Lucid makes one of the best EVs in America. That may not be enough to save it.



There are plenty of reasons for an electric car company to fail.

Maybe the car is badly engineered. Maybe the range disappoints. Maybe the software is a mess. Maybe buyers simply don't like the product.

There are only so many Americans willing and able to spend close to six figures on an electric vehicle.

Lucid has a more troubling problem: It makes an excellent car.

Driver's 'Dream'

I've driven Lucids, including the spectacular Air Dream Edition, and there is very little to complain about from behind the wheel. The Air is fast, beautifully finished, extraordinarily efficient, and capable of the kind of range that makes most other electric vehicles look dated.

Yet the company behind it is once again confronting the brutal economics of building cars.

Lucid announced this week that it is embarking on what management calls an "operational reset," with plans to cut costs by roughly $1.4 billion this year. The company is reducing spending and inventory while delaying the launch of its more affordable midsize vehicles until the second half of 2027.

That delay may be the most important part of the story.

Lucid desperately needs a vehicle ordinary luxury-car buyers can afford. Instead, it remains heavily dependent on expensive models at precisely the moment the upper end of the EV market is getting harder to crack.

Pulling a Tesla?

Lucid's problem isn't really its product. That's unusual among struggling EV start-ups.

Fisker had serious product and execution problems. Other newcomers have arrived with cars that felt unfinished, badly priced, or both.

The Lucid Air is different. It demonstrated from the beginning that a start-up could challenge Tesla on efficiency, range, performance, and luxury.

But engineering a great car and building a sustainable car company are very different skills.

Lucid entered the market primarily with expensive sedans, then followed with the Gravity SUV. That gives the company impressive halo vehicles, but it limits the pool of potential customers.

There are only so many Americans willing and able to spend close to six figures on an electric vehicle.

Tesla confronted this problem years ago by moving down-market after establishing itself with expensive cars. Lucid has been trying to do something similar, but the cheaper model it needs keeps getting pushed further into the future.

Lucid now says those midsize vehicles won't arrive until the latter half of 2027.

That's a long time when you're burning cash.

Changing market

Lucid isn't dealing only with its own growing pains.

The entire electric vehicle industry has gone through a reset.

Automakers that once talked about replacing nearly their entire gasoline-powered lineups with EVs have pulled back investments, delayed factories, canceled models, and rediscovered hybrids.

The problem isn't that Americans don't buy electric cars. Millions do.

The problem is that demand never followed the straight upward line many executives and government planners assumed it would.

The affluent early adopters were relatively easy to reach. The next group of buyers is much more price-sensitive and much less willing to change how they drive simply because an automaker wants to sell them something electric.

That matters enormously for Lucid because the company remains concentrated near the expensive end of the market. At some point, you saturate the group of buyers who can afford a six-figure vehicle.

That's precisely why a $40,000 or $50,000 Lucid could be transformative — if the company can survive long enough to build one.

RELATED: FIRST LOOK New York International Auto Show: Cool cars, but drivers still face sticker shock

VIEW Press/Getty Images

No second mover

Automotive executives love saying they want to "do what Tesla did."

That is much harder than it sounds.

Tesla had something no new EV company can recreate: years in which it essentially owned the premium electric car category.

The Model S arrived before almost anybody else had a credible answer. Tesla built an enormous base of customers, developed a charging network, became a cultural phenomenon, and had Elon Musk turning every product announcement into news.

Whether you love Tesla or hate it, that position cannot simply be duplicated by making another good EV.

Today's start-ups aren't entering an empty market. They're fighting Tesla, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Ford, Rivian, and an increasingly formidable group of Chinese companies around the world.

Lucid built a technically brilliant car. It didn't build it in a vacuum.

Deep pockets

Lucid does have one enormous advantage over many failed start-ups: financial backing from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund.

That support has given the company a lifeline other manufacturers could only dream of.

But outside investment doesn't repeal economics.

A manufacturer eventually has to produce cars at a sustainable cost and sell enough of them at a sustainable price. Constant infusions of capital can buy time, but time has to lead somewhere.

