California regulators have proposed replacement tire regulations that would dramatically change the aftermarket tire industry by requiring many replacement tires to meet strict fuel-efficiency standards similar to those of original factory tires. Critics argue that these rules could cut the lifespan of many tires by more than half, from around 60,000 miles to about 27,000 miles, forcing drivers to replace them much more often and increasing both costs and waste. The proposal could also effectively ban or limit the sale of certain tires designed for specialized uses, such as high-performance driving or off-roading, because they prioritize grip and durability over fuel efficiency. Opponents say the regulations would reduce consumer choice while offering only modest fuel savings.
“Hegseth aide upended Pentagon leak inquiry with false wiretap claims”.
“ex-Doge staffer Justin Fulcher suggested he had evidence of wiretap that would help investigation”.
“Days before Pete Hegseth fired three top aides last month over a Pentagon leak investigation into the disclosure of classified materials, according to four people familiar with the episode, a recently hired senior advisor said he could help with the inquiry.”
“The advisor, Justin Fulcher, suggested to Hegseth’s then chief of staff, Joe Kasper, and Hegseth’s personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, that he knew of warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) that had identified the leakers.”
“Fulcher offered to share the supposed evidence as long as he could help run the investigation, three of the people said. But when he eventually sat down with officials, it became clear he had no evidence of a wiretap, and the Pentagon had been duped.”
“The problem was that development was not communicated to the White House—so several Trump advisors who were told of the NSA wiretap claim believed that was part of the ‘smoking gun’ evidence against the three aides fired by Hegseth, until they developed their own doubts.”
“The Guardian revealed last month that there were unsubstantiated NSA warrantless wiretap claims underpinning the leak investigation, but its origin story and the involvement of Fulcher in the controversy has not been previously reported.”
“It was not immediately clear why Fulcher chose to become involved in the investigation, but several days after he was replaced as a Doge lead, he went to Kasper and expressed a willingness to help with the investigation, which Kasper attributed to him wanting to prove his worth, two of the people said.”
“Kasper told Fulcher to go to Parlatore, who had been tasked with supervising and managing the investigation. When Fulcher approached Parlatore, he suggested that he knew of NSA intercepts supposedly showing that Caldwell had leaked using his personal phone, the two people said.”
“Looking back on the chain of events, three people familiar with the conversations described Fulcher’s claims as conveniently dovetailing with prevailing suspicions at the time about Caldwell printing lots of documents and his efforts to have the leak investigation shut down.”
“Still, a cursory check at that stage into the NSA claims [by Mr. Fulcher] would have shown them to be false.”
“The claims [by Mr. Fulcher] were relayed to Hegseth and the White House as being accurate.”
In truth, Mr. Fulcher never suggested, stated or otherwise communicated to Joe Kasper, Tim Parlatore, or anyone else that the NSA had conducted warrantless surveillance that identified the source(s) of the leak alleged in the Article, or that Mr. Fulcher had access to such surveillance. Further, Mr. Fulcher never asked Joe Kasper, Tim Parlatore, or anyone else if he could join or assist with an investigation into the leak alleged by the Article, nor did he tell anyone that he could “help run” it….
The Guardian acted with at least reckless disregard for the truth, by consciously disregarding readily available information that showed that the false statements were at least highly likely to be false. Among other things, the NSA is prohibited by law from intentionally targeting United States citizens, persons known to be located within the United States and communications in which the sender and recipients are known to be located within the United States. See 50 U.S.C. § 1881a. Further, the NSA is only authorized to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for the purpose of acquiring “foreign intelligence” that consists of communications exclusively between foreign powers. See 50 U.S.C. § 1802; see also United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for E. Dist. of Mich., S. Div., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (compliance with Fourth Amendment required for domestic national security matters).
The subjects of the purported warrantless wiretaps alleged by the Article, were, at all relevant times, United States citizens and the leak alleged in the Article was to one or more media outlets located within the United States. As such, the NSA could not have conducted the warrantless searches described in the Article. Moreover, Joe Kasper and Tim Parlatore, as senior officials of the Department of War, and the referenced advisors for President Trump, at all relevant times, had full knowledge of the prohibition on targeting United States citizens and those located within the country, and thus the Article’s allegations that Mr. Fulcher had informed Kasper (who was terminated from his position with the Department of War before Mr. Fulcher even began working there) and Parlatore of the existence of purported warrantless wiretaps of United States citizens, and that Kasper, Parlatore and advisors for President Trump believed Mr. Fulcher’s alleged statements or had been “duped,” are implausible.
