The European Union has moved this week to punish the social media company X and Elon Musk for allegedly “deceiving users” through certain company practices. On Thursday, X, which was formerly known as Twitter, was fined €120 million ($140 million) by the European Union for violating one of the international organization’s laws regulating technology companies. The move makes the social media platform the first company to be fined under the jurisdiction of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). “Deceiving users with blue checkmarks, obscuring information on ads and shutting out researchers have no place online in the EU. The DSA protects users,” Henna Virkkunen, the Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy at the European Commission said in a statement.  “The DSA gives researchers the way to uncover potential threats. The DSA restores trust in the online environment. With the DSA’s first non-compliance decision, we are holding X responsible for undermining users’ rights and evading accountability,” Virkkunen continued. The case dates back to December 18, 2023, when the European Commission began a formal investigation into X. Twitter was bought by Musk, a top Republican donor in the 2024 election and former head of DOGE, in October 2022, and has since been rebranded X. Later, in July 2024, Musk endorsed President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. Trump administration officials are speaking out against the EU’s effort. Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on X that “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on [X], it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments. The days of censoring Americans online are over.” The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.The days of censoring Americans online are over.— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) December 5, 2025 FCC Chairman Brendan Carr posted on X that “Europe is fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company. Europe is taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations.” Once again, Europe is fining a successful U.S. tech company for being a successful U.S. tech company.Europe is taxing Americans to subsidize a continent held back by Europe’s own suffocating regulations. pic.twitter.com/EzeOWZRC2t— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) December 5, 2025 According to a press release from the commission, X’s blue checkmark feature was deceptive because the social media company allowed anyone who paid money to receive the marking rather than just those the company had “meaningfully verifying who is behind the account.”  The commission claims this feature violated the DSA requirement that online platforms not permit deceptive design practices. The commission also said that X had not met the transparency and accessibility requirements laid out by the DSA. “X incorporates design features and access barriers, such as excessive delays in processing, which undermine the purpose of ad repositories. X’s ads repository also lacks critical information, such as the content and topic of the advertisement, as well as the legal entity paying for it,” the commission concluded. The executive body also held that X failed “to provide researchers access to public data.” The social media company now has 60 working days to let the commission know how it will rectify the violation associated with the blue checkmarks, and 90 working days to provide an action plan to the commission addressing the violations associated with X’s advertising repository and researcher access to public data.  The Daily Signal has reached out to X for comment. The post European Union Fines Elon Musk’s X appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Virginia man has been arrested and accused of placing pipe bombs outside the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee headquarters in the District of Columbia on Jan. 5, 2021.   Neither of the pipe bombs went off, but for nearly five years authorities have searched unsuccessfully for the man responsible for the attempted bombing. It was ultimately “good, diligent police work and prosecutorial work,” that resulted in the man’s arrest, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.   Brian Cole Jr., 30, was arrested at his parent’s home where he lived in Woodbridge, Va. on Thursday. He has been charged with transporting and planting an explosive devise, but more charges could be added, according to Bondi.   “Today’s arrest happened because the Trump administration has made this case a priority,” Bondi said, going on to criticize the Biden administration’s FBI failing to get to the bottom of the case.   Following a nearly 5-year-long investigation, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the arrest of Brian Cole Jr., the suspect accused of placing multiple explosive devices in Washington, D.C., before the Jan. 6, 2021 riots at the Capitol.More: https://t.co/ki35C1qOT9 pic.twitter.com/4nURpgXCAL— NewsNation (@NewsNation) December 4, 2025 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and the FBI worked together to look at the evidence, find, and arrest Cole, according to Bondi.   “The investigation into the pipe bombs in Washington, D.C. has been a high priority since Deputy Director [Dan] Bongino and I assumed our roles nine months ago,” FBI Director Kash Patel said Thursday.   “Since that time, our FBI teams have gone back over every fact and every data point looking for new leads—and today’s arrest is the result of that outstanding work,” Patel said.   Evidence Leading to Cole’s Arrest  According to the Justice Department, in 2019 and 2020, “Cole purchased multiple components consistent with those used to manufacture the two [improvised explosive devices] at several retailers in Northern Virginia.”   