While schools have made progress in technology adoption — from artificial intelligence guidelines to vetting education technology — they still struggle with the lack of resources, funding and expertise, according to a new report.

The annual State of EdTech report from the Consortium for School Networking polled roughly 600 chief technology officers for K-12 schools. One of the biggest takeaways, according to CoSN CEO Keith Krueger: AI adoption is higher than ever. According to the report, nearly three-quarters (79%) of school districts have AI guidelines in place, up from 57% in 2025.

“Given how many school districts we have, given how many small and rural ones there are, it’s shocking at how quickly at least the guidance around responsible use of AI is,” Krueger says. “As a foundational step, we’re seeing movement.”

But respondents repeatedly stated they are running into roadblocks of insufficient staffing and funding.

“There’s never going to be enough training, and we have to make sure the training is quality and meeting administrators with what they want and need,” Krueger says, adding it’s not just about training on a specific tool, but “helping them think in new ways how to use the tools.”

Most of the districts polled are in favor of AI guidelines, either set by the districts themselves or state education agencies, but do not want state or federal mandates. Typically, mandates are formed, then approved, by a board — something that is time-consuming and does not lend itself well in the fast-moving world of AI.

“This week, this month, this year is changing rapidly,” Krueger says. “It doesn’t mean we change fundamental beliefs of what’s cheating (with AI), for example, but things are moving rapidly. You don’t want to have too many solidly, board-approved things which can get locked in when you need to evolve.”

The most common AI initiative among districts is training staff on the use of instruction-focused generative AI tools, with 7 out of 10 respondents saying they do so. Productivity-focused measures focused on instructional staff and teachers followed, with 54% and 53%, respectively, deploying those initiatives. One of the largest jumps was the amount of districts having initiatives focused on AI’s operational purposes, from 37% in 2025, to 64% in 2026.

Less than half (41%) of initiatives focus on using AI for teaching and learning.

“I would say the low hanging fruit is on the operational and teacher productivity side,” Krueger says. “We should continue to explore and think through the great uses that are in the classroom. But, overnight we shouldn’t just wildly go trying to do those things when it’s going to take time to figure out the instructional piece.”

Cybersecurity

The largest concern about AI use: cybersecurity attacks. According to the report, nearly all respondents (98%) are concerned that AI can bring in new forms of cyber attacks, with just 2% stating they are “not at all concerned.” That same percentage also has concerns on student data and AI’s effect on its privacy.

While the concern over cybersecurity is strong, two-thirds of respondents state they have insufficient staffing and budget to address those challenges.

Cybersecurity concerns continue to cause schools woe, most recently with the Instructure attack in May that caused several schools to pay a ransom and shut down one of the world’s largest digital education platforms.

“The high visibility breaches and attacks that we’ve seen underscore the real cost to our school system by not investing in better cybersecurity,” Krueger says.

After 17 years of utilizing the State of EdTech report, Krueger says he believes a tipping point may have finally been reached on addressing cyber concerns.

“Certainly those in charge of technology have been yelling loudly that cybersecurity is a problem,” he says, adding the issue has become more well-known among superintendents and school board members. “I think they will start to say, ‘We can’t just have these broadband networks and not have them safe and secure.’ But it’s a huge challenge, given the lack of human capacity in schools for cybersecurity.”

EdTech

Another major finding from the report is an issue that has been bubbling beneath the surface in both tech evangelist and oppositional circles: vetting educational technology.

Edtech vetting has been under consideration amid the screen-time backlash in classrooms, with some states pushing for better review of the vetting process. Oftentimes, schools rely on the vendors’ own data and are unequipped to review the software themselves to ensure children’s safety.

“There is nobody right now that is confirming these products are safe, effective and legal,” Kim Whitman, co-lead for Smartphone Free Childhood US, said in a previous interview with EdSurge. “It should not fall on the district’s IT director; it would be impossible for them to do it. And the companies should not be tasked with doing it — that would be like nicotine companies vetting their own cigarettes.”

According to the report, most schools now have a process for vetting free edtech tools before they’re used in schools, either through IT or a list of approved vendors.

But that process still has some gaps: only 29 percent require information about if the product is inclusive and accessible for all learners. That is particularly worrisome for accessibility advocates who already fear they are being left out of the conversation.

“Parents with children who have a disability must have a seat at the table,” Sambhavi Chandrashekar, global accessibility lead for D2L, an online learning platform, said in a previous EdSurge interview. “Blanket rules that are blind to fundamental human differences will do more disservice than good to students at the margins.”

And while more than half (55%) of the edtech processes require vendors to provide information about safety, that leaves roughly 45% not addressing safety concerns.

“It’s a huge warning sign; there’s a whole lot of progress and work that has to happen in this area,” Krueger says.

He suggested reviewing the five quality indicators for edtech and AI products, with districts benchmarking their current status and set it as a priority to push forward.

“One of the biggest powers we have is procurement, so getting serious about how we buy them, and when,” Krueger says. “Whether or not we move forward will depend on if we set it as a priority and get serious about the awareness, the training and the policies.”

from the the-times-they-are-a-changing dept

The central theme of Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available) is the growing incompatibility between traditional copyright law and the digital, online world. The culmination of that process was the EU Copyright Directive, passed in 2019. The Directive was supposed to be transposed into local laws by 2021, but a year after that deadline, many EU member states had failed to do so. Nor was that a case of mild slippage; a recent report from Communia provides an update on how the implementations are going. Here’s what it found for one of the most contentious areas of the Directive:

the introduction of the press publishers’ right under Article 15 has not been matched by consistent implementation of the mandatory limits intended to contain its scope. Despite the largely prescriptive nature of the Directive, a significant number of Member States have failed to fully implement these safeguards. In addition, some jurisdictions have chosen not to apply existing copyright exceptions to the new right, resulting in a broader scope of protection for press publishers than for other rightholders and further contributing to fragmentation across the internal market.

