Prepared, not paranoid: What you need to know to protect yourself from a possible terror attack
In times like this, you hear the concern from your neighbors. You talk about it with people at the gym. It's the topic of conversation over morning coffee — from small towns to big cities — "Are we going to see an increase in terror attacks here at home?"
Now, there are news that Iranian "sleeper cells" pose a dangerous threat. Such cells could carry out attacks on U.S. citizens in retaliation for recent military operations in Iran, it's understandable that Americans are feeling concerned for their safety here at home.
People are on edge. If they're not already in a heightened state of awareness, they're at least tuned in — watching the headlines and scrolling through a stream of opinions on social media.
This isn't about fear or paranoia. It's a moment to pause and remember:
Attacks have happened on U.S. soil before. The truth is there are people who want to harm our country and disrupt our way of life.
We've seen these attacks play out — some tied to foreign groups, others carried out by lone attackers inspired by skewed ideologies. Pearl Harbor. 9/11. The Boston Marathon bombing. The Pensacola Naval Air Station shooting. More recently, the Jewish Museum shooting in D.C.
Moments like this — especially after international military operations — ignite fears of retaliation. They spark conversations at home, at work, and everywhere in between.
With Iranian threats and elevated homeland security alerts making headlines, it's easy to feel uneasy. But fear isn't a strategy — awareness and preparedness are.
Social media is one of the greatest modern tools — or the worst — depending on who you ask.
It has the power to inform, empower and engage. You can get access to information from some of the world's most influential people — directly from them.
But not everything you read online is true. And with AI now capable of generating fake images and audio, misinformation is even harder to spot.
While we could talk all day about how narratives shape perception, here are steps to help you stay informed:
1. Follow reputable sources. Federal, state and local government platforms are often your best source of accurate updates. Your local police, sheriff and state patrol agencies routinely push out alerts. If you're not already following them, do that now. Also follow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for terrorism alerts, travel advisories, cyber warnings and more. The State Department offers "know before you go" tips for international travel.
2. Subscribe to credentialed news organizations. Major outlets with national security and White House teams often have 24/7 coverage and access to decision-makers.
3. Be cautious of influencers with agendas. Everyone has a platform — but not everyone deserves your trust. Some creators spark engagement, not share truth. Be critical. Vet what you consume.
Being alert doesn't require a badge or training. It just requires a decision to pay attention.
Many victims of crime or violence are simply too distracted by screens or conversations to notice danger signs.
1. Put the phone down. Your phone is a powerful tool — and your biggest distraction. Whether you're driving, walking or in a crowd, looking down at your screen can cause you to miss warning signs. Talk to your teens too. We can't escape a connected world, but we can move through it smarter.
2. "See something, say something." Trust your gut. If something feels off, speak up. Teach your kids to do the same. A person acting strangely. A vehicle parked out of place. A bag left unattended. Report it. Law enforcement would rather investigate something small than miss something big.
If you live in an urban area, encourage neighbors to do the same. Neighborhood Watch programs have been stopping crimes for decades with basic awareness.
3. Mentally rehearse the unexpected. Your brain performs better in a crisis when it's already run the scenario. That's why we practiced fire drills in school. Same principle. Whether you're at a concert, grocery store or your workplace — know your exits. Think about where you'd go. It's not paranoia. It's preparation.
4. Learn "Run, Hide, Fight." This DHS-endorsed model gives civilians a plan for surviving active threats. The guides are free and simple. Download them. Talk through them with your family. That's how you reduce panic and improve survival odds.
Law enforcement agencies at every level — local, state and federal — are working together like never before. Real-time intelligence-sharing systems, joint task forces and powerful technologies are helping prevent threats before they happen.
Even when we don't see it, the work is happening.
1. Increased patrols in vulnerable areas. Nationwide, police departments are stepping up patrols near houses of worship, cultural centers and critical infrastructure — not just in response to specific threats, but out of caution and commitment. You may not always see them, but trained professionals are on the job.
2. Technology-driven operations. Many cities now operate real-time crime centers, where agencies use facial recognition, license plate readers and integrated systems to track threats and alert officers instantly. This work doesn't make headlines, but it prevents attacks.
Sure, overseas missions are for the military. But here at home, safety is a shared responsibility.
You don't need a uniform, a badge or fear to be prepared.