On the day the pipe bombs were placed at the two locations in Washington, Video surveillance captured the suspect “wearing dark pants, a gray hooded sweatshirt, dark gloves, Nike Air Max Speed Turf shoes, and a facemask that obscured the person’s face. The video showed the individual adjusting eyeglasses and carrying a backpack,” according to the DOJ.   On the evening of Jan. 5, 2021, a license place reader captured Cole’s car about half a mile from the location where one of the pipe bombs was placed, and around the same time, cellphone towers picked up communications from Cole’s phone near the RNC and DNC.   A motive in the case has not been announced.   The post How Law Enforcement Tracked Down Man Accused in DC Pipe Bomb Case  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For years, European officials have insisted that their increasingly aggressive regulatory posture toward U.S. tech companies reflects a principled stand for digital sovereignty, competition, and consumer protection. But the European Commission’s latest announcement that it is launching yet another investigation aimed squarely at American firms exposes a glaring contradiction: While Brussels makes a political spectacle of policing American innovation, Europe is simultaneously deepening its technological and industrial entanglement with China.  The result is a strategic incoherence that weakens the trans-Atlantic alliance and strengthens the very authoritarian competitor that Europe claims to be “de-risking” from. The Commission’s press release touts new enforcement actions enforcing the Digital Markets Act, a framework that has overwhelmingly targeted American firms. In practice, the EU has constructed a regulatory regime that treats U.S. tech companies as threats requiring exceptional scrutiny, while Chinese state-influenced companies are welcomed across the continent with open arms, subsidies, and long-term partnerships. The evidence is overwhelming. Across Europe, governments and industries are signing major deals with Chinese firms in sectors that touch the core of national security and future economic competitiveness. Germany, for example, is expanding cooperation with Chinese autonomous-vehicle makers like QCraft and Momenta, the latter partnering directly with Uber and even Mercedes-Benz on driver-assistance technology. German defense giant Rheinmetall openly touts the importance of buying from China to boost weapons production, bluntly declaring: “We can buy from China, it’s not a problem.” Meanwhile, Chinese electronics brands such as Anker continue gaining prominence at major European tech showcases. The pattern is the same elsewhere. The Netherlands has returned control of chipmaker Nexperia to its Chinese parent, Wingtech, in order to smooth tensions with Beijing despite U.S. concerns about Chinese access to sensitive semiconductor supply chains. Alibaba Cloud is establishing data centers in Netherlands and France, embedding Chinese infrastructure deeper into Europe’s digital future. Spain has become one of China’s most enthusiastic European partners. Barcelona has inked agreements with Huawei to develop smart city systems. In July, Spain has awarded Huawei multi-million-euro contracts to manage and store law-enforcement wiretaps, a remarkable decision given ongoing global concerns about Huawei’s direct relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. Chinese quantum-computing firms are being invited to set up research centers in Malaga, even as Europe decries the national security risks associated with China’s technological rise. Greece has allowed Huawei to dominate more than half of its 4G radio networks and continues signing sweeping cooperation agreements spanning AI, smart ports, and green energy. Austria is producing electric vehicles and trucks for Chinese manufacturers. Hungary is expanding nuclear and AI ties with Beijing. Slovakia is welcoming billion-dollar EV investments from Chinese giants similar to the ones blocked in the U.S. while echoing the CCP’s political rhetoric about “non-interference.” This is not de-risking. This is Europe opening it’s arms to the West’s biggest threat. What makes Europe’s posture even more perplexing is that the continent does have a reliable, democratic, values-aligned partner: the United States. American companies invest in Europe more than any other region in the world. They comply with European courts. They create hundreds of thousands of European jobs. They build data centers, research hubs, and manufacturing capacity across the EU without geopolitical strings attached. Yet many European policymakers continue to treat American firms primarily as adversaries to be fined, constrained, or publicly lectured while simultaneously validating China’s long-term strategic ambitions and granting Beijing’s companies deep access to European markets, infrastructure, data, and research ecosystems. A stable trans-Atlantic tech ecosystem is a geopolitical necessity. The U.S. and Europe share democratic institutions, aligned security interests, deep trade linkages, and mutual defense commitments. China does not. Beijing’s industrial policy is designed explicitly to gain leverage over partners, extract technology, and advance the Chinese Communist Party’s geopolitical aims. Europe can, and should, regulate tech. It should demand transparency, competition, and data protection. But its policies must be consistent with its strategic interests. Targeting U.S. companies with disproportionate regulatory aggression while embracing Chinese firms in critical sectors is more than hypocrisy. It is self-defeating. If Europe truly wants digital sovereignty, secure supply chains, resilient infrastructure, and a future grounded in democratic values, it must recognize the obvious: America is its ally. China is not. It is time for Europe to act like it. