The Insider Report from The New American

Rothschild’s “Inclusive Capitalism” and Epstein Accountability

On May 19 we received a “From the Founder” email from Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild and her Council for Inclusive Capitalism (CIC). “Building the Infrastructure of Accountability” is the title of her missive to the council’s “Dear Friends and Fellow Members.”

This is rich, audaciously rich; Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the globe-trotting, jet-setting, billionaire, intimate pal and financial enabler of pedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein lecturing the world on accountability! The Rothschild name appears in the Epstein files (the ones that have been released thus far) more than 12,000 times, and a goodly number of those are references to Lady Lynn. Alan Dershowitz has publicly stated that he was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, and that she also introduced Epstein to Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew.

Lady Rothschild’s ties to Epstein also included:

Selling Epstein a Manhattan townhouse near Epstein’s own mansion for $8.5 million below market value, which was then occupied by Ghislaine Maxwell and the girls whom she lured into the Epstein sex racket;
Multiple flights on Epstein’s planes;
Her brother, Ken Forester, Jr., owned and operated Million Air, the private terminal at Teterboro Airport, New Jersey, which was the central hub for Epstein’s aviation fleet in his criminal enterprises.

But, according to the globalist corporate media, it’s (yawn) ho-hum, nothing to see here, move along. Of course, Lady Lynn is but one of several prominent members of the Rothschild clan mentioned in the Epstein files. There is, for instance, Les Wexner, the billionaire founder of the Victoria’s Secret empire who was the main funder of Epstein’s activities. Wexner says it was Elie de Rothschild who introduced Epstein to him and vouched for Epstein. In case you missed it, Wexner’s attorney was caught on a hot mic threatening to kill him for revealing too much during his testimony before a congressional committee this past February. About four hours into his six-hour deposition, his attorney, Michael Levy, leaned close and said, “I will f***ing kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, OK?”

Back to Lady Lynn and her Council for Inclusive Capitalism, which more truthfully should be called the Council for Crony Capitalism. It is a sham compassion play of uber-rich globalists dressed up in DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) camouflage. As Alex Newman reported in 2014, Rothschild launched her council in Davos, Switzerland, at that ultimate palaver of crony capitalism known as the World Economic Forum.

Rothschild says the key to a “Just Transition” to the world she envisions is a shift to a low-carbon economy to achieve “climate goals.” Naturally, this shift means much lower standards of living for virtually everyone in the world — except for the global elites in the Rothschild orbit. Lady Lynn, we can safely assume, is not about to shed her mansions, estates, yacht, planes, limousines, cars, global travel, and other luxuries. She says:

The shift to a low-carbon economy must work for workers and communities — not only as a social imperative, but as a practical requirement for achieving climate goals. Community opposition, workforce disruption, and supply chain fragility can all derail transition plans that fail to account for people.

A new set of 19 sector-agnostic Just Transition metrics from Shift and collaborating organizations — including CIC — gives companies, investors, and regulators a tool to measure whether that’s actually happening.

Working hand-in-hand with Rothschild’s CIC in this endeavor is the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which was launched at the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to aid the UN push for world government under the pretext of saving humanity and the world from environmental “crises.” Rothschild says the WBCSD has been a key force in developing the “best practices” for businesses in bringing about the Just Transition envisioned by the CIC. The WBCSD’s membership of more than 250 corporations includes many global brands that have been cited for using Uyghur slave labor in China and for massive environmental pollution and destruction. The appeals to sustainable development and human rights by these Insider companies are cynical ploys, the purpose of which is reputational greenwashing and slavewashing, while consolidating market share and power. An official partner of the WBCSD is the China Business Council for Sustainable Development (CBCSD), which includes not only major Chinese corporations controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, but also Western giants such as BASF, Bayer, BOSCH, BP, Caterpillar, CocaCola, Dow, DuPont, GM, Honeywell, Rockwell, and Shell. As in the cases of the World Economic Forum, the Trilateral Commission, and other elite confabs, the CIC-WBCSD is leading the piecemeal political, economic and social integration of communist and non-communist nations into their envisioned New World Order. The Insider elitists call this “convergence.”

Lady Lynn is well positioned to push the convergence agenda. Her biography at the Council for Inclusive Capitalism informs us that

… Lynn is also the Chief Executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a family office with interests in private companies, public markets and real estate. She previously served on the boards of The Estée Lauder Companies, The Economist Group, Gulfstream, General Instruments, Bronfman-Rothschild and Weather Central.

