Zohran Mamdani declares victory in NYC Democratic mayoral primary race
'Tonight, we made history,' says Zohran Mamdani as the 33-year-old democratic socialist celebrates his apparent victory in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. Andrew Cuomo, who was previously considered the race's frontrunner, conceded early in the night as Mamdani's extended lead became apparent
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The alarming rise of US officers hiding behind masks: ‘A police state'
Some wear balaclavas. Some wear neck gators, sunglasses and hats. Some wear masks and casual clothes. Across the country, armed federal immigration officers have increasingly hidden their identities while carrying out immigration raids, arresting protesters and roughing up prominent Democratic critics. It's a trend that has sparked alarm among civil rights and law enforcement experts alike. Mike German, a former FBI agent, said officers' widespread use of masks was unprecedented in US law enforcement and a sign of a rapidly eroding democracy. 'Masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls,' he said. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has insisted masks are necessary to protect officers' privacy, arguing, without providing evidence, that there has been an uptick in violence against agents. But, German argued, the longterm consequences could be severe. The practice could erode trust in the US law enforcement agencies: 'When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority,' he noted. And, he said, when real agents masks more frequently, it becomes easier for imposters to operate. German – who previously worked undercover in white supremacist and militia groups and is now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-profit – spoke to the Guardian about the dangers of officer masking, why he thinks officers are concealing themselves and how far the US has deviated from democratic norms. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Were you surprised by the frequent reports of federal officers covering their faces and refusing to identify themselves, especially during the recent immigration raids and protests in Los Angeles? It is absolutely shocking and frightening to see masked agents, who are also poorly identified in the way they are dressed, using force in public without clearly identifying themselves. Our country is known for having democratic control over law enforcement. When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority. It's particularly important for officers to identify themselves when they are making arrests. It's important for the person being arrested, and for community members who might be watching, that they understand this is a law enforcement activity. Is there any precedent in the US for this kind of widespread law enforcement masking? I'm not aware of any period where US law enforcement officials wore masks, other than the lone ranger, of course. Masking has always been associated with police states. I think the masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls. We see this during protests. We see this in Ice raids. And we see this in the excessive secrecy in which law enforcement has increasingly operated since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How does masking fit into the post-9/11 trends in American policing? After 9/11, there were significant changes to the law – the Patriot Act, expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, changes to FBI guidelines – that allowed mass warrantless surveillance. Those changes rolled back reforms that had been put in place to address law enforcement abuses, including the targeting of disfavored political activists. As the federal government greatly expanded its authority, state and local law enforcement adopted a similar approach they called 'intelligence-led policing'. That included the creation of 'fusion centers', in which state, local and federal law enforcement share information with each other and private sector entities. Roughly 80 fusion centers exist today, and there is very little oversight and regulation, and they operate under a thick cloak of secrecy, often targeting disfavored protest groups. Once police think of themselves as domestic intelligence agents rather than law enforcement sworn to protect the public, it creates this attitude that the public doesn't have a right to know what they're doing. And now that includes even hiding their identities in public. Why do you think some officers are masking? I have not had conversations with current officers, but I imagine some are masking because they don't normally work for Ice or do immigration enforcement, but are now being sent to do these jobs. [The Trump administration has diverted some federal officers from agencies like the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to support Ice, reportedly pushing agents who would be tackling violent crimes to instead handle civil immigration violations]. When these officers go home at night, they may not want people in their communities to know it was them. Maybe they have upstanding reputations because of the work they do for the FBI or ATF, and they don't necessarily want to be identified with this kind of indiscriminate targeting of immigrants. And that reluctance to be identified as engaging in those activities really highlights the illegitimacy of those actions. Are there concerns about having masked officers from other agencies working for Ice? Officers from other federal law enforcement agencies are used to operating within specific authorities, and they may not recognize that Ice enforcement actions don't necessarily allow for those same actions. When an FBI or ATF agent is seeking to arrest someone, they typically have a warrant signed by a judge and can go after that person even on private property. Ice's civil enforcement powers don't give them that authority. If Ice doesn't have a judicial warrant, they