Trump writes new rules to stop rogue AI — but they're classified



President Trump’s approach to AI regulation has been mixed. First, he limited states from making their own laws in favor of a national framework. Then, despite proposed laws to protect consumers, no federal bills have passed yet.

Now, as advanced AI threatens the cybersecurity of government institutions and private corporations, Trump is moving forward with a government-sanctioned review process for frontier AI models, and employees at the major AI giants are all begging for it.

Trump chose not to share the details of his AI review framework with the public.

Here's how the White House finalized its AI review framework.

Behind the curtain

The government review process was originally announced in June. At the time, each major AI company could willingly allow the government to review its latest AI models to check for potential cybersecurity risks before they were released broadly to the public. Fast-forward a couple of months later, and now a more official structure is in place.

For whatever reason, President Trump chose not to share the details of his AI review framework with the public.

Leakers will leak, however, so we're not left completely in the dark. Axios spoke with three sources connected to the executive order and uncovered several key points.

  • Targeted AI models: The framework is aimed at reviewing closed-source frontier models with advanced capabilities that could pose a risk to national security. Open-source models are exempt from review.
  • Limited access: New AI models set forth for review will be hosted in secure environments. While multiple administration officials will have access clearance, AI company employees are limited from using the new models for 30 days during the review cycle.
  • Classified details: The process that the Trump administration will use to test AI models, as well as the AI review framework itself, will remain classified and kept from public knowledge.

As it stands, the review process is still voluntary. However, the exemption of open-source models makes it sound as if compliance for closed-source frontier models is strongly encouraged.

Arbitrary guardrails spell trouble for American AI dominance

Trump's AI review framework comes at a time when employees at some of the largest AI companies in the U.S. have banded together to demand government regulation. In an open letter, workers from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta urged the government to "deliberately pace" the development and progression of AI due to the recent security implications spurred on by Anthropic’s Mythos and other emerging threats.

Of course, slowing the pace of AI development is a double-edged sword.

RELATED: Rand Paul exposes the government's cozy covid links to Bill Gates

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images

On one hand, arbitrary pauses, like the 30-day review period enforced by Trump’s AI review framework, would give institutions more time to protect themselves against potential vulnerabilities from new AI models. With a heads-up from the government, they can learn about any problems identified during the review and shore up security to ensure bad actors who get ahold of the latest models can’t use them to hack and exploit our most precious agencies, institutions, and establishments.

A tough spot

On the other hand, the pause window gives competing nations like China more time to steal from American tech companies and potentially overtake America as the leader in the AI race. At this point, our nation would become a prime target for foreign cyberattacks capable of breaching our systems before we even know what happened, leaving us with inferior intelligence and little-to-no means to stop it.

The only way to combat threats posed by Chinese AI is to speed up development instead of slowing it down, ensuring that American technology is always ahead of the nations that would rather see us fall.

The choice isn’t easy, as there are stark pros and cons to both sides. However, President Trump clearly believes that cyber threats posed by America’s homegrown AI models are a bigger problem for the nation than China overtaking the United States in AI development. There may be some merit to this decision, too. Considering that most of China’s AI innovations came from copying American AI companies, the former may not be as advanced as they want us to believe. If American AI companies suddenly stopped progressing as quickly, China’s development would likely slow down, as well, in which case, 30-day pauses to review new frontier models are undoubtedly the right call.

White House: Loss Of ‘High Trust’ Society Requires Congress To Institute Harsher Penalties For Fraud

Welfare programs were created in a 'high trust' America that no longer exists.

Tech-crazed Chinese are selling — and stealing — human faces. Are we next?



Some people turn to deliveries, others choose Uber; in China, regular people can sell their faces.

Both face-selling and face-stealing are on the rise in China, with significant controversies coming out of some high-profile cases.

'Coffee break? Between meetings? Turn those extra minutes into edge-of-your-seat moments.'

On Chinese websites like New Claw, regular people can upload their photos to license their likeness for AI and subsequent use in films, TV shows, or video games.