Further, had the false statements of and concerning Mr. Fulcher been true (which they are not), it is reasonably expected that Mr. Fulcher would have been disqualified from a position with the government, instead of being brought on as senior advisor for the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, as acknowledged in the Article. In addition, in relying on the four unidentified sources for the false statements, The Guardian knew, or should have known, that these sources had an obvious bias against Mr. Fulcher because, among other things, and on information and belief, Mr. Fulcher replaced, at least in part, the role(s) occupied by one or more of the sources, rendering these sources and their statements inherently unreliable.
The Guardian, in making the false statements, also unreasonably believed the accounts provided by the four unnamed sources, who, on information and belief, had been terminated from their government positions, over the express denials of Mr. Fulcher, who at all relevant times, remained in good standing with the United States Government, and who spoke to Hugo Lowell, the author of the Article who resides in Washington, D.C., over the telephone prior to publication and provided a detailed explanation (in addition to the statement published in the Article) as to why the statements at issue were false.
Fulcher claims that the article’s publication interfered with three business deals that could have yielded up to about $20M in income.
Note that Fulcher is represented by Ryan Stonerock, Steven Frackman, and Dilan Esper (Harder Stonerock LLP). The firm is a prominent libel law firm, and the one lawyer of the three whom I know in some measure, Dilan Esper, is a serious lawyer: He’s been cited in various VC posts, and also has often been seen in the comments, where I’ve generally found his posts to be quite substantive. Of course, the quality of the lawyers is no guarantee that the lawsuit will prove successful.
On April 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff brings this suit because certain recording artists allegedly “are committing defamation (libel and slander) and/or the dignitary tort of the invasion of privacy by talking about President Donald John [T]rump in a negative manner which could be perceived as violation of the Alien and Sedition Acts.” Plaintiff also alleges that the Grammy Awards “have become a public nuisance” and are “committing industrial espionage” with television networks through their programming selections. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order precluding Defendants from advertising to him on cable television broadcasts.
No dice, says the court, which had to screen the case because plaintiff sought to sue with a waiver of filing fees. The court notes that plaintiff (who “often uses the name Ronald Satish Emrit”) is a frequent and frivolous litigant, and that the particular complaint’s allegations are ‘clearly baseless,’ ‘fanciful,’ and ‘delusional.'”
This week, editors Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch are joined by Associate Editor Liz Wolfe to discuss New York City’s falling crime rates and whether Democrats have really solved their big-city crime problem. The panel looks at the recent Penn Station stabbings, subway disorder, fare evasion, and why many New Yorkers still feel uneasy even as murders and shootings decline.
Next, the editors discuss California’s recent elections, including Spencer Pratt’s bid for Los Angeles mayor, and what these results reveal about voter attitudes toward political leadership and governance. They then examine the political and economic fallout from President Donald Trump’s war with Iran. The panel also discusses proposals from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Trump to give the federal government a stake in artificial intelligence companies. Finally, a listener asks whether AI-powered surveillance threatens individual liberty.
0:00—New York City’s declining murder rate
18:16—California election results
28:22—The economic fallout of the Iran war
38:33—Listener question on AI threats to liberty
49:47—The push to nationalize artificial intelligence
“Hegseth aide upended Pentagon leak inquiry with false wiretap claims”.
“ex-Doge staffer Justin Fulcher suggested he had evidence of wiretap that would help investigation”.
“Days before Pete Hegseth fired three top aides last month over a Pentagon leak investigation into the disclosure of classified materials, according to four people familiar with the episode, a recently hired senior advisor said he could help with the inquiry.”
“The advisor, Justin Fulcher, suggested to Hegseth’s then chief of staff, Joe Kasper, and Hegseth’s personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, that he knew of warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) that had identified the leakers.”
“Fulcher offered to share the supposed evidence as long as he could help run the investigation, three of the people said. But when he eventually sat down with officials, it became clear he had no evidence of a wiretap, and the Pentagon had been duped.”
“The problem was that development was not communicated to the White House—so several Trump advisors who were told of the NSA wiretap claim believed that was part of the ‘smoking gun’ evidence against the three aides fired by Hegseth, until they developed their own doubts.”
“The Guardian revealed last month that there were unsubstantiated NSA warrantless wiretap claims underpinning the leak investigation, but its origin story and the involvement of Fulcher in the controversy has not been previously reported.”
“It was not immediately clear why Fulcher chose to become involved in the investigation, but several days after he was replaced as a Doge lead, he went to Kasper and expressed a willingness to help with the investigation, which Kasper attributed to him wanting to prove his worth, two of the people said.”