can't go into someone's home. So if the FBI is doing Ice enforcement, they have to understand their authority is limited in important ways in order to not violate the law. That's also why it's critical for agents to identify what agency they are with. Otherwise, it's hard to understand under what authority an action is being taken. Who is this person shoving a member of the public who is just asking questions? Historically, what are the basic standards and training for law enforcement showing their faces? I'm not aware of any general authority authorizing an agent not to identify themselves during public law enforcement activity. As a former FBI undercover agent, I tried to avoid getting my picture taken as much as possible. But it is a small number of individuals who engage in undercover operations who would require any kind of masking, and they have the option of not participating in arrests where they are going to be in public. A lot of training is about police safety. And part of that safety is having a clear indication that you are a law enforcement official when you're engaging in some type of activity that could involve use of force or arrest, including protest management. The badge was intended to protect the officer, to make it clear you're acting under the authority of the law and not just shoving somebody you don't like. As an FBI agent, if I was going to talk to a member of the public, I'd identify myself and display my credentials. It was routine. And anytime I would write up the interview for evidentiary purposes, the first thing I'd write was, I identified myself and let them know the purpose of the interview. Do you think lawmakers can address this issue with legislation? Some Democratic US senators have pushed Ice to require that agents identify themselves, and California lawmakers have introduced state legislation to ban law enforcement from masking on duty, arguing public servants have an obligation to show their faces – and not operate like Star Wars stormtroopers. Having clear laws, regulations and policies that require law enforcement to operate in an accountable fashion is critical. But a lot of this is about leadership. Law enforcement leaders are justifying masking as some dubious security measure instead of ensuring officers act in a professional manner at all times and holding them accountable when they don't. That has been a significant problem over time when police engage in illegal or unconstitutional activity. It's great when federal, state or local legislators pass laws requiring accountability, but those measures cannot be successful if police aren't expected by their own leaders to abide by those rules. What are the ongoing consequences of officers hiding their faces? The recent shootings of two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, by a suspect who allegedly impersonated an officer, highlights the danger of police not looking like police. Federal agents wearing masks and casual clothing significantly increases this risk of any citizen dressing up in a way that fools the public into believing they are law enforcement so they can engage in illegal activity. It is a public safety threat, and it's also a threat to the agents and officers themselves, because people will not immediately be able to distinguish between who is engaged in legitimate activity or illegitimate activity when violence is occurring in public. What are people supposed to do when they're not sure if an officer is legitimate? That question highlights the box that these tactics put Americans into. When they are not sure, the inclination is to resist, and that resistance is used to justify a greater use of force by the officers, and it creates this cycle that is harmful to people just trying to mind their business. And that can mean that these individuals are not just subject to use of force and very aggressive arrests on civil charges, but they could also face more serious criminal charges. The more illegitimate police act, the more resistance to their activities will result. And if the public doesn't trust officers, it becomes very difficult for them to do their jobs.
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
US lawmakers introduce bill to bar Chinese AI in US government agencies
SAN FRANCISCO, June 25 (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday planned to introduce a bill in both houses of Congress that would bar U.S. executive agencies from using artificial intelligence models developed in China, including those from DeepSeek. The introduction of the bill, dubbed the "No Adversarial AI Act," comes after Reuters reported that a senior U.S. official has concluded that DeepSeek is aiding China's military and intelligence operations and has had access to "large volumes" of Nvidia's (NVDA.O), opens new tab chips. DeepSeek shook the technology world in January with claims that it had developed an AI model that rivaled those from U.S. firms such as ChatGPT creator OpenAI at much lower cost. Since then, some U.S. companies and government agencies have banned the use of DeepSeek over data security concerns, and President Donald Trump's administration has mulled banning its use on U.S. government devices. The bill introduced Wednesday into the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican who chairs the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who is the ranking member on the committee, would create a permanent framework for barring the use of all Chinese AI models from U.S. executive agencies, as well as those from Russia, Iran and North Korea. The bill would require the Federal Acquisition Security Council to create a list of AI models developed in those countries and regularly update it. Federal agencies would not be able to buy or use those AI technologies without an exemption, such as for carrying out research, from the U.S. Congress or the Office of Management and Budget. The law also contains a provision that can be used to get technologies off the list with proof that they are not controlled or influenced by a foreign adversary of the U.S. "The U.S. must draw a hard line: hostile AI systems have no business operating inside our government," Moolenaar said in a statement. "This legislation creates a permanent firewall to keep adversary AI out of our most sensitive networks - where the cost of compromise is simply too high." Also co-sponsoring the bill in the House are Representative Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, and Representative Darin LaHood, an Illinois Republication. In the U.S. Senate, the bill will be led by Senators Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, and Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sadiq Khan is Britain's most cynical politician