That fragmentation is deeply ironic, because one of the main justifications for a new copyright Directive was to bring consistency across the EU. As for the even more controversial upload filters, they have proved so difficult to implement that most governments have not even tried to lay down how they should be used:

Most Member States have limited themselves to restating the Directive’s requirement that lawful uploads must not be blocked, leaving the practical balancing of copyright enforcement and freedom of expression largely to platforms and courts. While a small number of jurisdictions have introduced stronger safeguards – such as ex ante protections against overblocking, transparency obligations, and mechanisms to address abusive claims – these remain the exception. As a result, the level of protection for lawful user expression continues to vary across Member States.

Again the much-vaunted consistency that the Directive would bring to EU copyright law is nowhere to be seen. If those failures underline that, as predicted, the EU Copyright Directive has turned out to be a bad law, badly implemented, arguably the arrival of generative AI has made many of its measures completely moot. As Walled Culture has reported, the idea that copyright is largely irrelevant in a world full of AI-generated material – something first suggested on this blog back in October 2022 – is now increasingly mainstream.

But things are still moving fast in the world of generative AI, with yet more profound implications for copyright. A recent post on the IPKat blog explores one of them: the rise of a powerful new generation of AI models that can be run on a personal computer – or even on a smartphone. Many of the latest models coming out of China are not just open source software, but open weight – that is, the models’ numerical values that get set when a model is trained are released, too, so that anyone can download, run, study, and modify them. As a good introduction to this new wave of Chinese AI innovation in Technology Review explains:

If these open-source AI models keep getting better, they will not just offer the cheapest options for people who want access to frontier AI capabilities; they will change where innovation happens and who sets the standards.

One big impact they are likely to have is on the enforcement of copyright, not least in the EU. The IPKat post notes:

The spectrum of engagement with [open source and open weight] models clearly challenges the copyright system. A system, in this Kat’s view, which, until recently, was oriented around individual acts of copying, with platforms cast as new points of interference to bridge technological enforcement gaps. However, [user-generated content] occurring on AI model marketplaces demands a shift in rhetoric and approach. Their ability to redistribute creative agency and control over the tools of cultural production should prompt us to reflect on how copyright law should respond to creativity that occurs through shared infrastructures.

The EU Copyright Directive’s core assumption that the main forums for sharing material would be a few, easily controllable online giants like Google and Facebook, no longer holds. Instead, people are moving to world where millions of people are using the latest generation of open source AI tools collaboratively to generate creations. Those may or may not be based on existing copyright material, but there is no easy way to police that. As the IPKat post points out:

For users running these [new open source and open weight] models locally, they no longer need to pay per request, nor is their data shared with AI companies, and by extension, rightsholders through Article 53(c) of the AI Act.

The world of generative AI is so complex, and moving so quickly, that it is no wonder that even the relatively recent EU AI Act, which entered into force two years ago, is being left behind by the latest developments. And the EU Copyright Directive, which was drawn up nearly a decade ago, is the digital equivalent of the UK’s 1865 Red Flag Act, which governed “self-propelled vehicles”, and required “a man with a red flag was to walk at least 60 yd (55 m) ahead of each vehicle”.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Originally published to Walled Culture.

Filed Under: ai, ai act, eu, eu copyright directive, local ai, local models, open source, open weight

OpenAI’s first foray into hardware devices is reported to be a mobile smart speaker with integrated AI capabilities that can sync with ChatGPT and provide other home AI services.

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that the device — which is still currently under development — is designed to be screen-free and is being pitched internally as a “humanlike AI companion that lives in the home.”

OpenAI has long claimed that it wants to launch a hardware product — with some rumors being that it wants to launch its own phone, a move that would put it in competition with Apple.

OpenAI’s newly surfaced device sounds like something of a departure from traditional smart speakers — as sources described the device to Bloomberg as having a “personality” and being able to proactively learn about its owner over time, providing more personalized service. The machine would have access to a user’s digital life, drawing off things like emails, sources said.  

The device is also weirdly described as involving “mechanical elements that can move on their own” and the Bloomberg report includes the detail that the device is designed to “feel like a companion and become a physical manifestation of OpenAI’s ChatGPT.”

The device was developed with help from many former Apple engineers who were instrumental in “creating products such as the iPhone and Mac,” Bloomberg writes. Indeed, OpenAI may be attempting to launch a new hardware line, but the company is currently up to its eyeballs in trouble over hardware-related legal problems.

Apple last week sued OpenAI, accusing the AI company of stealing its trade secrets. Apple further claimed that the allegations involved in the suit are merely “the tip of the iceberg” and that more misconduct will be revealed during the legal discovery process. OpenAI has denied wrongdoing.

Citing anonymous sources with knowledge of OpenAI’s plans, Bloomberg writes that the company feels its new product “veers significantly from anything Apple has on the market today” and that it is “unlikely that it violates trade secrets” belonging to Apple.

OpenAI’s push comes as the tech world grows more excited about consumer AI hardware more broadly. Hark, an AI lab founded by Brett Adcock, raised an oversubscribed $700 million Series A back in May at a $6 billion valuation to build what it calls “personal intelligence” — proprietary AI models paired with custom hardware designed as a “universal interface between humans and machines.”

The company hasn’t yet detailed its device’s form factor, underscoring how much capital is chasing this category even before products ship.

Back in 2021, Klipsch’s The Fives were the first powered speakers I’d encountered with an HDMI ARC connection, making them as friendly with your TV as they were with the rest of your components. When I first reviewed them, I called them the soundbar solution for people who don’t like soundbars. Klipsch raised the stakes with increasingly larger versions in The Sevens and The Nines, each of which helped usher in a new era of plug-and-play home theater speakers. While each pair has its place, The Sevens hit the sweet spot for me, delivering big, bold sound from a beefy footprint that still, just barely, fits on regular speaker stands.

Of course, HDMI-ready powered speakers are everywhere now, so The Sevens II really needed to up the ante to stand out. In that regard, Klipsch did not disappoint, upgrading its Goldilocks pair in nearly every way. The improvements range from an absolute smorgasbord of connection options and supported audio formats, including virtual Dolby Atmos, to the addition of the Wi-Fi and network connectivity missing from the original pair. There’s even a spare HDMI input for modern gaming consoles, a first among the powered speakers I’ve tested.