“Kasper told Fulcher to go to Parlatore, who had been tasked with supervising and managing the investigation. When Fulcher approached Parlatore, he suggested that he knew of NSA intercepts supposedly showing that Caldwell had leaked using his personal phone, the two people said.”
“Looking back on the chain of events, three people familiar with the conversations described Fulcher’s claims as conveniently dovetailing with prevailing suspicions at the time about Caldwell printing lots of documents and his efforts to have the leak investigation shut down.”
“Still, a cursory check at that stage into the NSA claims [by Mr. Fulcher] would have shown them to be false.”
“The claims [by Mr. Fulcher] were relayed to Hegseth and the White House as being accurate.”
In truth, Mr. Fulcher never suggested, stated or otherwise communicated to Joe Kasper, Tim Parlatore, or anyone else that the NSA had conducted warrantless surveillance that identified the source(s) of the leak alleged in the Article, or that Mr. Fulcher had access to such surveillance. Further, Mr. Fulcher never asked Joe Kasper, Tim Parlatore, or anyone else if he could join or assist with an investigation into the leak alleged by the Article, nor did he tell anyone that he could “help run” it….
The Guardian acted with at least reckless disregard for the truth, by consciously disregarding readily available information that showed that the false statements were at least highly likely to be false. Among other things, the NSA is prohibited by law from intentionally targeting United States citizens, persons known to be located within the United States and communications in which the sender and recipients are known to be located within the United States. See 50 U.S.C. § 1881a. Further, the NSA is only authorized to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for the purpose of acquiring “foreign intelligence” that consists of communications exclusively between foreign powers. See 50 U.S.C. § 1802; see also United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for E. Dist. of Mich., S. Div., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (compliance with Fourth Amendment required for domestic national security matters).
The subjects of the purported warrantless wiretaps alleged by the Article, were, at all relevant times, United States citizens and the leak alleged in the Article was to one or more media outlets located within the United States. As such, the NSA could not have conducted the warrantless searches described in the Article. Moreover, Joe Kasper and Tim Parlatore, as senior officials of the Department of War, and the referenced advisors for President Trump, at all relevant times, had full knowledge of the prohibition on targeting United States citizens and those located within the country, and thus the Article’s allegations that Mr. Fulcher had informed Kasper (who was terminated from his position with the Department of War before Mr. Fulcher even began working there) and Parlatore of the existence of purported warrantless wiretaps of United States citizens, and that Kasper, Parlatore and advisors for President Trump believed Mr. Fulcher’s alleged statements or had been “duped,” are implausible.
Further, had the false statements of and concerning Mr. Fulcher been true (which they are not), it is reasonably expected that Mr. Fulcher would have been disqualified from a position with the government, instead of being brought on as senior advisor for the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, as acknowledged in the Article. In addition, in relying on the four unidentified sources for the false statements, The Guardian knew, or should have known, that these sources had an obvious bias against Mr. Fulcher because, among other things, and on information and belief, Mr. Fulcher replaced, at least in part, the role(s) occupied by one or more of the sources, rendering these sources and their statements inherently unreliable.
The Guardian, in making the false statements, also unreasonably believed the accounts provided by the four unnamed sources, who, on information and belief, had been terminated from their government positions, over the express denials of Mr. Fulcher, who at all relevant times, remained in good standing with the United States Government, and who spoke to Hugo Lowell, the author of the Article who resides in Washington, D.C., over the telephone prior to publication and provided a detailed explanation (in addition to the statement published in the Article) as to why the statements at issue were false.
Fulcher claims that the article’s publication interfered with three business deals that could have yielded up to about $20M in income.
On April 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff brings this suit because certain recording artists allegedly “are committing defamation (libel and slander) and/or the dignitary tort of the invasion of privacy by talking about President Donald John [T]rump in a negative manner which could be perceived as violation of the Alien and Sedition Acts.” Plaintiff also alleges that the Grammy Awards “have become a public nuisance” and are “committing industrial espionage” with television networks through their programming selections. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order precluding Defendants from advertising to him on cable television broadcasts.
No dice, says the court, which had to screen the case because plaintiff sought to sue with a waiver of filing fees. The court notes that plaintiff (who “often uses the name Ronald Satish Emrit”) is a frequent and frivolous litigant, and that the particular complaint’s allegations are ‘clearly baseless,’ ‘fanciful,’ and ‘delusional.'”