Many victims of crime or violence are simply too distracted by screens or conversations to notice danger signs.
Stay informed. Stay aware. Speak up. Have a plan.
Because the best time to build resilience isn't during a crisis — it's before one ever begins. Whether you're walking Main Street or living in a high-rise downtown, safety isn't just about what happens to you. It's about how you respond when it does.
If high-profile threats lead to meaningful conversations, let those conversations center around preparedness — not panic.
Because when enough of us prepare, the ripple effect can be powerful.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Bill Moyers, the former White House press secretary turned acclaimed TV journalist, dead at 91
NEW YORK — Bill Moyers, the former White House press secretary who became one of television's most honored journalists, masterfully using a visual medium to illuminate a world of ideas, died Thursday at age 91. Moyers died in a New York City hospital, according to longtime friend Tom Johnson, the former CEO of CNN and an assistant to Moyers during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration. Moyers' son William said his father died at Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York after a 'long illness.' Moyers' career ranged from youthful Baptist minister to deputy director of the Peace Corps, from Johnson's press secretary to newspaper publisher, senior news analyst for 'The CBS Evening News' and chief correspondent for 'CBS Reports.' But it was for public television that Moyers produced some of TV's most cerebral and provocative series. In hundreds of hours of PBS programs, he proved at home with subjects ranging from government corruption to modern dance, from drug addiction to media consolidation, from religion to environmental abuse. In 1988, Moyers produced 'The Secret Government' about the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration and simultaneously published a book under the same name. Around that time, he galvanized viewers with 'Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth,' a series of six one-hour interviews with the prominent religious scholar. The accompanying book became a bestseller. His televised chats with poet Robert Bly almost single-handedly launched the 1990s Men's Movement, and his 1993 series 'Healing and the Mind' had a profound impact on the medical community and on medical education. In a medium that supposedly abhors 'talking heads' — shots of subject and interviewer talking — Moyers came to specialize in just that. He once explained why: 'The question is, are the talking heads thinking minds and thinking people? Are they interesting to watch? I think the most fascinating production value is the human face.' (Softly) speaking truth to power: Demonstrating what someone called 'a soft, probing style' in the native Texas accent he never lost, Moyers was a humanist who investigated the world with a calm, reasoned perspective, whatever the subject. From some quarters, he was blasted as a liberal thanks to his links with Johnson and public television, as well as his no-holds-barred approach to investigative journalism. It was a label he didn't necessarily deny. 'I'm an old-fashion liberal when it comes to being open and being interested in other people's ideas,' he said during a 2004 radio interview. But Moyers preferred to term himself a 'citizen journalist' operating independently, outside the establishment. Public television (and his self-financed production company) gave him free rein to throw 'the conversation of democracy open to all comers,' he said in a 2007 interview with The Associated Press. 'I think my peers in commercial television are talented and devoted journalists,' he said another time, 'but they've chosen to work in a corporate mainstream that trims their talent to fit the corporate nature of American life. And you do not get rewarded for telling the hard truths about America in a profit-seeking environment.' Over the years, Moyers was showered with honors, including more than 30 Emmys, 11 George Foster Peabody awards, three George Polks and, twice, the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Gold Baton Award for career excellence in broadcast journalism. In 1995, he was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame. From sports to sports writing: Born in Hugo, Oklahoma, on June 5, 1934, Billy Don Moyers was the son of a dirt farmer-truck driver who soon moved his family to Marshall, Texas. High school led him into journalism. 'I wanted to play football, but I was too small. But I found that by writing sports in the school newspaper, the players were always waiting around at the newsstand to see what I wrote,' he recalled. He worked for the Marshall News Messenger at age 16. Deciding that Bill Moyers was a more appropriate byline for a sportswriter, he dropped the 'y' from his name. He graduated from the University of Texas and earned a master's in divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was ordained and preached part time at two churches but later decided his call to the ministry 'was a wrong number.' His relationship with Johnson began when he was in college; he wrote the then-senator offering to work in his 1954 reelection campaign. Johnson was impressed and hired him for a summer job. He was back in Johnson's employ as a personal assistant in the early 1960s and for two years, he worked at the Peace Corps, eventually becoming deputy director. On the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Moyers was in Austin helping with the presidential trip. He flew back to Washington