Lucid's current plan involves cost reductions, the Gravity SUV, a future midsize platform, autonomous-vehicle partnerships, and increased manufacturing in Saudi Arabia. Reuters reported that the company still expects those initiatives to provide a path forward, despite continued losses and weaker-than-expected deliveries.

Holding the bag

Maybe they will.

I hope so, because the automotive industry is better when companies like Lucid force everybody else to improve.

But consumers should understand the risk when buying from a young automaker.

If the company disappears, the vehicle doesn't disappear with it. You still own the car. You still need replacement parts, software support, warranty work, body panels, service technicians, and somebody maintaining all those cloud-connected features.

Fisker owners already learned what happens when the company behind a highly computerized automobile suddenly isn't there anymore.

Grind behind the glamour

For years, Silicon Valley treated automobile manufacturing as though Detroit had simply failed to understand software.

Build a better battery. Hire good programmers. Raise enough venture capital. Disrupt the dinosaurs.

The reality has turned out to be far less glamorous.

Cars require factories, suppliers, repair networks, inventories, regulatory compliance, financing, parts distribution, warranty reserves, and enormous amounts of capital long before the manufacturer knows whether buyers will show up.

Lucid has already proved it can build a remarkable automobile.

Now it has to prove something harder: that it can build a viable company around it.

'Every movie that terrified me as a child': Anti-aging millionaire’s stunt has Glenn Beck sounding the alarm



Silicon Valley entrepreneur Bryan Johnson made his millions by founding the payments processing company Braintree (which acquired Venmo), before selling the firm to PayPal in 2013.

In the years since, Johnson has become widely known for his extreme, highly public anti-aging “Don’t Die” protocol, which involves a strict diet, a rigid sleep schedule, daily exercise, dozens of supplements, continuous biomarker testing, and occasional experimental treatments.

His stated goal is to slow or reverse biological aging across every organ system. The endeavor costs him roughly $2 million a year.

But that’s just the beginning of Johnson’s strange goals. According to a July 21 post, he has now supposedly “cloned” himself.

Glenn Beck sets the record straight on the reality of Johnson’s “cloning” experiment.

“He didn't clone himself. What he actually did is he took a sample of his own blood, pulled out some cells, chemically rewound them back to a blank, a baby state — you know, the kind of cell that can grow into almost any body part,” he explains, noting that this making of stem cells has been going on since 2006.

“His plan is to eventually grow fresh tissue from these cells to repair his own aging organs. That's it. There's no baby, no second Bryan, no clone of any real sense. Just a dish with his own cells reset to act young,” Glenn continues.

The medical implications of this science — regrowing organs, restoring eyesight, reversing disease — are “really exciting,” he acknowledges.

But Glenn has seen too much to ignore the inevitable dark side of such a technology.

“I swear to you, every day I get up, every technological breakthrough now feels like we're speed-running through the plot of every movie that terrified me as a child,” he says.

“'Frankenstein,' written over 200 years ago, was basically one long warning that maybe, just maybe, we should spend as much time asking ‘should we?’ as we spend asking ‘can we?’” he continues.

The saddest part is that "technology genuinely could save millions of lives — Parkinson's, blindness, heart disease, kidney failure, cancer” — but it’s what else it could do in the hands of the wrong people that troubles Glenn.

“I'm not scared of the science. I'm kind of scared by the scientists,” he admits.

“I just can't shake the feeling that humanity is collectively walking through the opening scenes of every sci-fi movie ever made, smiling confidently while the audience is yelling at the screen, ‘Please stop!’”

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.

Our Transhumanist, Sci-Fi Future Has Arrived. But You’re Not Going To Like It

Technological progress isn’t ushering in an era of prosperity and bliss. It’s inaugurating an era of demonic, inhuman evils.

Ted Cruz, Powerful Dem Congressman Linked To Secret Society That Talks Sex, Cults And WW3: Report

"How's Your Sex Life?"

Car prices are about to skyrocket — and the reason is in the palm of your hand



If you think car prices are already out of control, brace yourself. The next spike is coming, and it has nothing to do with supply-chain excuses, dealer markups, or government mandates.

In fact, it has nothing to do with the car industry at all.

Automakers have limited options here. They can delay production, strip out features, or pass the cost directly to buyers.