The platforms feature catalogs of user images, from self-taken photos or studios. Producers or filmmakers can then browse faces by age, gender, and descriptive categories like "supermodel."

On these websites, Rest of World reported, users can earn anywhere between $15 and $700 for their likeness to be used in AI content. Users do have the choice about where their faces can appear and what kind of content they are used in.

One website called ID.actor focuses on legal protections for one's likeness as its main selling point.

"In the AI era, your face is an asset," the website reads when translated. "Let your face go from 'stolen by AI' to 'empowered by AI.'"

Long Lyu, operations lead at New Claw, told Rest of World that "whether actors and models choose to license their faces on our platform or not, AI has already disrupted the industry."

Lyu added, "Selling the rights to their photos gives them a way to earn, while continuing their careers offline."

RELATED: Televised poker is blowing the cover of its best players — on purpose

Qilai Shen/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The main use for AI likeness in China has reportedly been for the category of "microdramas."

These are wildly popular in the communist country and are available through a dedicated app created by TikTok parent company ByteDance. The platform Hongguo is specifically designed for the Chinese minidramas.

In the United States, Peacock is jumping on the microdrama craze in categories like "Romance, Billionaire, College [young adult] Romance, Fantasy, Action, and more."

The platform describes the content as "mini-bursts of drama with maximum intrigue," which are designed to be watched quickly and are "built to binge."

"All you need is a little spare time," Peacock says. "Coffee break? Between meetings? Turn those extra minutes into edge-of-your-seat moments."

According to Chinese website People.CN, about 128,000 AI microdramas were launched in the first quarter of 2026. This accounts for more than 95% of the content in the genre.

RELATED: Robot teacher program gets scandalous — as link to sex doll company revealed

ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images

Face-stealing has also become a significant problem with the increase of face-selling; hundreds of lawsuits popped up in China over the unauthorized use of likenesses.

Hongguo was recently accused by two influencers of stealing and altering their faces for use in a microdrama that garnered 40 million views.

"I was genuinely shocked. It was clearly me," said Christine Li. "It was so obvious that they used a specific set of photos I took two years ago," she said about her social media pictures, per France24.

Rest of World also reported that the Guangzhou Internet Court in China has already heard approximately 700 cases related to AI face theft in the last three years.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Glenn Beck ‘outraged’: AI company secretly bought and SHREDDED millions of books — including rare ones



Late last month, Anthropic, the artificial intelligence company behind the chatbot Claude, agreed to a whopping $1.5 billion settlement resolving copyright claims over its acquisition and use of millions of pirated books to develop its AI models, making it the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history.

According to court documents, Anthropic’s Project Panama involved the purchasing of millions of physical books in bulk, which hydraulic cutting machines then sliced the spines off of so that the pages could be fed into high-speed scanners to train Claude.

The remnants of the books were then shredded — and that’s the part that disturbs Glenn Beck the most.

“The book is not discarded; it's shredded. ... It's destroyed on purpose because now the digital copy is now considered enough,” he warns.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn imagines a future where physical books are a thing of the past and the terrifying implications of such a dystopia.

Digitally preserving all books is a “fine goal” as long as it doesn’t involve the destruction of physical books, says Glenn.

But Project Panama did not appear to share that restraint. Not only did internal Anthropic planning documents that surfaced in court filings describe the operation as an “effort to destructively scan all the books in the world,” but employees were also explicitly told: “We don’t want it to be known that we are working on this.”

And the books they went after weren’t just any titles sitting on a Barnes & Noble shelf. Reporting shows Anthropic heavily pursued older, used, and out-of-print volumes, including obscure and hard-to-find titles.

“These rare, rare bookstores started getting phone calls [asking] ... ‘Do you have these titles? ... We'll buy all of them,” Glenn summarizes.

A judge later ruled that Anthropic's destructive scanning of lawfully purchased books qualified as fair use under copyright law. The court reasoned that converting legally acquired print books into digital copies for internal use was transformative, with the destruction of the original books supporting that conclusion because Anthropic was not retaining both physical and digital libraries.