This week, editors Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch are joined by Associate Editor Liz Wolfe to discuss New York City’s falling crime rates and whether Democrats have really solved their big-city crime problem. The panel looks at the recent Penn Station stabbings, subway disorder, fare evasion, and why many New Yorkers still feel uneasy even as murders and shootings decline.
Next, the editors discuss California’s recent elections, including Spencer Pratt’s bid for Los Angeles mayor, and what these results reveal about voter attitudes toward political leadership and governance. They then examine the political and economic fallout from President Donald Trump’s war with Iran. The panel also discusses proposals from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Trump to give the federal government a stake in artificial intelligence companies. Finally, a listener asks whether AI-powered surveillance threatens individual liberty.
0:00—New York City’s declining murder rate
18:50—California election results
29:05—The economic fallout of the Iran war
39:30—Listener question on AI threats to liberty
51:00—The push to nationalize artificial intelligence
Earlier today, in the case of California v. Mullin, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision striking down the Trump Administration’s $100,000 fee on applications for H-1B visas (which are used by tech firms, research institutions, and other organizations to hire immigrant workers and researchers with a variety of specialized skills). Judge Leo Sarokin ruled that the plan is illegal because it usurps Congress’s power to tax. He relies in part on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the tariff case I helped litigate:
The Court begins with Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Policy intrudes upon Congress’s taxing power. The first inquiry is whether the $100,000 payment requirement constitutes a tax. The parties quibble about whether the requirement resembles a tax or a “penalty,” as characterized by two Supreme Court precedents: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius….
Here, the $100,000 payment requirement for all H-1B petitions does not aim to establish that hiring H-1B workers is illegal. The payment is not a penalty, just as the IRS fee in Sebelius was not, because it is not “punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” Id. at 567. Hiring workers pursuant to the H-1B program is plainly lawful. Of course, rendering the hiring of H-1B workers “unlawful” would eliminate the program established by Congress through the statute, which would raise a different separation-of-powers concern…
Furthermore, Defendants claim that the $100,000 payment requirement is “a regulatory payment,” which is “not the same as a tax…” This is mere ipse dixit. Defendants offer no definition for what constitutes “a regulatory payment,” cite no cases or statutes employing the term, and advance no reasoned argument explaining how this term encompasses something different than a tax or a penalty….
That does not end the Court’s analysis. While the Constitution exclusively vests Congress with the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 1, Congress can delegate the taxing power to the executive branch so long as it “clearly” indicates “its intention to delegate.” Skinner v. Mid-Am. Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212, 224 (1989). Thus, the relevant inquiry here is whether the provisions of the INA granting the President discretionary powers to regulate the entry of noncitizens reflect a delegation of Congress’s taxing power. Under INA § 212(f), the President has the authority to “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). INA § 215(a) additionally grants the President the power to impose “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders” as well as “limitations and exceptions” to the entry of noncitizens. Id. § 1185(a)(1).
Plaintiffs argue that these provisions do not confer the power to impose taxes, relying on the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in Learning Resources. That case involved a challenge to the President’s imposition of tariffs under the IEEPA….. The IEEPA permits the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any . . . importation or exploration of . . . any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest” when responding to a national emergency. Id. at 636. The Court found that the IEEPA does not delegate taxing powers to the President, noting that the specific powers listed in the IEEPA do not include “any mention of tariffs or duties.” Id. at 642. The Court further noted that the power to “regulate . . . importation” does not encompass the power to tax, because the term “regulate” “means to ‘fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule to restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws'”—none of which captures the power to tax. Id. at 642-43…
Applying Learning Resources to the case at hand, the Court finds that INA §§ 212(f) and 215(a) do not delegate taxing power to the President. These sections allow the President to impose “restrictions,” “rules,” “regulations,” “orders,” “limitations,” and “exceptions” to the entry of noncitizens to the United States. Like the powers delineated in the IEEPA, none of these terms, by their ordinary meaning, include the power to tax.
I agree with the court’s analysis, and am glad the tariff case turned out be a useful precedent here. The court also ruled the imposition of the $100,000 fee violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
I have previously criticized the $100,000 H-1B fee on both legal and policy grounds here, here, and here.
Obviously, today’s decision will almost certainly be appealed, and the legal battle will continue. But, especially after Learning Resources, I am guardedly hopeful the various groups challenging the fee will prevail.
NOTE: In the original version of this post, I misidentified Judge Leo Sarokin as the late Judge H. Lee Sarokin. I apologize for the error, which has now been fixed.