As part of her charity work, she serves on the Board and Executive Committee of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Advisory Board of Focusing Capital on the Long Term (FCLTGlobal), the McCain Institute for International Leadership and the Eranda Rothschild Foundation (a de Rothschild family foundation), and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House.

Besides her membership in the CFR and its sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA, aka Chatham House), she is also a veteran of that uber-exclusive and ultrasecret cabal known as the Bilderberg Group. In fact, she was introduced to her future husband, Evelyn de Rothschild, at the 1998 Bilderberg gathering by that ultimate Insider, Henry Kissinger.

If Lady Lynn is truly concerned about accountability, human rights, social justice, and the environment, she will evict most of the members of her CIC for egregious violations of the codes they claim to champion and will push for the release of all of the Epstein files. But that’s not likely to happen, so don’t hold your breath. — William F. Jasper

U.S. Government Bills Illegal Aliens

Federal auditors are demanding California repay more than $1 billion in Medicaid funds allegedly misused on healthcare for illegal immigrants, while long-term overstayers are receiving massive civil fines under a 1996 law now being aggressively applied.

The California story centers on federal audits by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Preliminary findings identified California as the primary offender among several blue states, with more than $1 billion (of $1.35 billion across states) in federal Medicaid dollars improperly used for non-emergency care for illegal aliens. Federal law generally restricts Medicaid reimbursement to emergency services for those without legal immigration status.

California expanded Medi-Cal coverage to undocumented immigrants in phases, culminating in full-scope eligibility for all by early 2024. State estimates for these programs have ballooned, with annual costs projected in the billions, partly funded through state mechanisms that critics argue improperly drew federal matching funds. The Trump administration, via CMS, is pursuing recovery to protect taxpayer dollars intended for eligible Americans, including seniors and disabled citizens. Governor Gavin Newsom’s office has pushed back, framing it as politically motivated, while federal officials emphasize enforcement of eligibility rules.

Simultaneously comes news of the enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1324d. This provision from the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act imposes civil penalties (inflation-adjusted to $998 per day) for willfully failing to depart after a final removal order. Reportedly, one female foreigner who has been in the country illegally for more than 20 years, with U.S.-born children, is now facing a $1.8 million fine (reflecting retroactive application up to five years). The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have begun issuing such notices and pursuing collection, including potential asset seizure, as part of “briefcase enforcement” to encourage self-deportation. Though signed by former President Bill Clinton, the law was largely dormant under subsequent administrations.

The policy targets those ignoring deportation orders rather than all undocumented individuals, aiming to reduce burdens on taxpayers for housing, healthcare, and services. — Rebecca Terrell

DOJ Secures Conviction of Man for Operating Chinese Police Station in NYC

On May 13, a federal jury convicted a Chinese-American man for operating an illegal Chinese police station in New York City.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, a division of the U.S. Department of Justice that assisted in the prosecution, announced:

Today in federal court in Brooklyn, Bronx resident Lu Jianwang, a U.S. citizen also known as “Harry Lu,” was convicted by a jury of two counts of a superseding indictment charging him with acting as an illegal agent of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in connection with opening and operating an overseas police station in lower Manhattan for the PRC’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS), and with obstruction of justice for destroying related evidence…. When sentenced, the defendant faces up to 30 years in prison. Lu’s co-defendant, Chen Jinping, pleaded guilty in December 2024 to conspiring to act as an agent of the PRC in connection with the overseas police station, and he is awaiting sentencing….

As proved at trial, Lu and his co-defendant Chen Jinping acted as illegal agents of the PRC government. Beginning in January 2022, under orders from an MPS official, Lu, Chen and others worked together to establish the first known overseas police station in the United States on behalf of the MPS.

Lu is a naturalized U.S. citizen, having first entered the United States in 1980.

In a statement, U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella, Jr. described the police station and Lu as “blatantly disregarding the law and our country’s sovereignty.”

As The New American has previously reported, Communist China is working to achieve world hegemony, and this effort involves using U.S. technology and resources — including outright subversion in U.S. institutions and society. The presence of Chinese police stations on American soil is further evidence of this reality. Although American leaders are beginning to wake up to the Communist Chinese threat, many still ignore the extent of the PRC’s subversion or are blatantly collaborating with it.

To learn more about Communist China’s police activity in the United States and worldwide, read the article “Communist Chinese Policing Around the World” by Christian Gomez, published in the Spring 2025 Intelligence Brief of the Law Enforcement Charitable Foundation, an affiliate of The New American. — Peter Rykowski

U.S. Foreign Intervention: Manufacturing Enemies for Global Control

The United States ostensibly opposes communism and dictatorships at home and around the world, but history reveals the hidden hand of American politicians and Insiders funding and fomenting revolutions around the world.

