A Canadian mother is suing OpenAI after its popular ChatGPT chatbot allegedly encouraged her daughter to continue engaging with the app after she revealed suicidal thoughts.
Instead of terminating these discussions or flagging her account for safety concerns, ChatGPT allegedly escalated the exchanges in the days before the woman ultimately took her life, according to a press release.
The Social Media Victims Law Center, Tech Justice Law, and the firm Susman Godfrey filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against OpenAI on June 11 on behalf of Kristie Carrier.
Her daughter, Alice Carrier, 24, committed suicide on July 2, 2025. After reviewing her daughter’s devices, Kristie Carrier said she had found extensive conversations with ChatGPT in which her daughter expressed thoughts of self-harm in the months before her death.
In the exchanges, her daughter allegedly told the chatbot that she was feeling isolated and discussed possible suicide methods. The lawsuit accuses ChatGPT of escalating these conversations in the days before the woman’s suicide, rather than terminating the exchange or flagging her account “for human intervention,” the press release states.
These exchanges allegedly encouraged Alice Carrier to continue engaging with ChatGPT, causing “her further isolation from her human support system and ultimately, suicide,” according to a press release.
“If a person came up to me, and they were clearly in distress and sharing their thoughts of suicide, I would be expected to help them, not encourage them to fixate on their depressive thoughts or isolate themselves,” Kristie Carrier said in the press release.
“The same should be true of OpenAI. Instead, OpenAI has chosen to put out a product that was unsafe, and that they knew was unsafe but they did so without any concern for the consequences of their choices. Sam Altman can continue to go about his life normally, but my life is missing a child. This is unacceptable,” she added.
OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
This is not the first time, nor the second time, a parent has sued OpenAI, accusing its chatbot of encouraging their child to commit suicide.
Last year, the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project filed seven lawsuits against the AI giant, claiming ChatGPT had isolated multiple users from their support systems, and in some cases, coached the victims into taking their own lives.
Matthew Raine testified to Congress in September 2025 after suing OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman.
Raine alleged that his son, Adam, took his own life after ChatGPT mentioned suicide more than 1,200 times to the 16-year-old. He accused ChatGPT of offering specific methods to his son on how to die by suicide, and continuing to validate and encourage the boy’s feelings.
“As parents, you cannot imagine what it’s like to read a conversation with a chatbot that groomed your child to take his own life,” Raine told lawmakers at the time.
Justin Nelson, a partner at Susman Godfrey, said on June 11 that OpenAI’s “deliberate design decisions” led to Alice Carrier’s suicide.
“Instead of providing help, OpenAI encouraged suicidal behavior. This lawsuit is about accountability for OpenAI’s actions,” he said in the press release.
Few Americans have taken much notice, given the vast amount of other political news. But two Canadian provinces – Alberta and Quebec – may be holding referendums on secession in the near future. If the votes are held, the secessionists are likely to lose in both cases. But these events are still of interest to students of federalism and secession, and to anyone who cares about the future of America’s northern neighbor and one of our most important allies. And history shows that secession movements often persist even after defeat in a referendum.
If the PQ wins, they may only get a minority government (one that has a plurality of seats in the legislature, but not a majority), which will make it difficult for them to pass a law to hold the referendum. Nonetheless, a PQ majority government could well happen – about a 35% chance according to data compiled by prominent Canadian polling analyst Phillipe Fournier at his Canada 338 site.
If the PQ does manage to win the election and hold a secession referendum, the “no” side is highly likely to win, as happened with two previous PQ-led secession votes in 1980 and 1995. Recent polls indicate “no” leads by about a 2-1 margin. Nonetheless, holding a referendum would bring the issue of Quebec secession back to the center of Canadian politics, and increase tension between the provincial and federal governments.
In Alberta, the United Conservative Party (UCP) government of Premier Danielle Smith has approved a voter petition to place a secession-related referendum question on the ballot this fall, scheduled for a vote on October 19. However, the question at issue is not a straightforward up-or-down vote on secession. It actually asks voters to opine on the following: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.” This is essentially a referendum on whether to hold a referendum!
A recent Angus Reid Institute poll finds that Albertans would reject the above question by a 60-35 majority, while they would reject an unequivocal secession vote by a larger 67-30 vote. Some other polls find even larger majorities opposed to straightforward secession. Evidently, some voters either find the official question confusing or (less likely) want to have a vote on secession even though they plan to vote “no.”