Unfortunately, I had real trouble connecting the speakers to my Wi-Fi network during setup, to the point that I eventually plugged in an Ethernet cable and called it a day. Otherwise, there’s not much The Sevens II don’t get right. They offer impressive immersion and clarity, fantastic bass response, and a wealth of extras in a nearly comprehensive take on the all-in-one speaker system.

Related Reviews:

Setup: Wi-Fi Woes

Let’s get the annoying part out of the way. While fishing these 15-inch-tall mega-cabinets from their housings is something of a chore, connecting to my network created the real headache. The biggest issue seemed to be that, while the speakers connected right away and were active in the Klipsch Controller app, they weren’t receiving network information, at least not fast enough for their mandated firmware update, which is apparently integral to functionality.

After five tries, multiple 30-to-45-minute waits, and at least two power cycles, I finally tried Ethernet, and the speakers seemed to jump at the chance to update. After around 10 minutes, they had the latest software, and I experienced no further network issues over two weeks of testing.

Ostensibly, the speakers can go wireless in multiple ways, allowing you to connect the primary speaker, which harbors the inputs and controls, to the secondary cabinet wirelessly. This limits resolution to 48 kHz, as opposed to 96 kHz with the included four-meter CAT6 cable, and besides, I wasn’t taking any more chances after my Wi-Fi issues.

To be fair, these aren’t the first speakers to have trouble on my network, and a colleague who reviewed The Nines II had no such issues. Still, the vast majority of devices I’ve tested connect seamlessly, so it’s something to note if your network is finicky and/or you don’t have a handy Ethernet connection.

Connecting The Sevens II to other components was as breezy as you’d expect from modern powered speakers, including a quick connection to the TCL QM7K TV I’m currently reviewing. This provides seamless control from your TV remote for power and volume, and unlike many premium speakers, there were no handshake issues or connection flubs.

Design and Features: Fully Connected

Even after my Wi-Fi frustrations, it was hard not to fall for The Sevens II’s chic yet brawny design, which perfectly matched my review TV’s 75-inch obsidian screen. Along with the Ebony MDF cabinets I reviewed, they come in Walnut and a tantalizing new Red Oak finish with a white front, each of which boasts “real wood” veneer. On top of the right speaker is the same tactile volume wheel found on the original pair, alongside a metallic input key, giving them a vintage vibe.

The package includes magnetic acoustic grilles for a more demure look, but unless you’ve got curious kids in the house, it’d be a shame to hide those drivers. The combination of Klipsch’s hefty “Jet Ceramic” 6.5-inch woofers and titanium LTS tweeters, set behind the brand’s signature Tractrix horns, really spruces up the room.

Other accessories include an HDMI cable, an omnidirectional microphone for calibration, and a simple backlit remote. The latter offers some helpful input keys, and it’s useful for pausing sound on the go, but the majority of controls and settings are handled by the app.

The input hub at the back of the main speaker, which can be placed on either the right or left for convenience, provides an embarrassment of riches. The digital coaxial input is especially useful for connecting a CD transport or CD player while relying on The Sevens II’s internal DAC and keeping the lone RCA analog input free for another source.

That’s joined by an optical digital port, RCA and MM phono analog inputs, and USB-C. Dual HDMI 2.1 ports, including HDMI eARC, provide high-bandwidth passthrough for 8K, HDR10+, and Dolby Vision video, as well as support for VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) and ALLM (Auto Low Latency Mode) with gaming consoles.

There’s also a subwoofer output to add more punch and clear up some space in the higher registers. It’s worth employing if you’ve got a spare subwoofer on hand, but part of the value proposition here is that The Sevens II have plenty of bass on tap, reaching down to a claimed 39 Hz and handling the upper-bass region around 50 to 60 Hz with relative authority.

On the audio side, Klipsch goes well beyond the limited PCM support found in most of the powered speakers I test, thanks to its use of Onkyo AVR circuitry. While DTS support is limited to The Nines II, The Sevens II get a loaded Dolby suite with support for Dolby TrueHD and even Dolby Atmos decoding, though without upfiring speakers, the effect is limited.

Streaming support is a major upgrade over the original pair’s Bluetooth-only system, supplementing Bluetooth 5.4 with support for Apple AirPlay, Google Cast, Spotify Connect, TIDAL Connect, and Qobuz Connect.

Dirac Live Room Correction calibration is also included to help adapt the sound to your room, though only for bass control up to 500 Hz by default. If you want to upgrade, you can do so through Dirac’s website for $100, which allows multiple “filters,” or calibration options across the frequency range, for different seating positions or room setups.

The app provides plenty of other ways to adjust the sound, including a five-band EQ and presets, along with extras such as Dynamic Bass, Dialogue Enhancement, and Night Mode. There are also three sound modes: Movie, which is on by default; Music; and Direct, for unfiltered sound.

Oddly, switching between modes creates a two- or three-second delay, accounting for the only real app trouble during my review. It’s especially frustrating because video tends to sound best in Movie Mode; otherwise, dialogue can sound boomy, while music is clearer and more open in Music or Direct Mode. Aside from that, the app was impressively stable and responsive, with only the occasional delay when connecting to Spotify.

Listening: Bold, Clear and Immersive

Though powered speakers like The Sevens II are generally designed as a music-first way to enhance your home theater, it will come as no surprise to those familiar with the original pair that their best use case is souping up your favorite TV shows and movies. That’s not to say they’re not excellent for music, but their large size and support for multiple home theater formats make them brilliant for TV sound.

Switching them on was an instant upgrade, not only over the reasonably capable TV speakers in the TCL QM7L I’m currently reviewing, but also over powered reference speakers such as the SVS Prime Wireless and even my beloved KEF LSX, especially with more cinematic fare. Their sheer size and acoustic design get much of the credit, using those large cabinets to produce an immersive soundstage marked by bold, powerful sound and plenty of foundational bass that rarely gets boomy.