While destroying books may be legal, it’s certainly infuriating to a great many bibliophiles and history buffs.

“Men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting books, to protecting history, these rare books — they were obviously outraged. When I read the story, I was outraged,” says Glenn, noting that some of the titles Anthropic destroyed “were the single remaining [copies] left ... in the world.”

While Glenn wants American AI companies to build “the smartest systems on Earth” using books, he doesn’t want tangible copies destroyed, especially when those copies are rare or out-of-print titles.

“Books are civilization's memories. Scan them, learn from them, preserve them — but never confuse scanning with shredding,” he pleads.

The destruction of physical books is something Glenn has warned about for years, which is why he always urges his audience to “buy paper copies.”

“A book is a witness,” he says. “Once it's printed, it can't quietly change overnight. Nobody can sneak into your library at night and rewrite page 247; nobody can update chapter 5 while you're asleep.”

Not so with digital files.

“I'm not claiming Anthropic is secretly changing books. I'm saying something more simple and much more dangerous: Without the original, there is nothing left to check against the file,” says Glenn. “The original is the referee. You destroy the referee and eventually somebody else decides what the score was.”

“That's not paranoia. This is history. You cannot destroy the original because any digital copy can be changed, and you have nothing to check it against.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Google Earth 'rolling back' image generation feature — as users instantly faked global mayhem



Google wants users to manifest a community garden, not a bombed-out hospital in Gaza.

The latter became all too possible as Google Earth's naive new update was accidentally primed for manipulation.

'We take misinformation seriously.'

On Thursday, Google announced the ability to "transform any place" on the map using Google Earth and generative AI called Nano Banana 2.

"Have you ever looked at an empty lot in your neighborhood and imagined a community garden, or wondered what your city looked like a century ago?" Google asked in a blog post.

The tech giant revealed that any of the satellite, aerial, or 3D imagery available on Google Earth can now be manipulated with AI to create custom images.

"Type whatever you want to see," the blog reads.

One researcher, Henk van Ess, decided to take that seriously and see what the app was willing to do.

"Nothing was refused, nothing was softened, and nothing suggested I try a different prompt," van Ess wrote in an article titled "How to plant a nuclear plant in Iran."

"Refugees at a border, a nuclear plant in Iran, a fatal crash on an Amsterdam street, a hospital with a bomb crater in Gaza," nothing was off limits to the user. Van Ess even showed a video of him generating an image where "refugees swarm the streets" in Mexico.

Soon, users had portrayed a plane hitting Freedom Tower, a crater caving in Iceland, and a collapsed Eiffel Tower, among other catastrophes.

RELATED: Don't be fooled: This Apple privacy feature won't protect your identity

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu/Getty Images

Google responded to the researcher, saying, "We take misinformation seriously — every image created with Nano Banana in Google Earth includes the SynthID digital watermark, so if someone is unsure about an image, they can ask the Gemini app or use Lens in Search to see if the image was Al-generated."

Van Ess ran one of the videos he created through Hive, AI detection software not run by Google. It came back with a 1% chance of being an AI-generated video and a 0% chance of being a deepfake.

The writer said this wasn't necessarily Hive's fault, given that it was scanning a real video that he had taken, but therein lies the issue with such content. It is very unlikely that an AI-generated video would be scanned right from its source and therefore be easily detectable.

RELATED: Apple and Google told to take down these illegal — and exploitative — apps

Kim White/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Google also provided its AI prohibited-use policy, which lists types of usage that would constitute crimes surrounding explicit content, abuse, or violation of intellectual property rights.

On its face, van Ess' content did not seem to violate Google's terms, but the company eventually acquiesced. On Friday, Google updated its blog to say that it was "rolling back" the feature while it works on "implementing stronger guardrails."