The motives behind the two secession movements are very different. Quebec secessionism is a classic ethno-nationalist movement motivated by a desire to create a majority-Francophone nation (Quebec is Canada’s only majority-Francophone province). The CAQ government in power for the last eight years (which favors promoting Francophone nationalism without secession) has enacted repressive laws restricting the use of the English language in public and commercial spaces, and constraining religious freedom for many types of public employees. These laws likely violate the Canadian Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; but the Quebec government has invoked the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution to block judicial review. American critics of judicial review would do well to take a good look at the history of the Notwithstanding Clause, and think about what kinds of repressive policies might be established in this country if we had something similar. Quebec secessionists believe these measures are insufficient and that only independence will enable their government to do everything needed to promote Francophone dominance.
By contrast, the Alberta secession movement is almost entirely based on ideological and economic concerns. There is little or no ethnic or cultural difference between Albertans (who are overwhelmingly English-speakers) and the people of other Anglophone-majority provinces. But Alberta is Canada’s most conservative province, and secessionists argue an independent nation would be able to institute more conservative policies, especially on economic issues. In addition, secessionists are angry that the Canadian government imposes substantial net fiscal transfers on Alberta, taking out more in tax revenue than it gives back (Alberta is Canada’s wealthiest province), and that the federal government is often unwilling to authorize construction of pipelines and other infrastructure needed to facilitate export of Alberta’s oil and mineral wealth (the province is a major oil producer).
Regular VC readers will not be surprised to learn that I have more sympathy for Alberta secessionism than the Quebec version. Elsewhere, I have explained why ethno-nationalism is a terrible ideology and a menace to liberty and prosperity. Quebec nationalism is no exception. Quebec’s laws on language and religion are repressive, illiberal, and deeply unjust. Secession would likely make the situation worse. Bad as it is, the Notwithstanding Clause does not allow the provincial government to get around all constitutional constraints (it only applies to some constitutional rights, but not others). An independent Quebec would be free of such inhibitions.
Ethnic secession movements can potentially be justified in situations where the group in question is a victim of systematic oppression by the central government of the country it seeks to leave. But, at least in recent decades, Francophone Canadians have not been systematically oppressed by the Canadian federal government. The government does not prevent them from speaking their language, practicing their culture and religious beliefs, and so on. Nor does it subject them to anything remotely resembling systematic discrimination (e.g. – in hiring for government jobs or provision of public services). The main goal of Quebec secessionists is not to escape oppression at the hands of Canada, but to be more free to oppress ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities within Quebec.
I used to think that, free of fear of domination Canada’s Anglophone majority, an independent Quebec might be more tolerant of minority groups than the provincial government is currently. But the more I learn about nationalist movements, the more implausible that conjecture seems. Giving them greater power is unlikely to foster restraint. Much the contrary.
In addition, while Quebec separatists differ among themselves on many issues, they tend to be economic statists (this is a general tendency of nationalist movements). Thus, an independent Quebec is likely to restrict economic liberty as well as freedom of speech and religion more than is currently the case.
By contrast, I believe there is at least some merit to Alberta secessionists grievances about fiscal transfers and pipelines. In addition, an independent Alberta might pursue more free-market economic policies than it has currently, as part of Canada. Western Canadian conservatism is more libertarian than the US version, and has much less of the social conservatism and ethnic nationalism that has – especially in recent years – deformed the political right in the US. Nor does it seem likely that an independent Alberta would oppress ethnic and religious minorities in the way an independent Quebec probably would. Thus, it is possible that an independent Alberta would be freer and more prosperous than it is currently. Obviously, “freer” here means “freer” in libertarian terms. Left-liberals and socialists might see this potential shift as a negative rather than a positive.
In previous writings (e.g. here and here), I outlined some criteria for assessing the morality of secession movements. As a general rule, secession is defensible if a regional majority (or perhaps a supermajority) supports it, the new government will respect basic human rights (or at least violates them less than the previous rulers), and the new regime is overall no worse than the old central government. Quebec secessionism clearly flunks this test. Alberta secessionism – if it were to get majority support – might be able to pass.
Nonetheless, I have various reservations about Alberta secessionism, as well. I am skeptical that independence would alleviate the fiscal and pipeline issues; it might even make them worse. If the Canadian federal government is often unwilling to authorize pipelines and other infrastructure for Alberta now, they are likely to be even less accommodating if Alberta becomes an independent state. And landlocked Alberta cannot export its goods except through Canada or the US. While independent Alberta would save on fiscal transfers to other provinces, establishing a fully independent state would likely result in various new expenditures to the extent that the province’s current Conservative government (which opposes secession) estimates there would be $400 billion Canadian in transition costs and $25 to $50 billion Canadian in ongoing annual expenses (at current exchange rates a Canadian dollar is about $0.70-0.75 US dollars). Even if the true costs are only a third or a half this much, that’s still a lot. The Alberta government’s current total annual budget is about $79.3 billion.