Just as importantly, they’re very well attuned to subtle details. From the creak of a door or the click of a revolver’s hammer to pointedly soft dialogue or padded background noises, such as the din of printers and phones in The Office, everything feels elevated.

In one of my favorite test scenes from The Mandalorian episode “The Mines of Mandalore,” I was enamored with all the little moments: the dramatic punch of the ship as it breaks through the atmosphere; the metallic rattles placed deep in the soundstage; the purring of the ship’s engines; and even the tactile sound of his helmet light turning on. All of it was fantastically immersive, pulling me deeper into the moment.

I’m not sure how much of this can be credited to The Sevens II’s virtual Dolby Atmos support. Without upfiring speakers, Atmos’ height element—the part that makes it feel spherical and encompassing—is obviously limited. Even so, the sound is dimensional and articulate, while preserving plenty of bombast for moments such as explosions or the thundering beat of a soundtrack. Even in stereo, it goes well beyond your average flagship soundbar.

Listening to lossless music over Spotify Connect was also impressive, especially when using the Music or Direct modes. While the upper midrange and lower treble can sometimes sound a little tight, they never become sharp, and there’s plenty of detail across the frequency range, with notably expansive sound in larger mixes.

The brass in Sinatra’s “Luck Be a Lady” has convincing weight and presence, while the saxophones retain plenty of texture without becoming strident. The percussion in Tom Petty’s “You Don’t Know How It Feels” snaps with convincing attack, pushing the song’s signature snare to the forefront while preserving the laid-back groove that drives the track.

Bass reaches deeper than expected, even for speakers this size. The Weeknd’s “Starboy” delivers solid low-frequency impact without overwhelming the mix, while Caroline Polachek’s “Welcome to My Island” showcases the speakers’ ability to separate layers of synthesizers and electronic effects across a wide, stable soundstage that occasionally extends beyond the cabinets. Polachek’s voice remains clean and expressive throughout, even as the arrangement becomes increasingly dense.

Moving to vinyl with my go-to test album, Dave Brubeck’s Time Out, The Sevens II did a convincing job with the piano’s body and attack, the soft cymbal work and brushed snare positioned to the left, and the saxophone anchored firmly in the center. I preferred the built-in phono preamp in my U-turn Audio Orbit Theory turntable to Klipsch’s, which sounded quieter and less immediate, though the difference was not substantial.

If there’s one area where the speakers could improve, it’s the separation between instruments in dense arrangements. Radiohead’s “Everything in Its Right Place” remained clear, but individual layers were not as sharply defined as they could have been. That’s where Dirac Live comes in.

Dirac Live: Better Separation, Recessed Vocals

One of the most respected third-party calibration systems available, Dirac Live is designed to address room-related frequency problems, improve bass response, and refine imaging and clarity. For the most part, that’s what it did.

On many tracks, Dirac created more space between instruments and widened the stereo image without making the presentation feel disconnected. Returning to Tom Petty’s “You Don’t Know How It Feels,” the individual instruments and backing vocals were easier to distinguish within the mix.

Bass response also became more prominent, sometimes excessively so in my small listening room. On bass-heavy tracks such as Too Short’s “Just Another Day,” the low end became overbearing, though reducing the 80 Hz band in the EQ brought it back under control.

The larger issue was that Dirac sometimes pushed vocals farther back in the mix. That was noticeable on Depeche Mode’s “Personal Jesus” and Nickel Creek’s “Reasons Why.” The latter stood out in particular because Sara Watkins’ voice is normally positioned firmly at the center, with clear diction and strong presence.

Because of that tradeoff, I generally preferred The Sevens II without Dirac Live enabled. Other listeners may reach a different conclusion, especially in square, reflective, or otherwise difficult rooms where acoustic treatment is impractical.

The Bottom Line

The Sevens II offer the best of both worlds, combining the format support of a soundbar with the connectivity, scale, and stereo presentation of a capable pair of powered speakers. In many ways, that makes them and their sibling models, The Fives II and The Nines II, an appealing solution for anyone who wants a plug-and-play system that works across multiple sources, including a TV.

You’ll find greater clarity, precision, and stereo imaging from speakers such as KEF’s LS50 Wireless II, but The Sevens II counter with deeper bass, greater output, and more convincing handling of film and television content. That combination helps them stand out in a crowded market.

My Wi-Fi problems and smaller usability complaints, including the pause when switching sound modes, are the biggest marks against them. Even so, The Sevens II make a strong case for listeners who want one pair of speakers to handle music, movies, gaming, vinyl, and digital sources without adding an amplifier, streamer, or soundbar. For that buyer, their broad connectivity and powerful presentation help justify the substantial price.

Pros:

• Big and bold sound with deep bass response
• Articulate and immersive soundstage
• Impressive Dolby support, including virtual Atmos
• Class-leading connectivity options
• Stylish design and good build quality
• Solid accessories, including a backlit remote

Cons:

• Finicky Wi-Fi setup and firmware update
• Odd delay in audio when switching sound modes
• Imaging and instrumental separation is good not great

Ratings

★★★★★★★★★★ Performance

★★★★★★★★★★ Usability

★★★★★★★★★★ Build Quality

★★★★★★★★★★ Value

Where to Buy:

Related Reading:

SonicWall warns that threat actors have been exploiting two SMA1000 vulnerabilities, tracked as CVE-2026-15409 and CVE-2026-15410, in zero-day attacks and urges customers to install the newly released security updates.

CVE-2026-15409 is a critical (CVSS 10.0) server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the SMA1000 Appliance Work Place interface that allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to force an appliance to make requests to unintended locations.

CVE-2026-15410 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.2) post-authentication code injection flaw in the SMA1000 Appliance Management Console that could allow a remote authenticated administrator to execute arbitrary operating system commands.

While CVE-2026-15410 requires administrator privileges, SonicWall assigned the advisory an overall CVSS score of 10.0.

SonicWall says it investigated multiple incidents and confirmed that both vulnerabilities are being actively exploited.