Google directly stated that it saw people sharing screenshots of imagery "that appear to violate our policies," while assuring readers that generated images didn't appear in the "main Google Earth experience" and were also watermarked as being AI-generated.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

America’s two-tier economy is working exactly as planned



The left suddenly fears that artificial intelligence will replace American workers. It showed far less concern when illegal immigration undercut wages and jobs.

The double standard reveals a larger economic vision: protection for the credentialed class, cheap labor at the bottom, and little concern for the working Americans caught between them.

The left has built a bifurcated economy because it has bifurcated loyalties. Neither side of that arrangement puts America’s working class first.

Progressive warnings about AI often begin with the claim that employers will use new technology to replace costly labor or avoid training new employees. One progressive platform warns that AI could cause massive labor-market disruption. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposes taxing AI so that its gains do not flow only to the wealthy.

The concern isn’t inherently foolish. New technology can displace workers, at least temporarily, and policymakers should consider how people adapt. But the left’s labor solidarity becomes strangely selective when the competing worker entered the country illegally.

The Migration Policy Institute recently estimated that the illegal immigrant population may have reached 15.8 million. The Biden years also produced more than 10 million border encounters, although that figure includes repeat attempts and excludes people who evaded detection.

Meanwhile, the July Bureau of Labor Statistics report counted 7.1 million unemployed Americans. Those numbers do not prove that every illegal worker displaced a citizen. They do make it absurd to pretend that millions of additional workers have no effect on wages, bargaining power, or employment.

The standard answer is that illegal immigrants perform jobs Americans refuse to do. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) put the argument plainly: In a capitalist economy, someone will always do the work others do not want.

But jobs are not fixed objects with permanently assigned wages. When employers cannot attract workers, they must raise pay, improve conditions, invest in equipment, or change the way the work is performed. Labor scarcity gives workers leverage.

Progressives claim to understand that principle when they campaign for higher legal wage floors. The five states with the highest minimum wages are deep blue. Democratic lawmakers routinely demand “living wages” and stronger benefits.

RELATED: The bipartisan farm bill that also grows amnesty

Wenmei Zhou/iStock/Getty Images

Yet the same politicians short-circuit the market mechanism that might raise wages naturally. They permit a large supply of unauthorized labor, including an estimated 8.5 million people working off the books, to fill jobs at wages and under conditions many would never accept.

That arrangement is not compassionate to workers. It allows employers to avoid the higher pay, benefits, and taxes that legal labor would require. It also leaves illegal immigrants vulnerable to exploitation because their status limits their ability to challenge abuse.

The result is a two-tiered labor market.

At the top sit credentialed professionals whose jobs may be threatened by AI. Their anxieties receive white papers, Senate hearings, tax proposals, and sympathetic coverage. At the bottom sit unauthorized workers whom progressive politicians describe as indispensable because they perform society’s least desirable tasks.

Crockett’s own words and similar comments from other Democrats expose the hierarchy. The jobs at the top must be protected from technological competition. The jobs at the bottom must remain cheap enough that Americans supposedly will not take them.

The people excluded from both priorities are working-class citizens.

They are told that automation may eliminate their better-paying opportunities but that low-wage jobs cannot pay more because imported labor must fill them. They face high legal wage mandates and benefit requirements on one side, then competition from off-the-books labor on the other.

Government benefits without strong work requirements can compound the problem by creating a steep penalty for returning to employment. Sanctuary policies then protect the unauthorized labor supply that keeps wages down.

RELATED: Unaffordable housing is still ruining the party

Cemile Bingol/iStock/Getty Images

This is not a coherent defense of workers. It is a coalition strategy.

The modern left protects the professional class that staffs its institutions and the immigrant constituencies it hopes to mobilize. The blue-collar Americans who once formed the Democratic base receive speeches about dignity while policy steadily erodes their bargaining power.

Long gone are the days when the left at least pretended to organize politics around the American worker.

AI may indeed disrupt employment. Illegal immigration can also depress wages and displace workers. A party genuinely committed to labor would confront both pressures honestly instead of treating one as a crisis and the other as a moral obligation.