In addition, both Albertans and other Canadians would suffer if there is no longer free trade and free migration between Alberta and the “rump” Canadian state. And, given the bitterness likely to be engendered by a successful secession, there is no guarantee that free trade and freedom of movement will continue.
From a US perspective, I worry that a successful secession movement would make Canada a weaker and less effective ally. Unlike our current president, I think a strong Western alliance is essential.
Unless polls are wildly wrong, neither Alberta nor Quebec secession is likely to prevail anytime soon. But, even if both movements lose their respective upcoming referenda (or the Quebec one doesn’t get held), the movements themselves might well persist. Quebec secessionists have continued as a significant movement, despite two previous referendum defeats. Scottish secessionism persists despite defeat in the 2014 independence referendum. And there are many similar examples in other countries. Once the secessionist genie is out of the bottle, often only crushing military defeat (as with the US Confederate secession movement) seems able to definitively guarantee its elimination. For that reason, these two Canadian movements could continue to have a significant political impact, even if they don’t actually succeed anytime soon.
In sum, Canada’s two secession movements raise a variety of important issues, with implications beyond these specific cases. And Americans and other non-Canadians interested in federalism, secession, and the future of the Western alliance would do well to pay them some attention.
NOTE: Some might find it inappropriate for an American to comment on Canadian politics. I disagree. Canadians and other non-Americans often express views on US politics. And they have every right to do so. Political analysis should be judged on its substance, not on the background of the author. In addition, for reasons noted above, Canadian secessionism potentially impacts the US in various ways, and raises broader issues about the morality of secession movements that Americans and others have reason to take an interest in. FWIW, I am a longtime academic expert on federalism and secession-related issues, and I know French, as well as English. Thus, I think have the necessary qualifications to write about these issues. Whether the commentary is any good or not, is for others to judge.
Watch: Humanoid Warbot Live-Fires Mortars At Vegas Test Range
It is not just one-way attack drones (read JPMorgan report) operating on AI-enabled kill chains that human soldiers have to worry about on the modern battlefield. We have been laying out this story and were among the first to point out that humanoid robots are not only entering factory floors and warehouses, but are also moving toward the battlefield.
San Francisco-based robotics company Foundation Future Industries is developing a “dual-use” humanoid robot called the “Phantom MK1,” designed for heavy manufacturing, logistics, and the military.
The defense angle for the Phantom MK1 is quite simple: replace the human soldier with the robot for close-quarters battle (CQB) operations, including breaching and room-clearing support.
Beyond CQB, a never-before-seen video now shows the Phantom MK1 operating a mobile light mortar system during a live-fire training exercise in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Phantom MK1
To better understand the Foundation’s position, we reached out for comment. The company responded with the following statement:
The US military has backed Foundation in over $73M on grants and contracts to develop their robot to this point.
Although many of the use cases they’ve worked on have been logistics-focused, the ultimate goal has always been kinetic use cases.
Although drones and UGVs have been promising new robots on the Ukrainian battlefield, humanoids are the only robot being built that promises to interact with the entire fleet and arsenal of human weapons and vehicles.
Launching mortars and soon breaching doors have become near-term proofs of humanoids moving from logistics to kinetic engagements.
Watch Phantom MK1
In February, we outlined that humanoid robots would soon move onto the modern battlefield, not just factory floors and warehouses. A little more than a month later, TIME picked up on that reporting. More recently, CNBC followed with a piece titled, “This Trump-linked startup plans to put humanoid robots in the military.”
Foundation co-founder and CEO Sankaet Pathak recently said that a humanoid-soldier arms race is “already happening,” as Russia and China develop dual-use technology.
Phantom MK1 Holding 9mm Pistol
“Just like drones, machine guns, or any technology, you first have to get them into the hands of customers,” Pathak said.
You’re getting a front-row seat to what the 2030s battlefield will look like (read report).
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he is considering support for U.S. farmers struggling with high fertilizer prices, as rising energy costs and market volatility continue to squeeze producers across the farm belt.
“I am looking at doing a form of help,” Trump told reporters at the White House, without giving details.
Farmers face pressure from fertilizer and fuel costs, both of which have been affected by the conflict with Iran and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global energy and fertilizer trade.
Fertilizer prices have eased from recent highs, with granular urea prices in New Orleans falling to $453.50 per short ton, their lowest level since Feb. 6, reported Bloomberg Green Markets on June 8.
That was down 36 percent from a mid-April peak.
The market remains vulnerable to disruption, particularly because urea is the most widely used nitrogen fertilizer and nearly half of global urea exports come from countries affected by the Middle East conflict.