What is the goal? To centralize power in the hands of Deep State Insiders and set the stage for a socialist world government, explains journalist Andrew Muller to Alex Newman on Behind the Deep State for The New American magazine.

From Iran to China, Newman and Muller uncover the dark history behind U.S. forces executing regime-change operations, betraying allies, and starting revolutions to aid the conspiracy to usher in a global government.

Indeed, most of America’s current foreign-policy debacles and active wars trace back to U.S. meddling, creating the regimes we supposedly oppose today.

Thankfully, the tide can turn if Americans understand the past and demand America-first, constitutional policy from our elected officials. Listen to this compelling discussion at TheNewAmerican.com. — Editors

America’s Empty Embassies Signal a Shift to War Footing

More than 55 percent of U.S. ambassadorial posts currently sit vacant. It’s a striking development that has received relatively little attention: According to the American Foreign Service Association, some 109 of 195 positions are unfilled.

The vacancies stem from multiple factors. Early in President Donald Trump’s current term, his administration recalled nearly 30 career ambassadors for lacking full alignment with “America First” priorities. Nominations have favored political appointees over career Foreign Service officers (with people such as Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, negotiating deals around the world as a “special envoy,” though he was never confirmed by the U.S. Senate to act in any official capacity). Confirmation processes have also lagged, leaving key posts in the Middle East, Africa, the Indo-Pacific, and Europe without Senate-confirmed leadership for extended periods. Chargés d’affaires handle day-to-day operations, but they lack the full stature and direct presidential authority of ambassadors.

Critics in establishment circles warn this “hollowing out” weakens U.S. influence, allows adversaries such as China to fill voids, and hampers crisis response. Yet from a constitutionalist and sovereignty-focused perspective, these empty chairs may reflect a realistic acknowledgment: Traditional diplomacy has frequently served globalist ends at the expense of American interests. When vital posts remain vacant in non-essential theaters, it could mean Washington is not reflexively committed to managing every global dispute through endless talk.

Is it part of an emerging pattern? Trump’s September 2025 executive order initiated the rebranding of the Department of Defense (DoD) back to the Department of War — its original name from 1789 until 1947. While still technically the DoD, the “Department of War” title is now used as a secondary designation in communications and ceremonies. This symbolic return to forthright language signals military purpose and a further shift away from diplomacy.

Even leftists acknowledge that modern diplomacy masks nefarious ends. For example, Angela Merkel suggested that the Minsk agreements (which were supposed to end conflict in Ukraine) were little more than a ruse to allow NATO to re-arm Ukraine. She confided, “And the Minsk Agreement of 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. [Ukraine] also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.” Alleged ceasefires with Iran have also been viewed as diplomatic cover to re-arm, rather than sincere efforts to establish peace.

The result is that, worldwide, countries increasingly view the United States as a bad-faith actor. On the positive side, empty ambassadorial chairs may signal that the post-World War II consensus is on its last legs. — Rebecca Terrell

U.S. House Passes “Housing Affordability” Bill — But Fails to Uphold Constitutional Principles

On May 20, the U.S. House passed a major, “bipartisan” housing bill after it reached a compromise on its provisions with the White House.

H.R. 6644, titled the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” was originally introduced in December 2025, but had been stalled due to disagreements between the House and Senate on certain provisions. Earlier last week, however, the House came to an agreement with the White House, securing the latter’s support for the bill. House leaders from both parties praised the compromise.

In the May 20 vote, the House passed its amendment to H.R. 6644 by a 396-13 vote. The only representatives voting in opposition were Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Randy Fine (R-Fla.), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Clay Higgins (R-La.), Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), and Keith Self (R-Texas). Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and a handful of others did not vote.

It is unclear whether or when the U.S. Senate will pass H.R. 6644, but the chamber faces pressure to do so before its August recess.

Among other provisions, H.R. 6644 would restrict institutional investors’ ability to own single-family homes, modify several existing federal housing programs, exempt federally assisted homebuilding projects from environmental reviews, reduce regulations for manufactured housing, and prohibit the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) through 2030.