The left has built a bifurcated economy because it has bifurcated loyalties. Neither side of that arrangement puts America’s working class first.

Robot teacher program gets scandalous — as link to sex doll company revealed



An AI-backed robot teacher pilot program that was already under fire over privacy concerns has hit another bump in the road.

Teachers and parents had expressed concerns about having AI in the classroom and the possible replacement of humans, but that was before the latest revelations came to light.

'It can help students engage with educational material and gain hands-on exposure to AI and robotics.'

Realbotix, the company behind the program, planned to implement "Sally," a fembot of sorts with "lifelike appearance" that included silicone skin and long, brown hair. Sally was to be an in-classroom teacher who addressed students' questions based on their identification codes, which are numbers assigned to the kids.

The pilot targeted high school students in the Salamanca City Central School District, which is reportedly located on the Seneca Nation of Indians reservation in New York state, according to Spectrum News 1.

As word of the program spread, the New York State Education Department stepped in to put a pause on the program to ask questions about privacy and intent. However, it has since been revealed that Realbotix shares the same parent company as another company involved in the production of sex dolls.

Parent company Realbotix Corp. operates both Realbotix LLC for "commercial robotics" and Intima LLC, which manufactures products "for the adult wellness and companionship market," according to Morningstar. The Associated Press further reported that Intima LLC holds an ownership stake in RealDoll, which creates sex dolls.

RELATED: This 'lifelike' fembot teacher is so problematic she's already been put on pause

Rachel Aston/Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

The teachers' union has since caught wind, with president Melinda Person stating that "a robot built by a company associated with sex dolls has no business in our classrooms."

The New York State United Teachers rep further stated, "Our students don't need robots. They need real relationships with caring adults."

Blaze Media reached out to Realbotix to ask about student privacy and its connection with using the bots for "companionship."

A spokeswoman said the technology is meant to serve as a classroom resource for older high school students who participate in the district's science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics curriculum.

"Like a calculator, laboratory apparatus, or other instructional tool, it can help students engage with educational material and gain hands-on exposure to AI and robotics, but it does not perform the work of a teacher," Jessica Starman told Blaze Media on behalf of Realbotix.

"Characterizations suggesting that the technology would replace teachers or assume their responsibilities are false," she said.

Starman addressed media reports that "falsely connected" the school project to adult products, stating that the Salamanca robot is a "newly manufactured, purpose-built educational unit; no existing consumer product or hardware is being modified or repurposed for the school."

"No adult-products business has any involvement in the Salamanca project or in any product or initiative developed by Realbotix LLC," Starman further explained.

As for student privacy, Realbotix said the robot would not be connected to "public internet" and does not record audio, video, nor use facial recognition.

"Realbotix would not receive, access, or store personally identifiable student information or student interactions," the spokeswoman added.

RELATED: Before you say 'no' to a data center, here's what you're giving up

Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images

The company said it has no additional school deployments to announce at this time, and local news reports say the pilot program remains on pause.

The district previously said it was working through "enhanced student data privacy agreements" with state education officials, but it is unclear what will be done moving forward.

"The physical robot has not been deployed," Realbotix said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How Clarkson’s Farm Explains Crazy Politics And Future Of Farming

Besides showcasing life on a farm, the show demonstrates the intersection of politics and culture with the effects AI and autonomous robots have on today’s economy.

Nothing says fake grassroots like an email from a corpse



Data center boosters routinely accuse local opponents of serving China or obstructing progress. In Coweta, Oklahoma, supporters of a proposed hyperscale project appear to have answered authentic opposition with something less democratic: phony support from real residents.

“Dear Vice Mayor Barnett, Project Atlas would generate millions for city services and schools, and all the needed upgrades are paid for by the developer. This seems like reasonable, low-impact growth. Please support this opportunity for Coweta.”

The data center lobby may have money, consultants, and automated emails. Its opponents have something more durable: actual voters and the truth.

The message appeared to come from a known Coweta resident. When the vice mayor contacted the supposed sender, the resident replied that he had not written it and opposed the project. Fox23 News confirmed the account with the victim.