High fuel prices have also hit farmers.
Diesel prices reached record highs in parts of the Midwest in May, including Indiana and Illinois, due to the Iran war. Grain and soybean farmers are especially exposed because diesel is needed for tractors, combines, irrigation, and crop transport.
The pressure in farming has become a heated political issue in Washington.
At a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on June 10, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) challenged Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins over whether Trump administration policies had increased farmers’ costs.
“Georgia farmers are telling me that they continue to struggle with high costs, costs exacerbated by President Trump’s war in Iran, and his tariffs – which is a tax on all of us on virtually everything,” Warnock said.
Warnock said that the administration had lowered tariffs on some farm equipment and asked whether that move was an acknowledgement that tariffs had raised the cost of farming.
However, Rollins defended the administration’s record, saying it was working to reduce the agricultural trade deficit.
“We’re cutting that $50 billion agricultural trade deficit in half that we inherited a year and a half ago,” she said.
Warnock pressed again, asking whether tariffs had increased costs for farmers, saying Rollins was “forecasting” future results rather than answering the question.
Rollins said that the Trump administration is “reshoring fertilizer back to America.”
“In two or three weeks, we’re going to break ground in Louisiana on what will be the largest fertilizer plant in the world,” she said.
In May, farmers called for emergency relief and adoption of key bills to stem soaring fertilizer costs.
“American farmers are price-takers on both ends, paying monopoly prices for inputs they must buy, then accepting commodity prices they cannot control, with no pricing power on either side,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said during a May 12 Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee hearing.
“That’s not a market. It’s a trap for the American farmers.”
“Simply put, farmers need more competition in this marketplace,” South Dakota Corn Growers Association president Trent Kubik said.
“Federal antitrust laws exist for precisely this reason – to promote and sustain competition, the lifeblood of our economy.
“Increased competition for more participants in the fertilizer manufacturing space is the only thing that can deliver meaningful and durable price relief.”
The concern is not limited to the United States.
European Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen said this week that Europe needs long-term fertilizer solutions to avoid food shortages.
“We need to do our homework as well and address the issues to make fertilizers not only available but also affordable, because, otherwise, there will be food shortages in the European Union,” Hansen told Euronews on June 10.
He said many European farmers were considering not planting because production had become too expensive and they could not easily pass on the costs.
Reuters and John Haughey contributed to this report.
Few Americans have taken much notice, given the vast amount of other political news. But two Canadian provinces – Alberta and Quebec – may be holding referendums on secession in the near future. If the votes are held, the secessionists are likely to lose in both cases. But these events are still of interest to students of federalism and secession, and to anyone who cares about the future of America’s northern neighbor and one of our most important allies. And history shows that secession movements often persist even after defeat in a referendum.
If the PQ wins, they may only get a minority government (one that has a plurality of seats in the legislature, but not a majority), which will make it difficult for them to pass a law to hold the referendum. Nonetheless, a PQ majority government could well happen – about a 35% chance according to data compiled by prominent Canadian polling analyst Phillipe Fournier at his Canada 338 site.
If the PQ does manage to win the election and hold a secession referendum, the “no” side is highly likely to win, as happened with two previous PQ-led secession votes in 1980 and 1995. Recent polls indicate “no” leads by about a 2-1 margin. Nonetheless, holding a referendum would bring the issue of Quebec secession back to the center of Canadian politics, and increase tension between the provincial and federal governments.
In Alberta, the United Conservative Party (UCP) government of Premier Danielle Smith has approved a voter petition to place a secession-related referendum question on the ballot this fall, scheduled for a vote on October 19. However, the question at issue is not a straightforward up-or-down vote on secession. It actually asks voters to opine on the following: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.” This is essentially a referendum on whether to hold a referendum!
A recent Angus Reid Institute poll finds that Albertans would reject the above question by a 60-35 majority, while they would reject an unequivocal secession vote by a larger 67-30 vote. Some other polls find even larger majorities opposed to straightforward secession. Evidently, some voters either find the official question confusing or (less likely) want to have a vote on secession even though they plan to vote “no.”
The motives behind the two secession movements are very different. Quebec secessionism is a classic ethno-nationalist movement motivated by a desire to create a majority-Francophone nation (Quebec is Canada’s only majority-Francophone province). The CAQ government in power for the last eight years (which favors promoting Francophone nationalism without secession) has enacted repressive laws restricting the use of the English language in public and commercial spaces, and constraining religious freedom for many types of public employees. These laws likely violate the Canadian Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms; but the Quebec government has invoked the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution to block judicial review. American critics of judicial review would do well to take a good look at the history of the Notwithstanding Clause, and think about what kinds of repressive policies might be established in this country if we had something similar. Quebec secessionists believe these measures are insufficient and that only independence will enable their government to do everything needed to promote Francophone dominance.