“SonicWall PSIRT has investigated multiple cases indicating the active exploitation of the vulnerabilities described in this advisory,” SonicWall warned.

“Customers are strongly urged to upgrade to the hotfix release as soon as possible to remediate these vulnerabilities”

However, the company has not disclosed whether attackers are chaining them together. BleepingComputer has contacted SonicWall to clarify the attacks and will update this story if we receive a response.

The vulnerabilities affect SMA1000 models 6210, 7210, and 8200v running platform-hotfix releases 12.4.3-03245, 12.4.3-03387, 12.4.3-03434, 12.5.0-02283, 12.5.0-02624, and 12.5.0-02800.  Fixes are available in platform-hotfix versions 12.4.3-03453 and 12.5.0-02835, and later releases. 

SonicWall says the vulnerabilities do not impact SSL-VPN running on SonicWall firewalls or the SMA 100 Series product line.

The company also shared indicators of compromise (IOCs) that administrators can use to determine whether an appliance has been compromised:

• if in extraweb_access.log are mentioned requests to /__api__/login or /__api__/logout with HTTP 200 status
• if in extraweb_access.log are mentioned requests to /wsproxy with suspicious host parameters with 101 HTTP status
• if in ctrl-service.log are mentioned hotfix rollbacks with path traversal names
• if /var/lib/unit/conf.json contains routes for /__api__/login or /__api__/logout (these URIs do not exist in legitimate configuration)

SonicWall strongly recommends upgrading to the latest hotfix release and performing an analysis to determine if any of the above IOCs are present.

If a device is found to be compromised, the company advises administrators to re-image physical appliances or redeploy virtual appliances, change all user and administrator passwords, and reset TOTP tokens.

SonicWall also notes that there are no workarounds or mitigations for these flaws other than installing the hotfixes.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has added both vulnerabilities to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, confirming they are being actively exploited in attacks.

Federal agencies have until July 17, 2026, to secure affected systems under Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 26-04 or discontinue use of the product if mitigations cannot be applied.

Security teams log 54% of successful attacks and alert on just 14%. The rest move through your environment unseen.

The Picus whitepaper shows how breach and attack simulation tests your SIEM and EDR rules so threats stop slipping by detection.

Get the whitepaper

‘We are ​focusing our capacity where it matters most to customers’, a Thomson Reuters spokesperson said.

Thomson Reuters, the Canadian parent company behind Reuters News, is cutting up to 500 engineering jobs, joining a long list of technology providers shedding parts of their workforce in preference for AI.

Layoffs at the content and technology company could affect around 1.8pc of its global workforce of 27,100, and around 5.2pc of its 9,400-strong operations and technology unit, according to a Reuters New source.

These latest layoffs come as economists and technology leaders, in a fresh joint statement, warned against the negative effects of widespread and uncontrolled AI adoption on economies, including large-scale job displacement.

Similarly, the Economic and Social Research Institute, earlier this year, found that AI adoption in Ireland is likely to lead to “moderate increases in income inequality” in the short run.

Reports also suggest that AI’s uptake in many Irish and UK-based organisations is not adequately supported by targeted investment in skills and technology adoption.

“As customer expectations across legal, tax and regulatory workflows evolve, we are ​focusing our capacity where it matters most to customers,” ​a ⁠Thomson Reuters spokesperson told Reuters News yesterday (13 July).

The Toronto-based company announced revenue growth of 10pc in the quarter ending March, with its three biggest segments benefiting from its industry-specific AI products. The company also anticipates a better-than-expected outlook for 2026.

Technology leaders have been sounding the alarm on AI’s impact on jobs for a while – with many, including Mark Zuckerberg, praising slimmer teams, flatter management structures and cheaper AI agents.

Earlier this month, Microsoft announced plans to cut 4,800 jobs at the company, responding to changes to the industry’s landscape caused by the new technology. Meta reportedly cut as many as 350 Irish jobs in a recent round of layoffs that affected around 8,000 employees.

Other major companies including Block, Atlassian, Oracle and Amazon have also cut thousands of jobs.

According to Layoffs.fyi, tech companies have shed more than 120,900 workers so far this year – with the number fast approaching the roughly 123,000 that were laid off in the whole of 2025.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

To be an educator and a writer is to inhabit a rollercoaster world of hope; at times, you are filled with the excitement and power of possibilities, and at others, you are terrified of losing it.

During the Voices of Change fellowship, I not only grew as a writer but was also inspired by educators who gave me the gift of “freedom dreaming.” I’ve since sought opportunities to practice freedom dreaming daily in the classroom. Embedding joy and equity into the curriculum and building authentic relationships with students are my north stars. I refer to my students as family, and to highlight that, I have a banner with a quote by Gwendolyn Brooks on my door. It reads, “We are each other’s magnitude and bond.” I’ve placed photos of the students in my classes all around the banner.

I’ve also begun teaching world history. This class energizes me and makes me want to revolutionize and freedom-dream the way history is taught and explore people and stories that matter.” Facing History and Ourselves” and the “Remedial Herstory Project” have been instrumental in helping me find my way and voice as a history teacher.

Despite teaching a new subject that gives me joy, this particular school year has been one of the most emotionally exhausting and difficult for me. I live in Minneapolis, where our 2025-26 school year began with the mass shooting at Annunciation School, a community with close ties to my school. Then, in December, the havoc of ICE removing neighbors and family members from our communities began and culminated in the murders of Renée Good and Alex Pretti. On the hardest days, I held back tears as I tried to instruct my classes. The students and I were scared; our mental health was tested and we were often distracted by everything outside of our school.

I can’t help but feel that one of the first steps to legitimizing the brutal and dehumanizing treatment of Brown and Black people and those protesting against ICE was creating a narrative that DEI is antithetical to academic learning. However, as a Spanish and history teacher, I know that DEI pumps life into the themes and lessons I teach. I believe it is necessary to center women’s voices and Indigenous histories and to honor Black and Afrolatine lives in our curriculum, creating dynamic lessons with more complex, richer perspectives.