on Air Force One with newly sworn-in President Johnson, for whom he held various jobs over the ensuing years, including press secretary. Moyers' stint as presidential press secretary was marked by efforts to mend the deteriorating relationship between Johnson and the media. But the Vietnam war took its toll and Moyers resigned in December 1966. Of his departure from the White House, he wrote later, 'We had become a war government, not a reform government, and there was no creative role left for me under those circumstances.' He conceded that he may have been 'too zealous in my defense of our policies' and said he regretted criticizing journalists such as Pulitzer Prize-winner Peter Arnett, then a special correspondent with the AP, and CBS' Morley Safer for their war coverage. A long run on television: In 1967, Moyers became publisher of Long Island-based Newsday and concentrated on adding news analyses, investigative pieces and lively features. Within three years, the suburban daily had won two Pulitzers. He left the paper in 1970 after the ownership changed. That summer, he traveled 13,000 miles around the country and wrote a bestselling account of his odyssey: 'Listening to America: a Traveler Rediscovers His Country.' His next venture was in public television and he won critical acclaim for 'Bill Moyers Journal,' a series in which interviews ranged from Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish economist, to poet Maya Angelou. He was chief correspondent of 'CBS Reports' from 1976 to 1978, went back to PBS for three years, and then was senior news analyst for CBS from 1981 to 1986. When CBS cut back on documentaries, he returned to PBS for much less money. 'If you have a skill that you can fold with your tent and go wherever you feel you have to go, you can follow your heart's desire,' he once said. Then in 1986, he and his wife, Judith Davidson Moyers, became their own bosses by forming Public Affairs Television, an independent shop that has not only produced programs such as the 10-hour 'In Search of the Constitution,' but also paid for them through its own fundraising efforts. His projects in the 21st century included 'Now,' a weekly PBS public affairs program; a new edition of 'Bill Moyers Journal' and a podcast covering racism, voting rights and the rise of Donald Trump, among other subjects. Moyers married Judith Davidson, a college classmate, in 1954, and they raised three children, among them the author Suzanne Moyers and author-TV producer William Cope Moyers. Judith eventually became her husband's partner, creative collaborator and president of their production company.
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
Cuomo will stay in NYC mayor's race after conceding Democratic primary to Mamdani, CNN has learned
Andrew Cuomo will not drop out of the New York City mayoral race by the Friday deadline to remove himself from the general election ballot, sources tell CNN. That leaves in place contingency plans he had established before the Democratic primary to challenge Zohran Mamdani and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams in November. The former New York governor, who quickly conceded the Democratic primary race on Tuesday night to Mamdani, has not fully committed to running an active campaign through the summer and fall. But Cuomo will keep the place he already secured on the 'Fight & Deliver' ballot line for the November election, three sources say. Cuomo is calculating that the full city's electorate would be significantly different from Democratic primary voters who were energized by Mamdani's focus on affordability and his campaign's online videos. His camp also believes Mamdani and his policy ideas, from a rent freeze to city-operated grocery stores, will receive increased scrutiny now that Mamdani is positioned to secure a Democratic primary win once ranked-choice votes are allocated next week. Notably, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have praised Mamdani since Tuesday but declined to endorse him. And two House Democrats from swing districts in the New York suburbs criticized him after Tuesday's results put him in position to win the primary, while Republicans have sharply criticized Mamdani and tried to tie national Democrats to him. Mamdani is poised to face Adams, who opted out of this year's Democratic primary and is running as an independent himself, as well as Republican Curtis Sliwa. Cuomo staying on the November ballot leaves the door open for the former governor to resume his bid for a political comeback, four years after he resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment that he has denied. Cuomo was long considered the front-runner in the mayoral race but faced progressive anger over the sexual harassment cases as well as his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic while mayor, driving much of the liberal enthusiasm for Mamdani. Cuomo's bet would be that he could become a safe harbor for moderates and progressives concerned about Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, or Adams, who was indicted on federal bribery charges before President Donald Trump's administration dismissed them contingent on Adams' cooperation with immigration enforcement. He could also keep his ballot line without campaigning, as he did in 2002 when he dropped a Democratic primary bid for governor but remained on the ballot as the Liberal Party candidate. For now, however, Cuomo has not set a timetable for making a final decision on whether to actively campaign or when to re-launch a prospective campaign. 'There's no clock ticking,' one source said.