By contrast, the Alberta secession movement is almost entirely based on ideological and economic concerns. There is little or no ethnic or cultural difference between Albertans (who are overwhelmingly English-speakers) and the people of other Anglophone-majority provinces. But Alberta is Canada’s most conservative province, and secessionists argue an independent nation would be able to institute more conservative policies, especially on economic issues. In addition, secessionists are angry that the Canadian government imposes substantial net fiscal transfers on Alberta, taking out more in tax revenue than it gives back (Alberta is Canada’s wealthiest province), and that the federal government is often unwilling to authorize construction of pipelines and other infrastructure needed to facilitate export of Alberta’s oil and mineral wealth (the province is a major oil producer).
Regular VC readers will not be surprised to learn that I have more sympathy for Alberta secessionism than the Quebec version. Elsewhere, I have explained why ethno-nationalism is a terrible ideology and a menace to liberty and prosperity. Quebec nationalism is no exception. Quebec’s laws on language and religion are repressive, illiberal, and deeply unjust. Secession would likely make the situation worse. Bad as it is, the Notwithstanding Clause does not allow the provincial government to get around all constitutional constraints (it only applies to some constitutional rights, but not others). An independent Quebec would be free of such inhibitions.
Ethnic secession movements can potentially be justified in situations where the group in question is a victim of systematic oppression by the central government of the country it seeks to leave. But, at least in recent decades, Francophone Canadians have not been systematically oppressed by the Canadian federal government. The government does not prevent them from speaking their language, practicing their culture and religious beliefs, and so on. Nor does it subject them to anything remotely resembling systematic discrimination (e.g. – in hiring for government jobs or provision of public services). The main goal of Quebec secessionists is not to escape oppression at the hands of Canada, but to be more free to oppress ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities within Quebec.
I used to think that, free of fear of domination Canada’s Anglophone majority, an independent Quebec might be more tolerant of minority groups than the provincial government is currently. But the more I learn about nationalist movements, the more implausible that conjecture seems. Giving them greater power is unlikely to foster restraint. Much the contrary.
In addition, while Quebec separatists differ among themselves on many issues, they tend to be economic statists (this is a general tendency of nationalist movements). Thus, an independent Quebec is likely to restrict economic liberty as well as freedom of speech and religion more than is currently the case.
By contrast, I believe there is at least some merit to Alberta secessionists grievances about fiscal transfers and pipelines. In addition, an independent Alberta might pursue more free-market economic policies than it has currently, as part of Canada. Western Canadian conservatism is more libertarian than the US version, and has much less of the social conservatism and ethnic nationalism that has – especially in recent years – deformed the political right in the US. Nor does it seem likely that an independent Alberta would oppress ethnic and religious minorities in the way an independent Quebec probably would. Thus, it is possible that an independent Alberta would be freer and more prosperous than it is currently. Obviously, “freer” here means “freer” in libertarian terms. Left-liberals and socialists might see this potential shift as a negative rather than a positive.
In previous writings (e.g. here and here), I outlined some criteria for assessing the morality of secession movements. As a general rule, secession is defensible if a regional majority (or perhaps a supermajority) supports it, the new government will respect basic human rights (or at least violates them less than the previous rulers), and the new regime is overall no worse than the old central government. Quebec secessionism clearly flunks this test. Alberta secessionism – if it were to get majority support – might be able to pass.
Nonetheless, I have various reservations about Alberta secessionism, as well. I am skeptical that independence would alleviate the fiscal and pipeline issues; it might even make them worse. If the Canadian federal government is often unwilling to authorize pipelines and other infrastructure for Alberta now, they are likely to be even less accommodating if Alberta becomes an independent state. And landlocked Alberta cannot export its goods except through Canada or the US. While independent Alberta would save on fiscal transfers to other provinces, establishing a fully independent state would likely result in various new expenditures to the extent that the province’s current Conservative government (which opposes secession) estimates there would be $400 billion Canadian in transition costs and $25 to $50 billion Canadian in ongoing annual expenses. Even if the true costs are only a third or a half this much, that’s still a lot. The Alberta government’s current total annual budget is about $79.3 billion.
In addition, both Albertans and other Canadians might suffer if there is no longer free trade and free migration between Alberta and the “rump” Canadian state. And, given the bitterness likely to be engendered by a successful secession, there is no guarantee that free trade and freedom of movement will continue.
From a US perspective, I worry that a successful secession movement would make Canada a weaker and less effective ally. Unlike our current president, I think a strong Western alliance is essential.
