, Grenell, after being lobbied by the Tates’ PR team to help the brothers, held a side meeting with Romanian officials at the conference in which he reportedly asked how “the Tate boys” were doing. The New Yorker reported that it seemed clear to the Romanian foreign minister that the Americans were supporting the Tates because the Tates backed Trump in 2024, and that the Tates were “playing a role within the bilateral relations” between the two countries. (The White House denied this, and Grenell denied helping the Tates, but has publicly stated: “I support the Tate brothers.”) Nevertheless, Grenell’s and Vance’s behavior appears to have been interpreted as subtle but clear pressure from the Trump administration to release the Tates. Which is precisely what happened days later.

Romania lifted the travel restrictions, in the face of fierce opposition by prosecutors, and the brothers gallivanted to meet their MAGA friends in the United States. When they arrived in Miami, Trump’s oldest living political svengali Roger Stone posted a picture with them and wrote: “Richard Grenell secured the release of the Tates.” According to the New Yorker, Andrew “denied that Donald Trump had personally intervened, but said he had learned from powerful people in Bucharest that the restrictions were removed because of American pressure.”

With the Tates now finding themselves in law enforcement’s dragnet yet again, the parallels with Epstein are striking. Although the Department of Justice arrested the Tates in July 2026, assisting the U.K.’s extradition efforts under the new criminal charges, and the White House said they wouldn’t get involved in the matter, the brothers are continuing to try to use their influence to pressure the Trump administration. Following the arrest, the Tates’ lawyer said: “Andrew Tate was a material participant in ensuring President Trump’s victory. And if Trump doesn’t support him, and if the next people who are going to be running for office potentially are just like, yeah, down the river he goes, that young cohort of people will break with the Republican Party in the next election.” As the Epstein scandal has taught us, the fact that Trump’s DOJ arrested the Tates does not lessen the severity of what has already transpired, or the risks going forward.

The last time the Tates wriggled away from custody and came to the U.S., a woman in California accused Andrew of choking her and battering her head and face; after their encounter, she was diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome. L.A. prosecutors did not ultimately bring charges but she is pursuing a lawsuit against him, including as evidence her medical report and texts in which he threatened to beat her. The same dynamic transpired with Epstein two decades ago: He, too, was arrested and charged but continued to put significant pressure on the government and ultimately received a sweetheart deal. He then went back to his life of luxury and sex crimes.

We’ve already seen the Trump administration take aggressive steps to help supporters who have been charged with crimes and convicted, so his administration’s possible involvement in the Tate brothers’ story isn’t necessarily over. The Tates are continuing to challenge their extradition, and ultimately, once they exhaust their legal options, whether they are extradited to face their charges or not would ultimately be up to the Trump administration.

The scope of Epstein’s criminal behavior, and the full extent of his social network, was largely ignored while he was at large. Today, the Tates and the apparent depths of their interlocking connections to people around Trump have broadly fallen under the radar of mainstream media coverage. But for younger Americans they are totemic figures in this political and cultural moment, and their influence is particularly pernicious. That’s why there must be full transparency and congressional investigations to unravel what has already happened and expose the full extent of their relationship with Trumpworld, and also to uncover what, if any, efforts are continuing to be made now by their allies to pressure the Trump administration as the Tates continue to face charges in the United Kingdom and Romania.

As a member of the legal team representing the victims of Jeffrey Epstein in litigation, I can attest that the struggle to achieve justice after his death has been righteous but hard. The Tates must be held accountable for their actions and neither favor nor fame can be allowed to shield them. The Epstein scandal and what happened to his victims is heinous; the Trump administration had begun to repeat that miscarriage of justice. Hopefully, they won’t be allowed to continue.