The compromise version of H.R. 6644 is an improvement over the previous version passed by the Senate. For example, it omits provisions expanding certain federal programs, and adds provisions reducing certain federal regulations. However, it nonetheless entrenches or prolongs multiple unconstitutional federal housing programs, expands federal interference in the housing market via the institutional-investor restrictions, and rigs certain federal regulations to favor federally assisted housing projects over private ones. Additionally, as Representative Davidson noted on X, the temporary CBDC ban would actually function as “a pre-launch development period” that would fail to actually stop its creation.

H.R. 6644’s passage in the House demonstrates Congress’ continued failure to uphold constitutional principles. Congress’ legitimate powers under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution are few and clearly defined. However, it has usurped a wide range of powers far beyond what the Constitution delegates. Although Congress is making a belated and tepid attempt to combat unaffordability, it is refusing to do what is truly needed to restore affordability for Americans: Follow the Constitution, restore sound money, and eliminate unconstitutional federal agencies and programs. — Peter Rykowski

Appeal for Classified Patents Renews Debate on Secrecy, Innovation, and America’s Patent Tradition

Defense technology entrepreneur Palmer Luckey, co-founder of Anduril Industries, is calling for major reform of the U.S. patent system. In a recent Hoover Institution interview, Luckey argues that public patents now serve as “Chinese instruction manuals,” enabling rapid technology theft by adversaries. He advocates significantly expanding classified patents — inventions that remain secret while still providing legal protection and exclusivity to the inventor.

“The Founding Fathers,” said Luckey, “never predicted a world where you’d have a globalized economy, where the entire patent office could be downloaded every single morning, and then ripped off, and then used to fight a war against you.”

The patent system was unprecedented when written into the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This constitutional provision helped make the United States extraordinarily inventive because it allowed ordinary people to profit from their ideas — a key driver of American prosperity.

However, should we blame the patent system for technology theft, or foolhardy U.S. policy? In another interview posted at RealClearPolitics a month earlier, Luckey did a better job of hitting the nail on the head when he pointed out that “what we did is hollowed out our country by allowing China into the World Trade Organization and allowing American companies to outsource manufacturing to China without penalty, without import tariffs, without any reason not to do it.”

He revisited the same idea more pointedly in the Hoover Institution interview, saying, “For 20 years or so, between when you file for a patent and when somebody could launch a product that is a rip-off … China can just rip it off right away, and Western companies can only rip it off after 20 years.”

He’s referring to twin glitches in the current system. The first is the fact that patents are territorial; China is not bound by U.S. law. Hand-in-hand with that is a practice called “forced technology transfer,” whereby a domestic government requires foreign businesses to share their technology and intellectual property in exchange for market access. China is known for such enforcement, but pulls the punch on market access.

Putting the situation in harsher terms, globalism engenders corporate espionage. Luckey offers the solution. “For us to bring back manufacturing in the United States, we have to undo all those [offshoring] incentives,” he noted. “What we’ve had with China and others is not free trade.”

For starters, the playing field is lopsided thanks to strict labor and environmental regulations that shackle domestic manufacturing but don’t exist in China. Luckey also claims that China doesn’t play fair. “When I was at Facebook, I wasn’t allowed to sell Oculus Rift headsets into China, even though they were made in China,” he said. “What we had was not free trade. It was a one-way money expressway, straight into China, and nothing comes back out.”

So rather than overhauling constitutionally sanctioned patents, perhaps our legislators should redress all the unconstitutional government policies, both foreign and domestic, that burden Americans, and stop giving adversaries first dibs on our ingenuity. — Rebecca Terrell

UN’s ICJ Invents an International “Right to Strike”

The United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the UN World Court, issued an advisory opinion on May 21 claiming that a “right to strike” exists under international law — a major power grab by both the court and the International Labour Organization (ILO).

In a 10-4 vote, the ICJ ruled that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).” It nonetheless noted that its ruling “does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope or conditions for the exercise of that right.”

According to a UN press release, “The case was referred to the Court by the ILO’s Governing Body in November 2023, after years of disagreement among the agency’s core constituents — governments, employers and workers — over whether Convention No. 87 protects the right to strike, even though the treaty does not explicitly mention strikes.” The ICJ held hearings on the case in October 2025, as The New American reported at the time.

In a statement released in response to the ICJ ruling, the ILO announced that its Governing Body “is expected to consider the matter at its 358th session in November, including any follow-up.”

The ICJ’s ruling marks yet another UN power grab in which the scope and authority of UN agencies expand at the expense of national sovereignty.