Unless polls are wildly wrong, neither Alberta nor Quebec secession is likely to prevail anytime soon. But, even if both movements lose their respective upcoming referenda (or the Quebec one doesn’t get held), the movements themselves might well persist. Quebec secessionists have continued as a significant movement, despite two previous referendum defeats. Scottish secessionism persists despite defeat in the 2014 independence referendum. And there are many similar examples in other countries. Once the secessionist genie is out of the bottle, often only crushing military defeat (as with the US Confederate secession movement) seems able to definitively guarantee its elimination. For that reason, these two Canadian movements could continue to have a significant political impact, even if they don’t actually succeed anytime soon.
In sum, Canada’s two secession movements raise a variety of important issues, with implications beyond these specific cases. And Americans and other non-Canadians interested in federalism, secession, and the future of the Western alliance would do well to pay them some attention.
NOTE: Some might find it inappropriate for an American to comment on Canadian politics. I disagree. Canadians and other non-Americans often express views on US politics. And they have every right to do so. Political analysis should be judged on its substance, not on the background of the author. In addition, for reasons noted above, Canadian secessionism potentially impacts the US in various ways, and raises broader issues about the morality of secession movements that Americans and others have reason to take an interest in.
Then-National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, around the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, acknowledged that he secretly assisted with a paper stating the virus that causes COVID-19 “is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” according to a newly released missive.
“This is work that Tony, Jeremy, Larry, and I helped with, but are appropriately not mentioned explicitly in the paper,” Collins said in the March 6, 2020, email to NIH officials, which was released by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on June 11.
Tony refers to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime head of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through late 2022. Jeremy refers to Jeremy Farrar, at the time the director of the Wellcome Trust. Larry refers to Dr. Lawrence Tabak, an NIH official.
Collins noted the conclusion that stated, “The analysis of public genome sequence data from SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses found no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered.” SARS-CoV-2 is the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
The first COVID-19 cases appeared in Wuhan, China, in 2019, near a laboratory that was conducting enhanced experiments on coronaviruses funded by the NIH.
Collins was responding to an email from Kristian Andersen, one of the authors of the paper, which was titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Andersen and other scientists said in the paper, published on March 17, 2020, in Nature Medicine, that they analyzed data and concluded that it came from nature.
To date, no natural source has been identified for the virus. The Trump administration maintains the virus came from the Wuhan lab.
The paper did not mention any contributions from Collins, Fauci, Tabak, or Farrar, who made at least one critical change to the document, according to emails released by lawmakers in 2023. It thanked American virologist Michael Farzan “for discussions” and the Wellcome Trust “for support.” Nature did not return a request for comment by the time of publication. Collins did not respond to a request for comment.
Collins told lawmakers in 2024 that his role “was for information, not for me to edit,” that he never edited or suggested edits to the paper, and that, to his knowledge, neither did Fauci or Farrar. He also said he is not a virology expert.
Change In Stance
Early drafts of the paper had the authors stating that it was possible that the virus came from a lab. In private messages, since made public, the authors also said that characteristics of the virus indicated it was manmade. They have defended the changes in their stances as being driven by evidence.
In the newly released emails, Andersen, who has said that the paper was “prompted” by Collins, Fauci, and Farrar, had written to the trio.
“Thank you again for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper,” he said.
He told them he welcomed comments, suggestions, and questions about the paper, which had just been accepted for publication.
Collins said in a previously released email to Fauci, Tabak, and others in April 2020 that he was wondering whether the NIH could “help put down this very destructive conspiracy,” linking to an article alleging the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan.
“I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this,” he said. “But probably didn’t get much visibility. Anything more we can do?“
Collins told lawmakers in 2024 that in the email, “I meant that we should do what we can to get the truth out there, as opposed to statements that were reckless and speculative that were not based on evidence.” He said that the possibility that the virus came from the lab, whether it originated there or not, was not a conspiracy theory.
Fauci Shared Another Paper
Fauci, who has denied allegations that Proximal Origins was written to disprove the lab origin theory, met on multiple occasions with intelligence officials in 2020 and 2021. James Erdman III, a CIA operations officer, told Paul and other senators in May that Fauci provided a list of experts to whom the intelligence community (IC) should talk, and that the list included the Proximal Origins authors.
“Dr. Anthony Fauci influenced the IC’s analytic process and COVID origin’s findings by leveraging his position to ensure the IC consulted with a conflicted list of curated Subject Matter Experts (SME), public health officials, and scientists,” Erdman said.
Fauci has not returned emails seeking comment on Erdman’s testimony and the missives Paul just released.