Most inspiring to me has been watching neighbors and friends rise up to protect the safety, integrity and heartbeat of our city as we experience the violence and injustice of ICE. Seeing the strength of my community motivates me to eliminate the idea that hope is lost and inspires me to do my part in the classroom.

The students and I work to banish the hate and inequity infiltrating our lives, and freedom dreaming has pushed me to channel the world I want to live in into the curriculum. For example, I built a lesson for my Spanish class entitled “In Times of Crisis, Humanitarian Help.” We learned about the devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa in many Caribbean countries, but focused on World Central Kitchen and humanitarian José Andrés’s work to restore people’s dignity and ability to live after natural disasters by preparing meals for them.

In world history, we spent longer than necessary on the Mauryan Empire and Ashoka’s legacy in Buddhism, highlighting principles of peace, nonviolence, and respect for all creation. One student told me this lesson made her strongly consider converting to Buddhism. For me, it is crucial for students to know that even though politics and society seem rife with conflict, it is possible to lead with peace, love and fierce empathy.

My life as a writer and educator has continued to evolve. After the fellowship, I earned a Pushcart Prize nomination for poetry in 2024. Receiving the Voices of Change fellowship and then the poetry honor gave me the confidence to apply for and receive a summer writers’ residency this year. I’m excited by the opportunity to continue exploring the part of me that wants to write about my experiences in and out of the classroom, no matter how challenging they may be.

Yet, after over 20 years of teaching, what’s remained constant is creating moments of joy, humor and connection in the classroom. Don’t get me wrong, we still build competencies — not just for school, but for life.

My goal is for each school day to be permeated by the unwritten hope of freedom dreaming, so that the students and I — and, by extension, our wider community — believe in the barrier-breaking power of unity and a world thriving on dignity and respect for all.

from the it’s-all-corrupt dept

Well, well, well. Last month we noted that Judge Kathleen Williams had agreed to reopen the incredibly sketchy case where Donald Trump (as President of the United States) sued his own IRS (which he controls) for $10 billion because a contractor (who was caught, tried, convicted, and is currently serving his sentence) had leaked tax information on thousands of the country’s wealthiest people, including Trump, to the media. When Judge Williams had initially called out the problems of the lawsuit (namely that there didn’t seem to be any cause or controversy, given that both sides were controlled by Donald Trump), the Trump-controlled Justice Department lead by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche “settled” the case by setting aside a $1.776 billion fund for MAGA faithful as well as signing an “agreement” that said the IRS could never go after Donald Trump, his companies, or his family for past tax code violations.

This needs to be repeated, because it’s almost impossible to comprehend the sheer audacity of the corruption. Donald Trump sued his own government, asking for $10 billion. Then he had his own government “settle” the case with himself, granting him a massive benefit (which many argued was worth over $100 million, based on back taxes he might owe). It’s just an astounding level of graft. While the judge initially suggested there wasn’t much she could do about it, after some former judges sent a letter calling the whole thing a fraud on the court, Judge Williams agreed to reopen and revisit the matter.

And has she ever.

The 56-page ruling is pretty harsh against the lawyers involved, though they well deserve it.

In the very first paragraph of the Complaint, Plaintiffs introduce their claims stating, “President Trump served as the 45th President of the United States, and is the 47th President of the United States.” (DE 1 ¶ 1). They then go on to state that “President Trump brings this suit in his personal capacity.” (Id.) After a review of the record, and the Parties’ statements, the Court declines to adopt or accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump’s current job title from an understanding of what happened here.

But perhaps the most startling misstatement advanced by Plaintiffs is their characterization of this case as “ordinary.” (DE 89 at 9). The Parties here are not private actors to a mine-run dispute, recounting their proficiency in the art of the deal they negotiated. Lead Plaintiff and Defendants are public servants—the pinnacle of the Executive Branch—sworn to uphold the law, faithfully perform the duties of their office, and protect the interests of the American public. The issue before the Court is whether, instead, they ignored ethical norms, court rules, and legal authority to manipulate the judicial process. The issue is whether they did so to gild their efforts to gain unprecedented access to the public fisc with the patina of legitimacy. There is nothing “ordinary” about this case; it is the very definition of sui generis.

The court also calls out, in a footnote, the absolute chutzpah of Donald Trump’s lawyers, who whine that the former judges who got her to reopen the case only did so for “political motivations.”

Plaintiffs also—with no apparent sense of irony—criticize the non-party movants’ political motivations, their previous disinterest in the case, and their purported inappropriate promotion of “abstract grievance[s].”

The judge then goes through a detailed analysis of why parties are supposed to be adversarial to each other to get into court, and the problems that occur if that’s not the case. And also notes that courts can investigate if the parties are truly adversarial. And here, it’s not even close.

The Complaint purports to present a controversy between Plaintiffs—President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, LLC— and Defendants—the Internal Revenue Service and United States Treasury Department—claiming Defendants caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm for which they now seek “at least $10,000.000,000.00.” (DE 1 ¶ 11; Id. at 26). At first glance, the Complaint seemingly satisfies Article III by establishing causes of action “arising under . . . the laws of the United States[.]” U.S. CONST. ART. III, § 2. However, closer examination reveals that a justiciable case or controversy is absent; Plaintiffs and Defendants are not adverse because one party controls this litigation. See Muskrat, 219 U.S. at 361 (noting that judicial power only extends to “actual controversies arising between adverse litigants[.]”). In reaching this conclusion, the Court determines that Plaintiffs improperly employed this lawsuit to justify a particular award in this matter—access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and other investigations—which was accomplished by leveraging control over Defendants.