It is being driven by Big Tech’s race to dominate artificial intelligence, and no matter who wins, the American car buyer will pay the price.

Bidding war

Behind the scenes, a quiet bidding war is underway for one of the most critical components in modern vehicles: memory chips. These are not exotic, cutting-edge parts reserved for luxury cars. They are the backbone of everything from your backup camera to center screens to your safety systems. And right now, they are getting sucked up by massive AI data centers at a pace the auto industry simply cannot match.

Companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI are spending billions building out AI infrastructure. These operations require enormous volumes of high-performance memory, the same category of chips used throughout today’s vehicles. The difference is they are willing to pay more, lock in longer contracts, and move faster than any automaker.

Chip manufacturers, including Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron, are shifting production toward AI demand because that is where the profits are strongest. That leaves fewer chips available for automakers, and the ones that are available are getting more expensive by the day.

Winter is coming

Automakers are already feeling it. Executives at Ford Motor Company have acknowledged rising costs tied to memory chips, even as they try to reassure investors that supply remains stable for now. But that stability is fragile, and industry analysts are warning that shortages could begin to impact production as soon as late 2026.

Some companies are more exposed than others. EV-focused brands like Tesla and Rivian face added risk because their vehicles rely even more heavily on advanced computing systems. Traditional automakers like General Motors and Ford Motor Company may have slightly more flexibility, but they are still tied to the same supply chain realities.

What does that mean for you?

It means the car you want may cost more, take longer to arrive, or come with fewer features than expected. We’ve seen this before.

RELATED: Why the Pentagon just called Detroit's Big 3 automakers

Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Computers on wheels

Modern vehicles are essentially computers on wheels. A typical car today uses large amounts of memory to manage safety systems, navigation, infotainment, and driver-assistance technology. In higher-end or electric models, that number climbs even further. Remove or limit those chips, and something has to give. Which means fewer features.

Automakers have limited options here. They can delay production, strip out features, or pass the cost directly to buyers. If history is any guide, they will do some combination of all three.

We saw it during the last chip shortage, due to COVID-related supply-chain disruption. Vehicles were shipped without features that customers had already paid for, with vague promises they might be added later. In many cases, those features never came back.

Now imagine that scenario again, only this time driven by a long-term shift in how chips are allocated globally. In other words, no end in sight.

Back to basics?

Some automakers are trying to get ahead of the problem. Toyota Motor Corporation and Honda Motor Company are working more closely with semiconductor suppliers to secure long-term agreements. It is a smart strategy, but it also highlights a bigger issue: The auto industry is no longer in control of its own destiny when it comes to critical technology.

It is competing with Silicon Valley, and Silicon Valley has deeper pockets.

There is also a lesson here that automakers would rather not admit. For years, they pushed more screens, more software, and more complexity into vehicles, selling it as innovation. But that strategy came with a cost, and now that cost is showing up in the form of supply vulnerability.

Many drivers today are asking for less tech and just the basics. But with added technology that collects your data, car brands are going to be forced to cut corners somewhere. And we know they will give up features and still collect data and track your every move. All of this takes chips that are getting more expensive.

The more technology you pack into a car, the more exposed you are when those components become scarce.

New approach

For consumers, this may force a shift in thinking. Simpler vehicles could become more attractive, not just because they are easier to use, but because they are less dependent on volatile supply chains. At the same time, the used car market could see renewed demand as buyers look for alternatives to increasingly expensive new models. This happened during the last chip shortage where used cars ballooned in price. That makes it a good time to sell and a bad time to buy.

The push for AI is not slowing down. If anything, it is accelerating. That means the competition for memory chips is only going to intensify, and the auto industry will continue to be caught in the middle.

So the next time you see a higher price tag on a new vehicle, do not assume it is just inflation or dealer markup. There's a good chance it's tied to a data center somewhere, running thousands of servers, training the next generation of AI models.

There may be a big opportunity here: a growing market for affordable cars not encumbered with expensive, invasive, and bug-prone tech. But first, car makers will have to ditch the endless tech arms race and listen to their customers.

