A security camera captured video of the alleged would-be assassin charging through a magnetometer at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday night. Some saw the ease with which he breached the security perimeter as a failure. It wasn’t. The perimeter allowed Secret Service and other security officers to immediately identify and take down a deadly threat. That’s a successful exercise in prevention and protection, and it required careful preparation. The partial government shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) didn’t have any direct impact on the effectiveness of the response on Saturday. But with the shutdown now in its 11th week, Congress is playing with fire. The vital government function of prevention — the department’s most important mission — is challenging enough when DHS is running at full capacity. Congress should restore funding to end the shutdown now, before its cumulative effect leads to a catastrophic failure. The establishment of DHS in 2003 was a massive effort to improve the federal government’s ability to prevent harm to Americans. The immediate context was the 9/11 attack and the lack of coordination among government agencies that allowed the al-Qaeda plot to go forward undetected. By the broadest measure — the non-recurrence of a 9/11-scale attack or anything close — the DHS consolidation of agencies, breakdown of silos, and the addition of preventive legal authorities have been a success. Beyond examples like the Secret Service, whose importance in protecting the president and other VIPs is obvious, government preventive activities have always been a tough sell. One problem is that it’s not easy to prove you have successfully prevented something. Some will always argue that the bad thing in question would never have happened anyway. Foiled plots to kill the president end up in federal court, and a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so there’s some possibility of vindication there. But provable cases of prevention are relatively rare, not least because much of the preventive activity is necessarily secret. The failure of prevention, however, is easy to spot. The United States does not lack foreign enemies or domestic threats, and the expenditure of public resources to anticipate and identify them with the goal of disrupting them is money well spent. Much of the activity of prevention consists of informed speculation about what might happen. The idea is to map out plausible sequences of events leading to a bad outcome, then to derail the sequence. A lot of planning and war-gaming is essential to getting ahead of potential threats. Yet the partial shutdown at DHS has forced much of this activity to close shop as “non-essential.” The ability to respond, which DHS can mostly still do, is indeed “essential.” But a shutdown that shuts down anything but reactive activity is doing serious damage. The active-duty Coast Guard kept patrolling, but its civilian employees mostly faced furloughs. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is likewise operating mostly in a reactive mode. The government has managed to find other resources it can legally divert to meet payroll for some employees — mainly from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which also funded Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the ability to work around the absence of congressional funding is limited and won’t last forever. The threat profile the United States faces is diverse. The most recent DHS unclassified Homeland Threat Assessment identified terrorism and illegal drugs as threats to “public safety and security,” as well as migration and transnational crime in the area of border and immigration security. It warned of disruptive cyber and physical attacks on critical infrastructure. And it pointed to threats in the form of “economic manipulation and coercion” as well as espionage. Any catalog of potential dangers would have to note that the war in Iran has increased risks — but has also raised awareness of them. There can be little doubt that if hostile actors have the means to do so, they will direct drone attacks on the United States. It’s a preventive challenge of the first magnitude for DHS and U.S. intelligence agencies. The United States (along with Mexico and Canada) will host the World Cup this year. In addition to the 16 stadium venues, each of the 48 national teams has its own hotel and training center, and the 16 main venues have dedicated facilities for teams before they play there. The world will indeed be watching — as it was in Munich in 1972 when the Palestinian “Black September” organization took Israeli athletes hostage, ultimately murdering 12. In contrast, the world was simply enjoying the Paris Olympics in 2024 because French officials foiled several planned terror attacks before they could take place. Our situation is hardly hopeless. We have competent people working hard to meet these and other threats. Now we need to get them the resources they need to do so. The Secret Service and the Transportation Security Administration were both on the scene Saturday to perform essential functions, and they did their jobs. Because Democrats loathe the Trump administration’s immigration policies, it falls to the GOP to find a way to fund DHS. Never has “non-essential” been so essential. *** Tod Lindberg is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

A gruesome double murder case in Florida is now colliding with a first-of-its-kind legal battle over artificial intelligence, after prosecutors revealed that the accused killer used ChatGPT to ask a series of chilling, highly specific questions in the days surrounding the crime. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is now moving to fold the case into his ongoing criminal investigation into OpenAI, raising the prospect that the company behind ChatGPT could face legal scrutiny for how its technology is used in violent crimes. Hisham Abugharbieh, 26, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of University of South Florida doctoral students Zamil Limon and Nahida Bristy, both 27. The two, friends from Bangladesh pursuing advanced degrees, vanished on April 16. Days later, investigators would uncover a trail of evidence pointing to Abugharbieh and a series of disturbing interactions with ChatGPT that are now central to both the murder case and the state’s broader probe into artificial intelligence (A.I.). According to the Tampa Bay Times report on the killings, Abugharbieh first turned to the chatbot on April 13, asking: “What happens if a human has a [sic] put in a black garbage bag and thrown in a dumpster?” When the program responded that it “sounds dangerous,” he followed up: “How would they find out?” The questions did not stop there. A day before the victims disappeared, he asked: “Can a VIN number on a car be changed?” and “Can you keep a gun at home without a license?” After the killings, the queries didn’t stop. Prosecutors say he asked: “Has there been someone who survived a sniper bullet to the head?” and “Will my neighbors hear my gun?” He also reportedly asked: “Are cars checked at the Hillsborough River State Park?” and later, as the investigation intensified, “What does missing endangered adult mean?” Those digital breadcrumbs, obtained by a court-ordered search warrant of the man’s phone, are now being examined alongside a growing mountain of physical evidence. When investigators searched the apartment Abugharbieh shared with Limon, they found blood traces throughout the residence, including droplets leading from the kitchen to his bedroom and larger patterns consistent with what officials described as “human-sized” blood evidence. Under his bed, detectives recovered trash bags and duct tape. In a trash compactor at the complex, authorities found Limon’s wallet, glasses, and identification, along with Bristy’s pink phone case and multiple items of blood-stained clothing. A receipt tied to Abugharbieh showed purchases of trash bags, cleaning supplies, and other materials shortly after the victims disappeared. Surveillance and phone data placed him driving across Tampa Bay the night of April 16, mirroring the last known location pings from Limon’s phone. Prosecutors say he later returned to the area after midnight, near where Limon’s body was ultimately found — stuffed into black trash bags along the Howard Frankland Bridge, bearing multiple stab wounds. Investigators have said they do not believe Bristy is alive, though currently unidentified remains were later recovered nearby. Against that backdrop, Uthmeier is now escalating the ongoing investigation into OpenAI, arguing that the role of A.I. tools in cases like this cannot be ignored. Uthmeier’s office began probing after a separate Florida mass shooting in which the suspect allegedly used ChatGPT to research attack methods and timing.  “We are expanding our criminal investigation into OpenAI to include the USF murders after learning the primary suspect used ChatGPT,” Uthmeier announced Monday. In an exclusive statement to The Daily Wire, he made clear the broader implications: “A.I. is being used to create child sexual abuse material, advise kids on how to commit suicide, and carry out violent crimes. We need to know who knew what and when. This investigation is just the first step in determining if OpenAI is criminally liable for these heinous acts, and our office is expanding the investigation to understand the scope of ChatGPT’s role in the USF murders.” Together, the cases are forming the basis of a novel legal theory: that A.I. developers could bear some responsibility when their systems are used to facilitate real-world violence. For now, Abugharbieh remains jailed without bond as he awaits trial. OpenAI has not publicly responded to the latest developments. But as investigators continue to piece together both the physical and digital evidence, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: this case may not only determine the fate of a murder suspect, it could help define the legal limits of artificial intelligence in America.

Following a third assassination attempt against President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed Democratic lawmakers for rhetoric that openly invited violence. “They’ve incited violence, in my view,” he said. “It’s time to turn down the rhetoric. We’ve been seeing this over and over. I hope that this will be a sobering reminder for everybody about that very important cause.” Leavitt, who was already supposed to have begun her maternity leave, hosted an impromptu White House Press Briefing and echoed Johnson’s tone. “This hateful and constant and violent rhetoric directed at President Trump day after day after day for 11 years has helped to legitimize this violence and bring us to this dark moment,” she said. “Those who constantly, falsely label and slander the president as a fascist, as a threat to democracy and compare him to Hitler, to score political points, are fueling this kind of violence.” Addressing the gathered reporters, Leavitt asked what separated the rhetoric wielded by Democratic lawmakers from that contained in the would-be assassin’s manifesto. The shooter who attempted to attack Trump administration officials on Saturday, for example, claimed that he acted because he was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has repeatedly claimed that Trump is an authoritarian and a threat to Democracy — and, like shooting suspect Cole Tomas Allen, did not hesitate to call the president a “rapist.” “Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?” she said in a 2025 X post. And Ocasio-Cortez was not alone. Even after one assassination attempt on Trump — which left one dead and two others gravely injured at a Butler, Pennsylvania, rally — former Vice President Kamala Harris ignored calls to tone down the rhetoric and referred to her opponent as a “fascist.” President Trump appears to have had enough of the rhetoric as well, and pushed back immediately when CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell raised a question from Allen’s manifesto: “I was totally exonerated … You should be ashamed of yourself, reading that … You’re a disgrace.” Since the news broke that yet another would-be assassin had targeted President Trump, a number of Democratic lawmakers have attempted to sidestep the landmines in their own party’s rhetoric and simply issue blanket calls condemning political violence. Former President Barack Obama sparked backlash when he did so, in part because he also claimed hours after the manifesto’s release that “we don’t yet know the details about the motives.” Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp (D-WA) was one of the few who stood out, saying, in spite of her own personal and political opinions, “Please stop trying to murder the President.”