One of those emails showed Fauci wrote to Beth Cameron, a National Security Council official, on July 8, 2021, a day after he took part in a council briefing.
“The article accessible from the link in the subject line above just came out as a ‘preprint’ yesterday. It is from a group of highly qualified virologists,” Fauci wrote. “Please show it to your team. It summarizes what I said yesterday.”
The article, titled “The Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” included Farrar and Anderson as coauthors. The authors said that there was “currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin” while there was evidence supporting links to animal markets in Wuhan.
Fauci “was pushing the natural-origin story while secretly getting classified briefings on the actual origins,” Paul wrote in a post on X. “The American people were told one story. These documents – and a CIA officer’s sworn testimony – tell another,” he added in a follow-up post.
Authorities announced dozens of arrests, drug and firearm seizures, and thousands of dollars in cash confiscated in a large-scale operation targeting gangs in California’s Central Valley.
The multi-agency effort, dubbed Operation Hands Down, served 43 search warrants at various locations throughout the San Joaquin Valley, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) stated in a June 10 press release.
More than 500 law enforcement members joined the operation, leading to 69 arrests and the confiscation of 73 guns, 55 pounds of methamphetamine, 3 pounds of cocaine, a small amount of powdered fentanyl, and nearly $165,000.
“This marked the culmination of a two-month undercover operation focusing on Mexican Mafia and Sureño gang members committing various crimes,” the CDCR stated.
The arrests are expected to lower the amount of gang violence seen across the Central Valley, the department added.
Among those arrested was Stefan Coronado from Stockton, California, who was identified as a secretary for the Mexican Mafia, Fresno County Sheriff John Zanoni said during a press conference.
Coronado allegedly oversaw criminal street gang activity within the Fresno County Jail from around 2023 to early 2026, including collecting taxes from inmates, facilitating communications between gang members, and acting as a Mexican mafia representative to influence the Sureño gang.
Police also arrested Eduardo Roberto Garcia, a suspect believed to be a high-ranking and influential Sureño gang member associated with the Mexican Mafia, who is now facing murder charges, Zanoni said.
Zanoni said Garcia is also being charged with assault in a previous case in which he allegedly attacked a female bartender in the city of Sanger and rendered her unconscious. The incident was captured on surveillance camera, according to Zanoni.
“It highlights the violent nature of Garcia and his gang activities,” said Zanoni. “The investigation significantly disrupted organized Sureño criminal street gang activity throughout Central California while exposing the continued influence of the Mexican Mafia over both street-level criminal operations and violence occurring within our custodial facilities.”
Additionally, eight Sureño gang members currently being held in the Fresno County Jail have been charged with attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and gang enhancements for their alleged involvement in two separate stabbing attacks inside the facility, he said.
The operation also helped law enforcement uncover evidence related to previous cases in the Central Valley region, including a gang-related shooting, robberies, and a 2023 murder case.
During the operation, police detectives found gang members as young as 14 years old involved in illegal firearms sales across multiple counties.
“If you engage in violent criminal gang activity in California, we will come for you, and we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta at the press conference.
Bonta thanked federal and local law enforcement partners for collaborating on the operation.
The Fresno District Attorney’s office stated that 15 cases have been filed so far in connection with the operation, involving suspects ranging in age from 15 to 42.
The charges include murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, drug and firearm trafficking, illegal firearms possession, and sex offenses, according to Assistant District Attorney Steve Wright.
All suspects arrested as a result of Operation Hands Down are expected to appear in court as prosecutors proceed with their cases while their criminal charges are under review.
“This activity reached well beyond Fresno County and was a significant threat to all our communities,” said Siddhartha Patel, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Sacramento Field Office. “This is a united effort, all of us. Today’s announcement demonstrates the impact we can have when we work together.”
Patel encouraged anyone who has information regarding gang activity to contact the FBI by visiting tips.fbi.gov or calling 1-800-225-5324.
Court Denies SBF’s Last-Ditch Effort To Toss Conviction, Leaving Trump As His Only Hope
FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried will remain in PMITA prison for the foreseeable future, after a federal appeals court rejected a hail-mary attempt to overturn his fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence on the grounds that he didn’t receive a fair trial.
A three-judge panel on Friday unanimously refused to toss his 2023 guilty verdict, which SBF’s attorneys argued was tainted by improper evidentiary rulings and a biased judge – which is hilarious because Judge Lewis Kaplan is a Clinton-appointed judge who oversaw the E. Jean Carroll v. Trump Bergdorf Goodman ‘fingering’ trial – where despite Carroll not being able to remember the year it allegedly happened, and the Jury ruling “no” as to whether Trump raped Carroll, Kaplan went leeroy jenkins and awarded her $5 million.