Sadiq Khan is posing a unique problem for Keir Starmer at the most inconvenient time. At least part of the solution lies in the Prime Minister's grasp. It is striking how the era of devolution brought forth a cohort of politicians with absolutely no respect whatever for the basic principles of devolution. John Swinney, the First Minister of Scotland, whose responsibilities include keeping the health service and the ferries running, loves nothing more than to wax lyrical about the conflict in the Middle East, despite his having no more locus in Gaza and Israel than any other member of the Scottish public. Similarly, the Mayor of London just cannot resist any opportunity to stick his oar in where, from a strictly legislative perspective, he has absolutely nothing to contribute. Khan has announced (and I have no doubt that at least in his mind, his words were accompanied by a not-remotely-modest fanfare) that Labour must 'think again' about its welfare reforms, offering implied support to the more than 100 Labour MPs actively thinking of scuppering the Government's legislation. And why shouldn't Khan pontificate on issues over which he has absolutely no responsibility? It's not as if there are any problems in the capital that might need his attention. If the welfare reforms are rejected by the Commons, it would be genuinely catastrophic for the Government and the Labour Party. It's difficult to see how Starmer himself could remain much longer in office, especially if his Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, has already returned to the back benches. Labour's programme for office, its very raison d'être, will have been upended. The Prime Minister would be a political laughing stock, staring at the very real prospect of losing his entire majority at the next election. Quite a turnaround from that optimistic day almost exactly a year ago when Starmer first arrived in Downing Street. Would Khan welcome the scenario that, by his own words, he is encouraging to happen? What could be in it for him? That is the key question. He has form, of course, in encouraging terrible things to happen to his party – and potentially, the country – provided it would advance his own career. In 2015 he was a million miles away from Jeremy Corbyn politically; Khan has always been on the centre-Left of his party and had organised Ed Miliband's successful leadership campaign in 2010 (another feat for which the party and the country can thank him). Nevertheless, he, along with the current Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, courted the support of Left-wing Labour members in the contest to win the London mayoral nomination for the following year by nominating Corbyn for the party leadership. This was an entirely cynical act given that neither of them wanted Corbyn to win the contest. The tactic worked – for Khan, not Lammy. And also for Corbyn. But not for the country. Does Khan have another career change in mind today? Having won three consecutive elections for City Hall it would be natural if he was thinking ahead, perhaps even to a return to the green benches of the Commons. Why shouldn't he try to 'do a Boris' and use London as a springboard to reach Downing Street itself? Which is where Starmer has an opportunity to restore at least a portion of his lost authority. Government whips are at the moment ringing round their charges and threatening them with the loss of the party whip if they vote against the welfare reforms. If such suspension lasted long enough, the rebels would not be able to stand as Labour candidates at the next general election. It's a serious threat that Starmer has carried out before and undoubtedly will again. But why should backbench MPs be the only ones to face such censure? Khan is an elected official of the Labour Party and is subject to the national party's disciplinary code just as much as anyone else. By encouraging rebellion against the Government from a safe distance he is, in effect, seeking to wield power without responsibility which, as Stanley Baldwin said in reference to the press, is the prerogative of the harlot. Perhaps a senior member of the whips' office might want to include Mayor Khan on his list of phone calls in advance of the Commons vote, in order to remind him that even London Mayors need the approval of the central party – and therefore of the leader – in order to stand for a parliamentary seat. In fact, if Khan is considering standing in London again for a fourth term, he would still need the official endorsement of the party, unless he felt he could win as an independent. In a situation where the stakes are as high as they are, Starmer cannot afford to withhold any weapon available to him. Elected Labour mayors should be as accountable as any anonymous back bencher, and should face exactly the same disciplinary measures if they decide to foment rebellion in the ranks. Sadiq Khan should be reminded that it's in his own best interests, not to mention the interests of the people of London, that he turns his mind to the responsibilities of his own office, and away from the responsibilities he might want to have at some point in the future.