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** As we celebrate America’s 250th anniversary, it seems our nation is falling apart. Assassinations have claimed the lives of Charlie Kirk, Melissa and Mark Hortman, and UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. President Donald Trump has now survived three assassination attempts in the past two years, including the incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this past weekend. While political violence has long been part of our country’s history, this recent wave reflects a deeper deterioration of America’s core values. But the origins of this cultural and spiritual rot are not a mystery. Since the early 2010s, America’s polarization has been furthered by individuals and interest groups profiting from emotional outrage. Groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was recently exposed for fraudulently siphoning money to the white supremacists it was publicly fighting, have engaged in malicious smear campaigns designed to make us suspicious of one another. This political stratification, deepened by online echo chambers, has spawned a new generation of violent radicals. One of these radicals, 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, checked into the Washington Hilton Hotel on Friday with the alleged intention of carrying out a mass assassination at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner the next day. The event has been held for over 100 years to celebrate America’s press freedom. The sound of shots fired outside the banquet hall brought the celebration to an abrupt end. Journalists and attendees hid below tables as administration officials were quickly swept away. Erika Kirk, widow of the late Charlie Kirk, was seen leaving in tears. The shooter was quickly subdued by security officials and taken into custody. As news broke, Americans around the country were likely struck with deja vu. This shooter is one among many who have attempted to silence political opponents with bullets in the past few years. Cole Tomas Allen does not fit the American imagination of a mass shooter. He was not a bullied, anti-social teen or a crazed maniac, as far as we know. He blended into society as a well-educated teacher and video game developer who participated in No Kings protests and donated to Kamala Harris. His manifesto offered more insight into his motivations for carrying out the attack.  “I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure,” he wrote to family members. “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” Allen evidently feared being morally complicit in Donald Trump’s presidency and viewed everyone in attendance at the dinner as fair targets for being in his proximity. The grandiose sense of self and catastrophic views expressed in his manifesto are eerily similar to the rhetoric repeated daily across social media platforms and news stations. For years, Americans across the political spectrum have been spoon-fed paranoid and hyperbolic narratives about their political opponents. On the Left, this was particularly aided by groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC gained prominence in the 2010s for its “Extremist Files,” which frequently equated conservative groups such as PragerU and figures such as Daily Wire host Matt Walsh with neo-Nazi and far-right organizations. Soon its practice of labeling moderate political and religious opinions as hateful, racist, and bigoted trickled into the language of mainstream media, college classrooms, and our homes. This language is often used to justify violence against conservatives. According to the federal indictment released last week, the SPLC took things further than mischaracterizations. The group paid $3 million to leaders and organizers in the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and others between the years 2014 and 2023 without the consent of donors. The group now faces 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. When the Southern Poverty Law Center was unmasked last week as the Scooby-Doo villain hiding under the KKK hood, it called into question how much of our political reality has been falsely constructed or magnified for financial gain. The SPLC claimed the money was used to save lives through information gathering and infiltration, but Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said, “The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence.” As political rhetoric and violence continue to heat up, we must ask ourselves: Where does this end? If we continue to fan the flames of political hysteria, America will not see another 250 years. This great experiment in peaceful democracy and diversity of thought could disappear because we’ve lost the understanding that our civic responsibilities secure our rights. When shots ring out, people harden their hearts as if they are at war. Journalists and politicians will likely continue to turn up the heat, but we must do something different. We must extend an olive branch of understanding to one another and love our neighbors. If we don’t, we risk losing it all. *** Maggie Anders is a video journalist and commentator at Young Voices. Her work explores international political movements, history, pop culture, economics, the cost-of-living crisis, and Gen Z social issues.