That was not an isolated irregularity. Local farmer and activist Darren Blanchard obtained public records showing nearly 300 substantially identical messages supporting the data center. Many arrived at strange hours and apparently originated through an advocacy website that automatically generated letters to council members.

Automated advocacy tools aren’t new. But using the personal information of real people to send messages in their names without permission is not grassroots politics. It is political identity theft.

“What we suspect as to what was going on is that local citizens’ data — names, address, phone numbers, emails — was purchased, and probably a script was written and likely inputted into this advocacy website,” Blanchard said in an interview on my podcast. “And then nearly 300 people were impersonated within the community of Coweta, asking the city council to approve the data center. It was completely made up.”

The irony is hard to miss. Companies seeking to build facilities that warehouse and process vast quantities of information allegedly used residents’ personal data to impersonate them and manufacture consent.

The most grotesque message allegedly came from a dead man. Blanchard said a council member received an email supporting the project in the name of a deceased relative — on the second anniversary of that relative’s death.

That message persuaded city officials that the matter required the attention of law enforcement. Yet the city has redacted the names attached to the nearly 300 emails, making it harder for residents to learn whether their identities were used. Blanchard says an appeal to the Oklahoma attorney general has gone nowhere.

The proposed 270-acre hyperscale development from San Francisco-based Beale Infrastructure, backed by Blue Owl Capital, was abandoned at the end of March after intense local opposition and scrutiny of the campaign supporting it.

RELATED: Before you say ‘no’ to a data center, here’s what you’re giving up

Sarah Rice/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Coweta is not an isolated case of public resistance. In Box Elder County, Utah, Kevin O’Leary proposed a data center complex projected to consume enormous amounts of electricity and occupy a footprint larger than thousands of Walmart Supercenters. A public-records review by the Salt Lake Tribune found overwhelming opposition in emails to county commissioners. Just seven messages — about 2% — supported the plan.

The voters delivered an even clearer verdict. Last month, two Box Elder County commissioners who backed the project were crushed in their Republican primaries. Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams, who played a prominent role in the state entity that approved the development, also lost.

In Calvert County, Maryland, Republican voters booted all three commissioners who had signed nondisclosure agreements with data center companies and then opposed a proposed moratorium.

These defeats expose the basic political problem facing Big Tech. Opposition to giant data centers is deep, local, and often bipartisan. Residents worry about electricity demand, water use, tax subsidies, land consumption, secrecy, surveillance, and the transfer of private risk to the public.

Those concerns cannot be erased by labeling opponents agents of China or enemies of innovation. Nor can they be overcome honestly by sending hundreds of nearly identical emails in the names of people who never authorized them.

Astroturfing usually tries to make a small constituency look large. The Coweta campaign went further: It manufactured a constituency from stolen identities, including one voice from beyond the grave.

Republican officials need to decide which side they are on. They can stand with citizens demanding transparency and control over their communities, or with globalists and techno-feudalists willing to fabricate public support.

The data center lobby may have money, consultants, and automated emails. Its opponents have something more durable: actual voters and the truth.

Make antitrust fast again



It was 1903, and Theodore Roosevelt had a problem. The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, was effectively dead. It had been used rarely, and when it had been, cases moved sluggishly through the courts. Roosevelt wished to move forward on a multitude of what he believed to be monopolies, including in railroads and energy.

Roosevelt was not wrong to be concerned with monopoly. Coming out of the Civil War, America’s Gilded Age had moved the country lurchingly from a regional power to a global power, one that would soon dominate the world.

America’s antitrust laws simply are not built for these technologies and economic sectors.

But with that explosion of commerce came its domination by a few select companies. And while Roosevelt’s predecessor, William McKinley, had repeatedly urged Congress to crack down on them, it was mostly to no avail. By the time Roosevelt took the reins of power in 1901, several companies effectively ran entire industries.