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Europe Is Welcoming China While Freezing Out America appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Americans adapt to new regulations requiring Real ID to board flights, critics assert that these documents are more than upgraded driver’s licenses; they are the latest component in the creation of national biometric databases and surveillance systems. “Most people look at the card and they say, ‘This is just a driver’s license with a star,’ but that’s not true,” Twila Brase, president of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, told The Daily Signal. “It is a federal ID masquerading as a state driver’s license.” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., posted on X in April that “Real ID is a national standard and database of IDs that is primarily a tool for control of Americans.” Originally passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, the 2005 Real ID Act states that Real IDs are required for boarding commercial flights, entering federal buildings, “and any other purposes that the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall determine.” The collected data for Real ID, which could include photographs, passports, social security numbers, and birth certificates, must be digitized and retained in databases that are accessible by all other states. On May 6, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that more than 80% of Americans had already complied with Real ID, and that airline passengers who did not have Real ID or U.S. passports would be subjected to extra security steps—and potentially fees as well. Real ID advocates say it is necessary to fight terrorism and illegal voting, but critics dispute this. Former Rep. Ron Paul wrote in April that “REAL ID does nothing to protect the American people’s safety. It does, though, do much to endanger their liberty. REAL ID could even be the final piece of the transformation of America into a total surveillance society where government monitors, and thus controls, our actions.” Paul added that the DHS secretary could require new biometrics in the future, including retina scans, fingerprints, and DNA.   On Oct. 27, Homeland Security mandated those biometrics plus palm prints and voice scans for immigration applications to “help DHS transition towards a biometric based system for identity verification and management.” The U.S. Transportation Security Administration routinely captures facial images of airline passengers. As of October, Americans traveling to Europe now undergo digital facial imaging and fingerprinting upon entry, and non-U.S. citizens traveling to the United States will do likewise starting Dec. 26. “The government has claimed a right to collect and catalog the coordinates of your body for its control and surveillance,” Brase said. Previously, governments would have struggled to process such a deluge of data on their citizens. But Oracle Corporation co-founder Larry Ellison told the World Governments Summit in February that AI models enable unprecedented sifting and analysis of data, provided that governments collect it. “The first thing a country needs to do is to unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model,” Ellison stated. Companies involved in building the data collection infrastructure include Idemia, a biometric-based security systems company based in France, which states that it currently serves 600 government agencies. The company has installed its SMART-E kiosks, which collect biometric data including fingerprints and 180-degree facial scans, in Pennsylvania and Colorado, with plans to expand to 10 U.S. states in 2026.  When the Real ID Act became law, 25 states refused to comply. Homeland Security responded this by barring Americans from boarding flights without compliant ID, while providing grants to state motor vehicle departments to encourage compliance. “It’s a novel way of commandeering the states,” Scott St. John, an attorney who wrote an analysis of Real ID policy, told The Daily Signal. “Rather than holding a gun to the head of the state, it’s holding a gun to the state’s populace,” he said. “That is novel, but it’s no less a gun to the head.” The next phase, analysts say, will likely be digital IDs, which are currently voluntary in the United States but mandatory in countries like the U.K. and China, and which could also allow for tracking via cell towers. “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared in October, sparking scattered protests. In July, China passed a National Network Identity Authentication law requiring digital ID for internet use. Twenty U.S. states now allow digital ID, and companies like Apple feature digital IDs on phones and watches. Currently, 10 states— Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa and South Dakota—are considering legislation to cancel Real ID or provide noncompliant alternatives. In May, Michigan State Rep. James DeSana introduced a bill to end that state’s participation in the Real ID program. “My belief in less government carries through into keeping the government from intruding into into your life when it’s not necessary,” DeSana told The Daily Signal. Oklahoma State Sen. Kendal Sacchieri will sponsor a bill this year to allow residents to get a noncompliant state ID. “We’re adopting the federal Real ID, but we’re still going to allow an opt-out option for our citizens,” Sacchieri told The Daily Signal. “We’ve been getting tons of emails from our constituents that they don’t want this [Real ID] anymore.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Real ID the Latest Step Toward a ‘Total Surveillance Society,’ Critics Say appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Sami Winc weigh our military actions against Venezuela and the charge the U.S. military “executed” narco-terrorists who were “prisoners.” Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.  