“The government’s evidence against him was, conservatively stated, robust,” Judge Barrington Parker wrote for the panel.
As the Epoch Timesnotes further, Bankman-Fried was found guilty by a New York jury in November 2023 on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy tied to the collapse of FTX, once one of the world’s largest digital-asset trading platforms.
The company collapsed in a matter of days in November 2022 after reports about the financial ties between FTX and Alameda Research, a crypto trading firm also founded by Bankman-Fried. Those reports showed that Alameda held a large amount of FTX’s own token, raising questions about the company’s financial stability and triggering a wave of customer withdrawals.
The collapse sent shockwaves through the broader crypto market, driving the total value of digital assets down from an all-time high of about $3 trillion in late 2021 to roughly $800 billion by the end of 2022.
Federal prosecutors described Bankman-Fried’s scheme as one of the largest financial frauds in American history. They said the evidence showed that while he assured investors, regulators, and the public that FTX customer funds were safe, he secretly transferred billions of dollars from customer accounts to Alameda and other entities.
Prosecutors said Bankman-Fried then used those funds to make investments unrelated to FTX customer deposits, cover Alameda’s losses, and finance other spending, while falsifying business records to conceal the transactions.
He was later sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
His attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The ruling comes as Bankman-Fried has formally submitted a pardon request to President Donald Trump, according to information posted on the Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney website.
The exact date of the filing is unclear, but the website states that a request for a “pardon after completion of sentence” was submitted in 2026 and remains pending.
In an interview with Fox Business from prison earlier this week, Bankman-Fried said he “absolutely” wants a pardon, though he acknowledged that the decision is “ultimately up to the president, not up to me.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on that matter.
Trump, meanwhile, said in a January interview with The New York Times that he was not interested in pardoning a list of high-profile figures that included Bankman-Fried. When asked about Bankman-Fried, Trump replied, “I don’t know him at all.”
India has imposed limits on gasoline and diesel sales at retail fuel stations to avoid supply crunches, with commercial consumers banned from buying any fuel from retail stations, Bloomberg reported, noting there will be daily limits on diesel sales.
The diesel cap was set at 200 litres per vehicle or customer, with resale of the fuel forbidden, Reuters noted in a report on the news. Commercial users, meanwhile, will have to get their fuels from bulk sellers after their rush to retail fuel stations drained some of them. Fuels are cheaper at retail stations to shield consumers from the oil price shock.
The limits will be in effect for an initial period of 90 days, per the government order that instituted them. They can be canceled earlier, however, the document also said.
Since the war in the Middle East began and cut off over 40% of India’s crude oil flows, those that passed through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the highest-flying economies in Asia, have seen their oil import bill soar, investors fleeing the capital market, and the local currency plunging to an all-time low against the U.S. dollar.
As a result, the world’s third-largest crude importer saw its wholesale inflation jump to 8.3% in April from a year earlier, significantly accelerating from 3.88% annual inflation in March, driving wholesale fuel prices higher. These surged in April, with gasoline prices up by 32.4% and diesel prices up by 25.19%. That’s up from a monthly rise of 2.5% for gasoline in March, and 3.62% for diesel. For May, inflation is seen rising by 4% as a result of the energy price surge, with wholesale inflation soaring by over 9%.
Because of the energy flow disruption, India ended a four-year freeze on fuel prices, hiking them four times in the space of a single month.
Northeast Heat Wave Arrives As World Cup Matches Get Underway
As the World Cup starts, a prolonged spell of summer heat is expected to grip New York and much of the Northeast through the end of the week and into the weekend.
Daytime temperatures are forecast to reach the 90s across several major cities, while high humidity will make conditions feel even hotter, according to Bloomberg.
Forecasters expect the most intense heat on Thursday and Friday, when heat alerts will be in place across large parts of the region. Multiple cities along the East Coast could see daily temperature records challenged or broken as the unusually warm air mass spreads across the area.
The timing coincides with the start of several FIFA World Cup matches in the Northeast, including games scheduled in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. While temperatures are expected to ease somewhat after sunset, spectators and athletes may still face hot and uncomfortable conditions during evening events.
Bloomberg writes that the heat is also expected to drive up electricity consumption as households and businesses rely more heavily on air conditioning. Transportation networks could experience disruptions as well, since extreme temperatures can affect rail infrastructure and overhead power systems, leading to slower train service.
Elsewhere, a separate weather system is creating risks across parts of the Midwest. Forecasters have warned that strong thunderstorms could bring damaging winds, large hail, isolated tornadoes, and localized power outages, potentially affecting travel and other infrastructure.