His problem was solved by Congress, which quickly passed what became known as the Expediting Act. The bill, passed unanimously, allowed for the attorney general to declare a given antitrust case to be of national importance. This in turn mandated the creation of a special three-judge panel on what would today be the level of district courts. After that hearing, which was to be “given precedence over others and in every way expedited,” an appeal could only be levied at the Supreme Court.

Roosevelt and his successor, William Howard Taft, launched a bevy of antitrust cases, breaking apart railroad, cigarette, and energy companies. Americans alive in the 21st century may find it difficult to imagine just how powerful these Gilded Age companies were.

Standard Oil controlled roughly 90% of all oil production in America. American Tobacco produced and sold 86% of all cigarettes in the entire country. And the Northern Securities Company governed effectively all freight railroads from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. By the end of Taft’s term, none of those companies would exist.

RELATED: America needs heroes who do not apologize for being heroes

Heritage Art/Heritage Images/Getty Images

Eventually, the Expediting Act became a victim of its own success: The large trusts were broken apart, with few — such as the Bell telephone system — existing into the latter half of the 20th century. Eventually, the lack of large antitrust cases gave way to smaller cases filled with minutiae. This, plus complaints from the Supreme Court about its supposedly immense workload, led to the bill's repeal in the 1980s, with antitrust cases ultimately being treated like other civil suits.

Today, the oil industry remains broken up, and no one is concerned about a single cigarette company dominating that industry. But like the turn of the 20th century, there are entirely new industries and economic sectors that have sprung up — and along with them have come entirely new monopolies.

Thirty years ago, the notion that a single company could dominate an online search index would be unfathomable. That the same company could dominate browsers and other aspects of the internet would likewise be difficult to imagine. Amazon, meanwhile, controls America’s book market and facilitates the sale of a majority of all books sold in the United States.

And there are other even more dangerous monopolies that could develop, like in artificial intelligence. OpenAI was founded just over 10 years ago. Its main rival, Anthropic, was only founded in 2021, meaning that it has existed for less time than the United States government has been suing Google. Google, for what it’s worth, owns 14% of Anthropic.

With the speed at which AI is developing, it is not outside the realm of possibility that an AI company controlling an AGI-level large-language model, or beyond, would be able to monopolize the artificial intelligence sector — an extremely concerning prospect, made all the more concerning by the fact that America’s antitrust laws simply are not built for these technologies and economic sectors.

RELATED: The path to America-first AI

Yunping Iiang/Getty Images

While antitrust laws clearly need to be revamped — the foundational law, upon which many antitrust cases are still brought, was passed in 1890 — a quick and relatively easy solution would be a return to the Expediting Act, with small updates to match our current judicial structures.

Forcing judges to put antitrust cases first and move quickly on them — as opposed to taking months to mull over decisions — along with speedy hearings by the Supreme Court would help preemptively prepare America for the possibility of 21st-century monopolization.

The Supreme Court’s original concern over its workload should be discarded. When the American republic was new, government was not year-round. Congress was out of session for months on end. The president, far from barnstorming the country as they do today, stayed in Washington or simply went home when Congress was out of session. The Supreme Court had a similarly light schedule. This was all in keeping with the times, when things simply moved slowly.

But as speeds have increased, so too have government workloads. Today, Congress — though lawmakers take Fridays off — is in Washington far more often, and the presidency is now a 24/7 job.

But the Supreme Court’s calendar still sits empty for multiple months of the year, with bursts of work coming throughout. If the court will have to hear a handful of cases the attorney general deems to be of critical importance, the justices may have to suffer the indignity of having only two months of uninterrupted vacation as opposed to three.

There is something for everyone in bringing back the Expediting Act. Investors and employees will no longer be left in limbo for years as merger trials drag on and on. Antitrust advocates will not need to wait endlessly for results. And America will be better equipped to deal with sudden monopolies that, in our increasingly fast-paced world, can come about in a flash.

No one benefits from slow antitrust hearings. Congress should pass a new version of the Expediting Act and make antitrust fast again.