SAMI WINC: We’re at war, according to our Secretary of War. And nobody argues with that. So, if we’re at war, I think we learned in Vietnam that the micromanaging of what— VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: I don’t think you want to go into Venezuela on ground. WINC: No. HANSON: Because let’s count the ways. You’ve got the MAGA base that does not want optional military engagements. The Rand Pauls, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson. Okay. That’s clear. And then once you’ve staked so many assets, it’s like he’s put a frog in the pot and turned up the temperature. So, they can’t fly in and out of Venezuela, they can’t use ships, can’t go in. It’s basically an embargo. How long can you sustain it, put soldiers at sea in a combat situation? And what if [Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro] just says, “I’m going to wait it out”? So, what’s the next step to ratchet up the pressure? I don’t know what that is. But once you’ve committed these forces, and you put them right off the coast, and you said he has to go, you’ve committed the prestige of the U.S. military. And if you back down, it’s kind of like what Joe Biden did when he said it depends on whether it’s a minor invasion [into Ukraine]. Or [how former Secretary of State] Antony Blinken was dressed down in Anchorage by the Chinese, or the Chinese balloon. Any indication that there are not dire consequences once you’ve made that decision, it’s very hard. So, I’m not sure that I would have put all those assets so quickly right there because now it’s a question of willpower. And if he says, “I can survive without my drug revenues or I can get them from other countries,” then he may be able to survive. We did this once before with [Panamanian dictator Manuel] Noriega. He was a drug smuggler. The other problem is he just pardoned the president of Honduras, who is a conservative, who had been convicted in a U.S. court of drug smuggling, sentenced to 40 years. So, it doesn’t look good to say we can’t tolerate any drug running from Latin American countries, and we’re going to go to war almost, but this guy right north of you has been convicted of drug running and yet you pardoned him. So that’s problematic. He pardoned him because he said that the Biden administration was politically hostile to his politics. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I’m just talking about optics. WINC: I was asking the question of didn’t we learn in Vietnam and do you feel like it still stands that micromanaging military affairs on the battlefield does not work very well? That we as a citizen should expect our president that we elected and our military to be given orders and then understanding there are laws … HANSON: I think the order was— WINC: There’s some laws, but in general, the orders were in this case hit the drug boat, sink the drugs or destroy the drugs, and destroy all the drug runners and that’s what the orders were to that regional commander. HANSON: Yes, and that’s what orders always are. And then the question is … let me give you an example. In the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans, under a lot of irregular troops, went in at Malmedy and executed prisoners. And during the Dieppe raid, they executed prisoners. In the Dunkirk evacuation, the Germans executed prisoners. The question is then: Did they get that at Nuremberg? Did they get that command from the general or not? And the U.S. does not execute prisoners. But it’s happened. The people who executed the Americans, the SS, when they were captured in elements of the Battle of Bulge, subsequently, some of them were executed by American soldiers. I don’t know any American soldiers that were held captive. I mean, captive to the law and culpable. So again, it’s a fine line when you hit a military target and the target is still there, so you know that there are people in there that can’t fight back and that are suffering. So, do you hit it again to eliminate the threat or do you consider those people prisoners of war even though you’re not even near them? What I’m getting at is this: They say they were executed prisoners of war. They weren’t in possession of the United States. It would be one thing if they had come up quickly with a PT boat, so to speak, and got them, put them on the boat, and then started going out to high sea and throw them overboard. But they were part of a kinetic operation is what I’m saying. It was still ongoing. It’s all part of a narrative that we saw with the video, this Seditious Six, so to speak. And out of nowhere, Sen. Mark Kelly has decided that he’s going to be a prominent anti-Trump spokesperson. So, he made the video, he was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where he called for people to disobey orders if they thought they were illegal. Now he’s weighing in that Pete Hegseth should be impeached. Now he’s weighing in and this has been an avenue for his media exposure. But he has to be careful because no one believes that if the person is not in your possession and he’s still part of a kinetic ongoing battle that he’s a prisoner. You know what I’m saying? My grandfather, I asked him, in World War I, when I was a little boy, I said, “What were you doing?” He said, “I’m a Lewis machine gunner.” He was a Teamster. And they put him in a combat unit. And he was gassed and disabled. But he basically said, “I got sick of shooting young Germans and old Germans as they were running away. We were chasing them.” And they weren’t surrendering, but they obviously couldn’t fight back. They’d given up, and they were running back. The Americans were chasing them with arms and shot them. So, I don’t know what the Left means by prisoners, shooting prisoners or executing prisoners. They weren’t prisoners. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: ‘They Weren’t Prisoners!’: Venezuela and the Second-Guessing of the Military appeared first on The Daily Signal.