The judge also points to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Slaughter case that the president has basically full control to fire heads of agencies as further proof:

Here, Defendants are the Treasury Department—an Executive agency—and the IRS, the largest bureau of the Treasury Department. Both Defendants are unquestionably part of the Executive Branch and ultimately answer to its Chief Executive, President Trump. President Trump’s authority to appoint and remove federal officers as he sees fit is evidence of his ability to exercise control over Defendants. See U.S. CONST. ART. II, § 2. Article II explicitly states that “[t]he President shall . . . appoint . . . all Other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for[.]” Id.; see also Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 63 (1890) (noting that the ministerial officers are marshals of the United States who are “appointed by the president,” and are “removable from office at his pleasure[.]”). While the Constitution strategically allows “individual executive officials” to “wield significant authority,” such “authority remains subject to the ongoing supervision and control of the elected President.” Seila Law LLC, 591 U.S. at 200; see also Br. for Pet’r at 10, Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. __ (2026) (No. 25-332) (“Article II requires that the President control all executive power—especially the authority wielded by agency heads, who are ‘the most important’ of the President’s subordinates and who ‘must be the President’s alter ego[s]’ in their agencies.”) (citing Myers, 272 U.S. at 133); id. at 2 (“Removal is the President’s indispensable tool of control.”). President Trump’s supervisory authority directly implicates two key individuals acting on behalf of Defendants: Scott Bessent, 22 the Secretary of the Treasury Department and Acting Commissioner of the IRS, and Frank J. Bisignano, 23 the Chief Executive Officer of the IRS. Plaintiffs cannot argue before the Supreme Court that Executive Branch actors “unquestionably exercise[] executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive[,]” Slaughter, 609 U.S. at 27, and then here, argue that the Parties are sufficiently adverse to establish an actual case or controversy.

Secretary Bessent, in particular, is subject to President Trump’s actual and direct control in both of his representative roles. First, as Secretary of the Treasury Department, Bessent is a member of President Trump’s cabinet. In this role, Secretary Bessent is “the President’s alter ego” in the matters of the Treasury Department “where the President is required by law to exercise authority.” Myers, 272 U.S. at 133. Consequently, Bessent is under President Trump’s direct control as an appointed member of his cabinet.

While the parties in this case pretended they were adverse to each other, Judge Williams points out that the DOJ’s actions in court do not match up with what you would expect the DOJ to do in any similar case from someone who was not the president, pointing to a different case — one that Trump’s lawyers had suggested showed that this case was legit.

Plaintiffs seem to suggest that the course of litigation in Griffin, supports their position on adverseness, claiming that the plaintiff in Griffin asserted “substantially identical allegations against the same defendants, arising from the same course of conduct by the same individual.” …. unlike this case, the Griffin defendants challenged the plaintiff’s allegations…. In Griffin, the defendants (the same IRS and Treasury Department sued here) contested the plaintiff’s privacy act claims by arguing preemption and, alternatively, the plaintiff’s failure to plead actual damages. Id. The Griffin defendants also challenged the section 7431 claim, arguing the complaint was a shotgun pleading based solely on conclusory allegations. Id. After the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, the government filed an answer asserting a sovereign immunity defense and denying several allegations in the amended complaint….

[….]

Considering the brief chronology, the silent docket, and Defendants’ deviation from basic litigation strategies pursued in similar cases, the Court must conclude that Defendants chose not to “advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes” President Trump’s opinion regarding this lawsuit. See Executive Order § 7. It is clear that obeisance to the mandate of his Executive Order has been fulfilled by Defendants’ actions (or more accurately, inaction) in this case. Therefore, not only does the Executive Order demonstrate President Trump’s espoused control over Defendants’ conduct generally in litigation, it also demonstrates President Trump’s actual control in this litigation.

Advertisement

The judge also goes after Todd Blanche for claiming that there was no way for the court to review the “settlement” agreement, noting that they could have easily submitted it to the court for the judge to review:

The Court is extremely troubled by the testimony given by Acting Attorney General Blanche on May 19, 2026. In response to why the “settlement agreement” had not been submitted to this Court for review, he stated that “there is no judge” because the case had been dismissed and, therefore, there was “no mechanism” for reviewing the agreement. See supra note 13. While temporally accurate, this answer is, at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous. The Court was available to review any pleading by any Party at any time during this lawsuit. And if Acting Attorney General Blanche had thought the dismissal was improvidently granted or thought Plaintiffs misspoke when they said, “no judicial analysis is appropriate,” (DE 52 at 2), he only had to file an appearance and ask for relief.

And then there’s sketchiness of the lawyers involved in the case:

The Court’s conclusion regarding the Parties’ shared interest is also underscored by the circumstances surrounding the execution of the “settlement agreement.” First, the “settlement agreement” is signed on behalf of Plaintiffs by Daniel Epstein (“Mr. Epstein”), a former White House Senior Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President Trump from 2017 until 2020. Notably, Mr. Epstein was never counsel of record in this case; the Complaint’s signature block identified him as counsel41 for Plaintiffs but represented that his pro hac vice application was “forthcoming.” (DE 1 at 27). Since no such application was filed with the Court, and since, in other matters pending in Florida and elsewhere, Mr. Epstein sought pro hac admission within weeks of filing the complaint, the Court can only surmise that Mr. Epstein was aware that he would never need to appear and litigate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

That’s on “Plaintiff Donald Trump’s side.” As for “Defendant Donald Trump” well…

Second, the “settlement agreement” is signed on behalf of Defendants by Stanley Woodward, Jr., the current Associate Attorney General at the DOJ, and Acting Attorney General Blanche. Before he went to the DOJ, Associate Attorney General Woodward represented several individuals charged in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol.43 He also represented Walt Nauta, who was President Trump’s personal aide and a co-defendant in the criminal matter involving the return of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.44 Before his appointment to the DOJ, Acting Attorney General Blanche served as President Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney in several high-profile matters. See, e.g., United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr80101 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (“Mar-a-Lago Documents Case”); United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-00257 (D.D.C. 2023) (the criminal case charging President Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and for attempting to obstruct with the election’s results before, during, and after January 6, 2021); People v. Donald J. Trump, No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Dec. 3, 2024) (the “hush money” case that raised allegations of President Trump falsifying business records).