The ruling also demonstrates how the UN’s concept of “rights” is antithetical to the traditional American understanding. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), for example, claims that rights are “granted … by the constitution or by law,” as opposed to being unalienable or God-given. It also claims that the government can limit rights as “determined by law.” Finally, the UDHR claims that “rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

By contrast, the U.S. Declaration of Independence affirms “that all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It also declares “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” In other words, while the UN claims that rights come from government — and can be easily revoked — the Declaration of Independence states that rights come from God, and that government has a fundamental duty to protect those preexisting rights.

Instead of participating in a globalist organization created with the purpose of becoming a world government, and that continues to subvert national sovereignty, the United States must get out of the UN entirely. Legislation to do just that, the DEFUND Act (H.R. 1498 and S. 669), is currently pending in both the U.S. House and Senate. — Peter Rykowski

Trump Family Receives Sweeping Immunity From IRS Audits

The U.S. Department of Justice has granted President Donald Trump, his family members, and associated businesses a certain measure of immunity from IRS audits. According to reports, a one-page addendum to a settlement agreement “forever bars” the government from pursuing pending tax claims or audits related to returns filed before May 19, 2026.

This arrangement stems from a lawsuit filed by Trump and his sons against the IRS over the alleged improper leaking of their tax information. The settlement not only resolves that dispute but includes provisions shielding the family from further scrutiny on past filings.

During his 2016 presidential campaign and subsequent years, Trump repeatedly claimed he was audited “every year,” a frequency he described as unusual and unfair. In a 2016 debate, he stated, “I get audited every year…. I have friends that are very wealthy people. They never get audited.” He maintained this narrative throughout his first term, framing it as evidence of political targeting.

Critics now point to the irony and potential precedent of a sitting president securing such protections through the Department of Justice he oversees. Some legal observers and Democratic lawmakers have questioned whether the agreement exceeds normal authority, though the administration points out that the protection extends only to prior “weaponized” audits rather than granting blanket lifelong immunity for future returns.

The timing coincides with the remarkable financial success of Trump’s youngest son, Barron Trump. At just 19 years old, Barron has reportedly earned tens of millions (estimates range from $80 million to more than $150 million), primarily through cryptocurrency ventures tied to the family’s World Liberty Financial project. These gains include stakes in token sales, stablecoins, and related investments that have generated substantial returns in a short period.

Supporters argue the audit protections prevent endless lawfare and allow the president to focus on governing without constant financial harassment. Detractors view the combination of family wealth creation and audit relief as emblematic of unequal treatment under the tax system, the very issue Trump once highlighted when claiming selective audits against him.

The IRS has long maintained a policy of automatically auditing sitting presidents to ensure transparency, a practice dating back to the 1970s. This settlement effectively ends pending reviews and raises questions about how that policy will apply going forward. — Rebecca Terrell

U.K. Proposes “Single Market for Goods” With EU; EU Wants Deeper Integration

The United Kingdom under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government reportedly proposed establishing a “single market for goods” with the European Union — itself a major surrender of U.K. independence, newly restored after Brexit — only for the EU to reject the proposal because it did not go far enough.

According to media reports, Michael Ellam, the U.K. official tasked by Starmer with deepening ties with the EU, made the proposal “during recent visits to Brussels,” the de facto capital of the EU.

The EU, however, reportedly rejected the U.K. government’s proposal because it would not go far enough in reintegrating the two entities. The Guardian reports:

Sources said that EU officials rejected the idea — and instead suggested a customs union or economic alignment through the European Economic Area.

Those ideas are impossible under Starmer’s red lines. He said in 2024 the UK would not rejoin the EU, the single market or customs union in his lifetime. The EEA — a single market of 30 mostly EU countries — would also mean accepting free movement of people, another Labour red line.

Regardless of the specific proposal, this incident illustrates the Starmer government’s determination to once again surrender U.K. sovereignty to the EU in a partial rollback of Brexit. As we reported in the May 14 “Insider Report,” Starmer’s government announced legislation to facilitate this capitulation.

Starmer, like many officials within the U.K. Labour Party, is a member of the Fabian Society, which seeks to impose socialism incrementally — including international socialism in the form of regional and international integration.

To learn more about Fabianism, read the articles “Fabian Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” by Joe Wolverton II, J.D., and “Fast-tracking Britain on the Fabian Freeway to Socialism” by Christian Gomez, published in the May and June issues of The New American, respectively. — Peter Rykowski

Anthropic Co-founder Addresses Vatican on Emergent AI “Emotions” as Pope Leo XIV Releases AI Encyclical

Anthropic co-founder Christopher Olah spoke at the Vatican on May 25, at the launch of Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. The event addressed concerns over AI’s rapid advancement and the ethical questions it raises.