The Left has created permission structures for violence. The violence is not going to stop. It’s not going to stop because the Left has decided to mainstream it. You cannot hug Luigi Mangione and pretend you hate political violence. You cannot celebrate and hug Hasan Piker and claim to oppose political violence. You can’t spread wild, evidence-free conspiracy theories about the president of the United States, calling him a pedophile, the Antichrist, a child killer, Hitler, and then pretend that you’re shocked when someone picks up a gun and tries to kill him for the third time. I’ve been talking about this for a long time. The permission structures for violence have been set up, bolstered, and put into place for years now.  But permission structures for violence, ideologies, and ideas are not all created equal.  It would’ve been shocking if this person had written a manifesto about being upset over the Trump tax cuts. People don’t get shot in the United States over differential tax rates. We need to discuss which ideas and ideologies are the most likely to lead to violence, because they’re not all equivalent.   Let’s talk about the common factors here.  First, ideologies and ideas that lead to violence typically share an evidence-free conspiratorial view of the universe. Shadowy forces of powerful people are responsible for all of your failures and shortcomings, and arguments to the contrary are just facades for power. According to this view, there’s a group of people who are victimizing you. They are shadowy, and they are nefarious, conspiratorial, and able to get away with truly horrific crimes.  Second, ideologies and ideas that lead to violence share a belief that you and your group, the people that you care about, are being targeted for destruction by this shadowy cabal.  And if that’s true, then third, violence is a form of self-defense. To take a couple of examples, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, it was obvious almost immediately that the ideology that was driving the shooting was a left-wing, radical trans ideology.  Why? Because there’s an ideology that says that if I argue a man is not a woman, that is a form of “trans genocide,” of “trans erasure.” If you believe a shadowy group of people is trying to destroy you and your family, you’re likely to justify violence in response.  That is why somebody shot Charlie. They believed in that bag of nonsense.  Another example: There’s an ideology that is quite prominent in the United States, which argues that President Trump is responsible for the collapse of America. The crux for these ideologues is not that they disagree with his policies, but because they believe he is actually involved in crimes such as pedophilia, starving children, blowing kids up, and that if you don’t stop him, no one will.  That Trump tyrannically controls all aspects of media, that he tyrannically controls all aspects of government, and that the only answer is a form of violence. That’s the same sort of ideology that led to the shooting of the United Healthcare CEO. As Hasan Piker put it in an interview with the New York Times five days ago, the United Healthcare CEO was engaged in “social violence.” He was part of a predatory group of people who were literally killing people for profit.  “You can understand why somebody might want to shoot the guy, I mean, it’s totally understandable,” these leftists might say. That is a permission structure for violence.  When it comes to President Trump, it is one thing to oppose his policies. I’ve opposed many of President Trump’s policies, but nobody is shooting the president over a set of policies. It’s another thing to say that he is a pedophile, that he is the Antichrist, that he is a child murderer, that he is Hitler. These are not the same sorts of things.  The sort of language that has been truly routine on the Left is a permission structure for violence. For example, take Representative Hakeem Jeffries, who says that Republican policies do violence to the American people. It’s not just that the Republican policies are wrong; they’re malign. They’re designed to be malign.  This approach to politics has harsh consequences. The permission structure for the violence of the congressional baseball shooting in 2017 was the Bernie Sanders line that people who disagreed with him about Obamacare or nationalized health care wanted 50,000 people to die, that they were killing grandma, and wanted grandma to die.  That sort of approach to politics is dangerous.  What politics should be about in the United States is ironing out our differences. We may not always agree with one another, but that doesn’t mean you wish for them to die. They simply disagree with you.  An obvious case is the Left fully embracing Hasan Piker. Last week, he was given the royal treatment by The New York Times. He once lauded the “great video” by Taylor Lorenz that discussed the meme that someone had to “do it,” which was a tacit suggestion to kill Donald Trump. When people are pushing such a meme, that is a potential for revolutionary activity.  Piker has endorsed violence over and over and over again, and yet has been embraced by the Democratic mainstream. You have people who are supposed moderates, like Ezra Klein, pushing Hasan Piker as a legitimate voice inside the Democratic Party.  You can’t do this and then pretend you hate political violence. The permission structures for violence are also skewing young because everyone in the younger demographic is constantly online, where the incentive structure is to be passionate and crazy. The echo chamber that facilitates violent and charged language tends to draw higher numbers. Period.  This is always true. Not every word is created equal. When people curse, it goes directly to your limbic system. The same thing is true if they use passionate language. So if you’re 18 through 29 and you’re imbibing from that well over and over and over, and if mainstream political parties that are trying to channel that passion into votes start justifying that sort of stuff, you should not be surprised when political violence becomes more common.  It’s not just true in the United States. It’s true everywhere. Every violent, radical revolution begins with young people. It always begins with young people who start acting and speaking violently. And then there is always a group of moderates who decide that they need to work with the young, violent people, to use their rage and channel it toward political change.  And that’s how political violence becomes incredibly common. That’s how street battles happen. We are playing with fire as a society if we continue to pretend that all ideologies and permission structures are created the same.  They are not. Conspiracism is bad. It is not just bad in terms of utilitarianism. It is wrong. It is evil.  Conspiracism unbacked by evidence generates violence, mental illness, and stupidity. It wrecks our politics. But most importantly, it wrecks our civilization.