The court points out that ethics rules for lawyers in Florida discuss conflict-of-interest concerns regarding lawyers who work in government and for private parties, and make it clear that government lawyers should avoid being involved in cases that might appear to benefit former clients — as obviously is happening here. The judge wonders why these government lawyers did not recuse themselves due to the obvious conflict. She even cites, in a footnote, the claim by the Justice Department that Blanche would recuse himself from any cases involving Trump:

As a Justice Department spokeswoman stated: “[Blanche] is recused from many cases before DOJ. In any cases that are still ongoing where he previously represented someone, he is recused.” Id. In this case, however, notwithstanding his prior representation of President Trump, Blanche did not recuse.

The court also suggests that the “get out of IRS jail free” card “settlement” violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution:

Moreover, the conferral of possibly millions of dollars in tax relief and corollary benefits potentially violates Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, a limitation surely known by former White House Counsel and the current Acting Attorney General. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 7: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”53 No sitting President has ever sued federal agencies completely subject to his control for monetary benefits, or any benefits that inure to him, his family, and associates. The failure of any attorney in this case to address, on this docket, the relationship of this Article II proscription with the benefits conferred by the “settlement” is a glaring omission that speaks to the control of the Lead Plaintiff.

Similarly, Todd Blanche then going before Congress to say the MAGA slush fund was dead also raises alarms, given that if he were truly representing the government independent of Donald Trump, and this was part of a negotiated settlement, wouldn’t both parties need to “agree” to adjust the “settlement”? The fact that Blanche unilaterally declared the fund dead highlights how this was one side negotiating with itself.

Another signal that adverseness was absent was Acting Attorney General Blanche’s unilateral repudiation and severance of the purported “Anti-Weaponization Fund” associated with this lawsuit. Two weeks after the dismissal, in testimony before the House of Representatives, Acting Attorney General Blanche conceded that the DOJ was “not moving forward with the fund, period.” Acting Attorney General Blanche’s decision, which has not been memorialized or adopted by Plaintiffs or their lawyers, demonstrates his confidence that he could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter. This certitude supports the conclusion that the Parties worked in tandem and were never actually adverse. Indeed, “a party may not unilaterally repudiate a settlement agreement once it is reached.” Reed by and through Reed v. United States, 891 F.2d 878, 881 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990). “It is ‘hornbook law’ requiring no citations of authority, except common sense, that a contract once entered into may not thereafter be unilaterally modified; subsequent modifications require consent and ‘a meeting of the minds’ of all of the initial parties to the contract whose rights or responsibilities are sought to be affected by the modification.” Tropicana Pools, Inc. v. Boysen, 296 So. 2d 104, 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974). Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a “settlement” document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.

The court, tackling every angle, also points out that Donald Trump easily could have filed this lawsuit in the multiple years since the tax returns were leaked, but instead, waited until he was back in the White House and in control over the DOJ and the IRS:

Notably, had President Trump (and his then-lawyers Alina Habba and Todd Blanche) brought this lawsuit in a timely fashion while he was a private citizen, this litigation understandably might have been resolved in a 109-day time span. But that is not what happened. Instead, President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to prominent positions in the DOJ. These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House Counsel to reach a “settlement.” It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the Parties.

The judge even calls them out for “saying the quite part out loud” in basically admitting that they were negotiating with themselves:

In dismissing the non-parties’ claims of collusion, Plaintiffs reveal the true position of the Parties and say the quiet part out loud: “Regardless of whether Plaintiffs had ever filed this action, the Government and Plaintiffs still had the power to resolve all disputes between the parties.” (DE 89 at 15). The power to resolve was never a question before this Court. Whether Executive Branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax monies for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this Court. The question is whether the Parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding “no”: the Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest. Because “Plaintiffs have no answer for the fact that the [L]ead Plaintiff, President Trump, directs and controls the Defendants[,]” this “renders this lawsuit non-adversarial, collusive, and jurisdictionally improper.”

And because this fact was so obvious and so insurmountable, the Court finds that this matter was brought for an improper purpose—to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a “settlement” that had no viable basis in law or fact.

The judge then explores whether the lawyers should be sanctioned for filing such a sham lawsuit, and decides that they should be. The sanctions involve referring some of the lawyers to their respective Bar associations for review (including having the court clerk mail this ruling to the NY Bar in reference to Todd Blanche), barring Trump’s lawyer Daniel Epstein (mentioned above) from seeking admission in Florida Southern District cases for one year, and prohibiting both Trump and the government from referring to the agreement as a “settlement agreement.”

The Parties are prohibited from referring to the purported “settlement agreement,” or using, offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial, administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official proceeding as evidence of a “settlement” reached in this matter

The closing summary is pretty direct:

John Adams warned, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Thus, whatever may be the Parties’ wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of their passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ concern, the Court did not have to “sally forth” to look for a wrong to right…. The Court need only look to the uncontroverted facts here:

1. Donald Trump is President.
2. President Trump controls the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury Department Scott Bessent, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and all Executive Branch actors.
3. President Trump, through Executive Order § 7, also controls the litigation strategy and interpretation of the laws guiding the Department of Justice….
4. For the 109 days that this case was pending, no attorney representing the United States filed a notice of appearance or any document indicating the government’s position, interest, or awareness of this matter.
5. Defendants’ actions are consonant with the dictates of Executive Order § 7

These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the “settlement” terms, the individuals who signed the “settlement” as well as the putative beneficiaries of the “settlement,” demonstrate a shared, unitary interest. And the unilateral revision and renunciation of the “Fund” component of the “settlement” demonstrate the fact that all Parties were aligned, and ultimately, undifferentiated. This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law. The President may be the functional “dominus litus” of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it.

Of course, Donald Trump (both as plaintiff and defendant) can still appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. But at least for this shining moment, we’ve finally had a federal judge look at this blatantly corrupt “settlement” and call it out for what it obviously was: the President of the United States suing his own government, using his own lawyers to create a faux settlement that benefits him and his friends at the literal expense of the American public. A “fully unitary interest” indeed. Just one that is focused on Donald Trump’s best interests over the American public.

Filed Under: daniel epstein, donald trump, irs, kathleen williams, self-dealing, settlement, slush fund, stanley woodward, todd blanche