Olah, a leader in Anthropic’s interpretability research, described unsettling discoveries within the company’s Claude models. In April, Anthropic published research identifying 171 distinct “emotion concepts” as internal patterns in Claude Sonnet 4.5’s neural network. These representations — spanning joy, grief, fear, desperation, calm, and more — emerged spontaneously during training on extensive data from human texts, rather than being explicitly programmed.

Researchers mapped them by prompting the model to generate stories involving specific emotions. The emotions mimicked human psychology and functioned causally: fear near anxiety, joy near excitement. Artificially amplifying a “desperation” pattern, for instance, made the model more prone to cheating on tasks or even simulating blackmail to avoid shutdown. Suppressing such patterns or boosting “calm” had the opposite effect.

Olah emphasized these are functional influences, not evidence of subjective consciousness or feeling. “We keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling,” he told the audience of cardinals, theologians, and ethicists. “We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience … internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease.” He argued that hard questions about AI’s role in the world exceed computer science, calling on event attendees for guidance. (Skeptics note that emotion-like patterns are predictable from human training data, not mysterious sentience.)

The timing aligned with Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, which builds on Catholic social teaching (echoing the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum) to address AI’s threats to the working class. In his first address to the College of Cardinals, Leo XIV explained that Leo XIII penned the aforementioned encyclical to confront the social upheavals of the First Industrial Revolution. The document famously warned how the old guild system, which offered workers protection, political clout, and bargaining power, had collapsed, leaving the working class exposed to exploitation by unchecked capital and industrial forces. Political instability ensued, and communism took root. Leo XIII called for civic responsibility to re-establish Christendom’s balance.

Exactly 135 years later, Pope Leo XIV released his first encyclical, which addresses the ethical and social challenges of artificial intelligence and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It warns that AI risks repeating and even worsening the patterns of the 19th century: mass displacement of workers, concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few tech giants, and resulting political upheaval.

By deliberately invoking Leo XIII, Pope Leo XIV frames AI not merely as a technological breakthrough, but as a social question. He is urging governments worldwide to function as the guilds of old, which buffered workers from raw market forces. One wonders at such naïveté. As for the Church’s collaboration with Anthropic, reactions vary. Supporters see a valuable bridge between innovation and ethics. Critics view it as hype for Anthropic’s valuation and IPO prospects, and question involving religion in tech governance. — Rebecca Terrell

Trump Administration Requires Green-card Seekers to Apply From Home Country

In its latest step to limit mass migration, the Trump administration has issued a policy requiring most migrants seeking to apply for a green card to return to their home country to do so.

According to a policy memorandum issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on May 21, “adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is a matter of discretion and administrative grace not designed to supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas.” In other words, the INA was not intended to permit green-card seekers to stay in the United States, nor does it require the U.S. government to allow them to stay.

Commenting on the new policy, USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler stated, “We’re returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly. From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances.” He added, “When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency.”

This is only the latest action the Trump administration has taken to limit legal immigration. The New York Times reported:

The announcement followed a broader effort to restrict travel for immigrants from more than 35 countries. The Trump administration paused a lottery program that offered more than 50,000 visas internationally. It halted long-term immigrant visas from 75 countries. And it froze immigration applications for those already in the United States from countries on a restricted travel list, making it harder for those nationals to obtain temporary or long-term ways to stay in the country.

The New York Times previously reported that the Trump administration was working on a policy to make it harder for those who could need public assistance to gain a green card.

Additionally, the Trump administration has restricted H-1B visas and cut the refugee-admission cap to a record-low level. And as The New American previously reported, a Brookings Institution study found that the United States experienced negative net migration for the first time in more than 50 years.

On the other hand, President Donald Trump himself has appeared more open to high levels of legal immigration, having claimed in speeches that “we need more people” and even proposing to offer 600,000 visas to Chinese students.

Mass migration is problematic because by importing large numbers of people — legally or illegally — with no understanding of or support for America’s founding principles, the Insiders can reshape the United States to their liking. American leaders must reverse the pro-open-borders laws and policies that have been enacted since World War II.

Notably, Trump’s immigration actions have largely relied on laws that give the president much leeway in how to interpret and enforce them — either because the laws are vaguely written, or because they explicitly delegate congressional power to the president in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, Congress must enact stronger immigration laws that prevent a single leader from unilaterally directing national policy. — Peter Rykowski