Don’t Listen to the Skeptics, Ai Will Change Your Life for the Better | Joe Lonsdale
play icon

Don’t Listen to the Skeptics, Ai Will Change Your Life for the Better | Joe Lonsdale

Harvard Business School Is ‘Thrilled To Welcome’ Keffiyeh-Wearing Israel-Demonizer Who Uses ‘Retard’ as a Slur

A businessman who was ostracized in Silicon Valley for social media posts that demonized Israel is being touted by Harvard as a star speaker at an upcoming conference on artificial intelligence.

The post Harvard Business School Is ‘Thrilled To Welcome’ Keffiyeh-Wearing Israel-Demonizer Who Uses ‘Retard’ as a Slur appeared first on .

I walked away from California Democrats to keep my sanity



It used to feel good to be a Democrat in California.

Emphasis on used to — and President Trump’s recent State of the Union address illuminated exactly why I left the party.

California is not failing because it cares too much. It is failing because it confuses caring with governing.

In Silicon Valley, voting blue often feels like the default setting.

In many professional circles, especially in technology and venture communities, political alignment is assumed. Fundraisers double as social gatherings.

It feels compassionate, enlightened, on the right side of history.

But that night, the president challenged any member of Congress to stand who believes that the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. Shockingly, Democrats remained seated, providing a stunning visual of the current values of the Democratic Party.

What changed my mind was not the rhetoric. It was the outcomes. California is the glaring example of the failure of liberal policies.

Three areas illustrate the pattern.

Elections: Confidence is a safeguard

California does not require photo identification to vote in person. A voter provides a name and address and signs the roster. More than 30 states require some form of voter ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Countries such as Canada, France, and Germany require identification to vote. A 2023 Gallup poll found roughly three-quarters of Americans support requiring photo identification at the polls, including majorities across party lines.

Even if large-scale fraud is difficult to quantify, administrative failures and inconsistent verification practices fuel public doubt. Visible safeguards deter misconduct and preserve confidence in the system.

When California Democrats treat voter ID as ideological heresy, they weaken the legitimacy of the system they claim to defend.

Family: When the state becomes the decision-maker

Under California law, minors ages 12 and older may consent to certain mental health services without parental notification if deemed mature enough by a provider. State law also allows minors to access reproductive health services confidentially. Recent legislation has expanded confidentiality protections in sensitive areas.

The justification is protection, but the effect is state supremacy in decisions that belong to parents.

The Supreme Court has long recognized parental rights as fundamental. Family authority is the first layer of civil society.

When the state positions itself as the confidential decision-maker in significant medical and psychological matters involving minors, it undermines that sovereignty.

It is not compassionate to expand state authority at the expense of parental sovereignty. It is government overreach into the most intimate sphere of civil society. As the co-founders of Moms for Liberty have put it, “We do not co-parent with the government.”

Compassion cannot justify dissolving the family as the primary unit of accountability.

Fiscal reality: Math still applies

California’s budget rests on a narrow and volatile base. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has documented that the top 1% of earners account for close to half of the state’s personal income tax revenue. That revenue is heavily tied to capital gains and is therefore inherently unstable.

Instead of broadening and stabilizing that base, state leadership has repeatedly targeted it. Wealth-based tax proposals focus on the very taxpayers who fund a disproportionate share of state commitments. Capital is mobile. IRS data shows sustained net out-migration of high-income households from California to states such as Texas and Florida over the past decade.

Then comes execution.

California’s high-speed rail project, approved in 2008 at an estimated $33 billion, is now projected to exceed $100 billion and remains incomplete. Florida, by contrast, expanded Brightline passenger rail through a public-private partnership model that attracted private capital and delivered major segments on time.

Between 2019 and 2023, California spent roughly $24 billion on homelessness programs. During that same period, homelessness rose statewide. In 2024, the California state auditor found the state failed to consistently track whether billions in spending produced measurable results.

The pattern is simple.

Spend expansively. Measure loosely. Promise morally. Deliver inconsistently.

The issue is not the stated goals, but the absence of discipline.

In each case, the rhetoric was noble, and the result was dysfunction.

RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s California is looting Medicaid in broad daylight

Photo by Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images

This is the governing model Kamala Harris rose within and that Gavin Newsom refined over time. Not because they lack intelligence, but because the system they represent rewards virtue-signaling over measurable performance. It resists basic electoral safeguards despite broad public support. It expands state authority into the family. It builds budgets on volatile revenue while accelerating out-migration. It spends billions without demanding outcome verification.

If that framework scales nationally, the consequences will be dire.

I did not leave the Democratic Party because I stopped caring about vulnerable people. I left because I care about institutional durability. Compassion matters. But governing requires discipline. California is not failing because it cares too much. It is failing because it confuses caring with governing. Compassion without competence becomes institutional rot.

If you are a Democrat in California who feels uneasy but cannot quite articulate why, I understand. I defended the language long after I stopped believing in the results. At some point, loyalty to outcomes must matter more than loyalty to a label. It did for me.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Top 5 funniest Trump moments of 2025
play icon

Top 5 funniest Trump moments of 2025



President Donald Trump has secured a spot as one of the most iconic figures in American history. While many of his significant political actions are certain to be remembered, so will the countless clips and memes throughout his time in office.

Here are the five funniest Trump moments of his second presidency so far.

5. Making plastic straws great again

In the early weeks of his second term, Trump signed the "number one trending" executive order ending the "forced use" of paper straws across the country.

During the signing, Trump quipped about the ineffectiveness of paper straws, noting they "explode" in drinks, rendering them useless and often frustrating to drink from.

"We're going back to plastic straws," Trump said. "These things don't work. ... On occasion they break, they explode. If something's hot, they don't last very long. Like, a matter of minutes, sometimes a matter of seconds. It's a ridiculous situation. So, we're going back to plastic straws. I think it's OK."

"I don't think that plastic is going to affect a shark very much as they're munching their way through the ocean," Trump added.

4. "Everything's computer!"

Trump shared a unique friendship with serial entrepreneur Elon Musk, whose many business ventures include Tesla. These electric cars that were once one of the most iconic and prevalent vehicles in Silicon Valley quickly became associated with Musk and Trump's political alliance.

In support of Musk, Trump had several Tesla models shown at the White House, where he candidly reviewed a Tesla vehicle himself.

"Oh wow, it's beautiful!" Trump said as he stepped into the Tesla. "Wow. That's beautiful. This is a different panel than I've — everything's computer!"

3. Trick-or-treat

Trump recreated one of his most iconic moments during Halloween, when the White House hosts an annual trick-or-treat on the South Lawn, where the president and the first lady hand out candy to children.

In 2019, one of Trump's funniest unscripted moments was when a child in an inflatable Minion costume came to the White House for candy. Trump, unsure of where to hand off the candy bar, made the executive decision to place it on the Minion's head, producing one of the most meme-able moments of his first term.

Trump re-created this interaction in 2025 when a child dressed as Marshmello, a DJ who wears a marshmallow-shaped mask, came through the line. Just as he did in 2019, Trump opted to set the candy bar on the flat top of the marshmallow, sending the trick-or-treater on his way.

2. Autopen presidency

As Trump works to solidify his legacy after his second term, he has taken it upon himself to spruce up the White House grounds with a new ballroom, a paved patio in the Rose Garden, and touches of gold pretty much every place he can.

He has also made sure to commemorate those presidents who came before him.

One new feature at the White House is Trump's hall of presidents, featuring an array of gold-framed presidential portraits alongside a walkway overlooking the Rose Garden. Trump cleverly added his own flair to the commemorative walkway, featuring a framed photo of the autopen between his 45th and 47th presidential portrait, memorializing former President Joe Biden's autopen scandal.

1. The N-word

Trump has always had a flair for the dramatic, often echoing the showmanship of his reality TV days. Love him or hate him, he knows how to capture a crowd's attention.

In one of his funniest and most underrated political speeches of 2025, Trump delivered an edgy punchline in an address to military brass in Quantico.

"It was really a stupid person that ... mentioned the word 'nuclear,'" Trump said during the address.

"I moved a submarine or two ... over to the coast of Russia, just to be careful, because we can't let people throw around that word," he continued.

"I call it the N-word," Trump added. "There are two N-words, and you can't use either of them."

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

When Bernie Sanders and I agree on AI, America had better pay attention



Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned recently in the London Guardian that artificial intelligence “is getting far too little discussion in Congress, the media, and within the general population” despite the speed at which it is developing. “That has got to change.”

To my surprise, as a conservative advocate of limited government and free markets, I agree completely.

AI is neither a left nor a right issue. It is a human issue that will decide who holds power in the decades ahead and whether individuals retain sovereignty.

As I read Sanders’ piece, I kept thinking, “This sounds like something I could have written!” That alone should tell us something. If two people who disagree on almost everything else see the same dangers emerging from artificial intelligence, then maybe we can set aside the usual partisan divides and confront a problem that will touch every American.

Different policies, same fears

I’ve worked in the policy world for more than a decade, and it’s fair to say Bernie Sanders and I have opposed each other in nearly every major fight. I’ve pushed back against his single-payer health care plans. I’ve worked to stop his Green New Deal agenda. On economic policy, Sanders has long stood for the exact opposite of the free-market principles I believe make prosperity possible.

That’s why reading his AI op-ed felt almost jarring. Time after time, his concerns mirrored my own.

Sanders warned about the unprecedented power Silicon Valley elites now wield over this transformational technology. As someone who spent years battling Big Tech censorship, I share his alarm over unaccountable tech oligarchs shaping information, culture, and political discourse.

He points to forecasts showing AI-driven automation could displace nearly 100 million American jobs in the coming decade. I helped Glenn Beck write “Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s Terrifying Next Phase” in 2023, where we raised the exact same red flag, that rapid automation could destabilize the workforce faster than society can adapt.

Sanders highlights how AI threatens privacy, civil liberties, and personal autonomy. These are concerns I write and speak about constantly. Sanders notes that AI isn’t just changing industry; it’s reshaping the human condition, foreign policy, and even the structure of democratic life. On all of this, he is correct.

When a Democratic Socialist and a free-market conservative diagnose the same disease, it usually means the symptoms are too obvious to ignore.

Where we might differ

While Sanders and I share almost identical fears about AI, I suspect we would quickly diverge on the solutions. In his op-ed, he offers no real policy prescriptions at all. Instead, he simply says, “Congress must act now.” Act how? Sanders never says. And to be fair, that ambiguity is a dilemma I recognize.

As someone who argues consistently for limited government, I’m reluctant to call for new regulations. History shows that sweeping, top-down interventions usually create more problems than they solve. Yet AI poses a challenge unlike anything we’ve seen before — one that neither the market nor Congress can responsibly ignore.

RELATED: Shock poll: America’s youth want socialism on autopilot — literally

Photo by Cesc Maymo/Getty Images

When Sanders says, “Congress must act,” does he want sweeping, heavy-handed regulations that freeze innovation? Does he envision embedding ESG-style subjective metrics into AI systems, politicizing them further? Does he want to codify conformity to European Union AI regulations?

We cannot allow a handful of corporations or governments to embed their subjective values into systems that increasingly manipulate our decisions, influence our communications, and deter our autonomy.

The nonnegotiables

Instead of vague calls for Congress to “do something,” we need a clear framework rooted in enduring American principles.

AI systems (especially those deployed across major sectors) must be built with hard, nonnegotiable safeguards that protect the individual from both corporate and governmental overreach.

This means embedding constitutional values into AI design, enshrining guarantees for free speech, due process, privacy, and equal treatment. It means ensuring transparency around how these systems operate and what data they collect.

This also means preventing ideological influence, whether from Beijing, Silicon Valley, or Washington, D.C., by insisting on objectivity, neutrality, and accountability.

These principles should not be considered partisan. They are the guardrails, rooted in the Constitution, which protect us from any institution, public or private, that seeks too much power.

And that is why the overlap between Sanders’ concerns and mine matters so much. AI is neither a left nor a right issue. It is a human issue that will decide who holds power in the decades ahead and whether individuals retain sovereignty.

If Bernie Sanders and I both see the same storm gathering on the horizon, perhaps it’s time the rest of the country looks up and recognizes the clouds for what they are.

Now is the moment for Americans, across parties and philosophies, to insist that AI strengthen liberty rather than erode it. If we fail to set those boundaries today, we may soon find that the most important choices about our future are no longer made by people at all.