'Criminal investigation' launched into Tate brothers: Florida attorney general
Florida's attorney general said Tuesday that a criminal investigation has been opened into self-described misogynist influencer Andrew Tate and his brother, who flew to the southern US state last week from Romania, where they faced rape and human trafficking charges.
"These guys have publicly admitted to participating in what very much appears to be soliciting, trafficking, preying upon women around the world," James Uthmeier said in comments posted online by a reporter with EW Scripps broadcasting.
"This is an ongoing criminal investigation and we're going to use every tool we have to ensure that justice is served," he said.
Andrew Tate arrived in the United States on Thursday -- the first time he has been out of Romania since his 2022 arrest.
Prosecutors in the eastern European country allege that Tate, 38, his brother Tristan, 36, and two women set up a criminal organization in Romania and Britain in early 2021 and sexually exploited several victims.
Andrew Tate, speaking to reporters after arriving in Fort Lauderdale last week, said he and his brother have "yet to be convicted of any crime in our lives ever."
"We live in a democratic society where it's innocent until proven guilty, and I think my brother and I are largely misunderstood," he said.
The government in Bucharest said the Tates, who have British and US nationalities and have been under judicial supervision in Romania, need to return to court on March 24, with a no-show potentially leading to "preventive arrest."
Four British women, who have accused Tate of rape and coercive control in a separate civil case in the United Kingdom, recently voiced concern that the US government would help the Tates escape.
In a joint statement, the four British women said they "feel retraumatized by the news that the Romanian authorities have given in to pressure from the Trump administration to allow Andrew Tate to travel."
Romanian Foreign Minister Emil Hurezeanu has said Richard Grenell, special envoy for President Donald Trump, raised the case at the Munich Security Conference in February.
Trump last week denied all knowledge of any advocacy for the Tates from his administration.
"I know nothing about that," Trump told reporters. "We'll check it out."
A Romanian court has granted a British request to extradite the Tates, but only after legal proceedings in Romania have concluded.
Andrew Tate moved to Romania years ago after first starting a webcam business in the United Kingdom.
He leapt to fame in 2016 when he appeared on the "Big Brother" UK reality television show, but was removed after a video emerged showing him attacking a woman.
He then turned to social media platforms to promote his often misogynistic and divisive views on how to be successful.
Banned from Instagram and TikTok for his views, Tate is followed by more than 10 million people on X, where his posts are often homophobic and racist.
cl/aha
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
39 minutes ago
- CNBC
Europe is trying to woo Southeast Asia — but it won't win it over the U.S. or China
European leaders are looking to Southeast Asia with renewed interest amid Washington's aggressive tariff agenda, but experts warn that the state of regional trade ties makes it challenging to disrupt the U.S. or China's hold. Southeast Asia is in a predicament: its ally China is ramping up its advances in the South China Sea, with state-of-the-art Chinese bomber planes. spotted in the disputed Paracel Islands in the region late last month as tensions flare with the Philippines. Meanwhile, its other ally, the U.S., hangs the threat of tariffs over the world, with uncertainty mounting as a 90-day reprieve is set to expire in July. Europe is now seizing the opportunity to surface as an alternative ally to emerging Asian nations, with French President Emmanuel Macron calling for stronger ties between the blocs at the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue that wrapped up earlier this month. Southeast Asia brings Europe the opportunity to access another market for its defense sector, according to Bob Herrera-Lim, managing director at Teneo. Ifri's Pajon adds that the region could also provide Europe a diversified supply chain to hedge against economic reliance on the U.S. or China and significant raw material reserves essential for the EU's green and digital transition. Europe is ambitious in its hopes for emerging Asia, but analysts nevertheless doubt it can overtake the U.S. or China's influence in the region. "Europe, on its own, can offer Southeast Asia a valuable option to hedge against the risks of overdependence on either China or the United States," Céline Pajon, head of Japan and Indo-Pacific Research at Ifri's Center for Asian Studies, told CNBC by email. While ties span more than half a century, Southeast Asian and European relations have been mired in various challenges that Teneo's Herrera-Lim attributes to factors such as geographic distance and diverging views over politics or the environment. In his keynote speech at the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue, Macron called for stronger ties between Europe and the Indo-Pacific's "new special relationship." He stressed that both blocs are facing the "potential erosion of long-time alliances" and the threat of countries vying for control or resorting to force, drawing direct parallels between China's advances in the South-China Sea and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yet similar experiences alone might not be enough to sway emerging Asia away from the U.S. or China, according to Herrera-Lim. "Form follows function in Southeast Asia," he told CNBC in a call, "Relationships are built on economic ties in Southeast Asia, more than anything else." While the EU has trade ties with Singapore and Vietnam, talks for other bilateral deals or an EU-ASEAN wide free trade agreements (FTA) have been stalled for years, and Ifri's Pajon said that the bloc "still has progress to make" in increasing its presence and investment in the region. Meanwhile, Beijing remains the Southeast Asia's largest trading partner since 2009, with total goods in trade reaching $982.3 billion in 2024. The U.S. follows behind in second place, with an estimated $476.8 billion goods in trade last year. The EU trails behind in third place, with roughly 258.7 billion euros ($299.7 billion) of goods in trade over the same period. Without any meaningful reform or the promise of increased trade in the future, Herrera-Lim said that it will be difficult for Europe to compete against the bloc's established trading partners. "If in the next week or next month, China says, 'We're doing reforms so that domestic markets are opened up in China for Southeast Asian goods,' [then] Southeast Asian countries would line up to get access to the Chinese market. Independent of their politics around many of these issues," he said. While Europe might not be able to replace the U.S. or China in emerging Asia, it can nevertheless offer transparent, reliable partnerships that aren't about zero-sum competition, Lizza Bomassi Research Analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), told CNBC by email. "Europe's value proposition lies in being a reliable partner in critical areas like energy security, green infrastructure, and digital governance," she said, "These are areas where Southeast Asian countries want to diversify and build resilience, especially given concerns about overdependence." Ifri's Pajon said that strengthening ties with Europe would allow Southeast Asia to diversify its strategic partnerships and enhance their capacity to resist hegemonic pressures. "The presence of more partners, including Europe, raises the diplomatic and reputational costs for China to escalate [territorial disputes in the region], particularly given Beijing's emphasis on a 'peaceful rise'," Bomassi said. "In this context, the EU-ASEAN partnership isn't about hard military deterrence, but it serves as a crucial symbolic defence mechanism. It reinforces that Southeast Asia isn't isolated and has multiple partners, making the region more resilient to coercion," she added.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Frank McCourt's TikTok Bid Challenges The Internet's ‘Walled Gardens'
As Washington's stated deadline for a TikTok divestment draws nearer, real estate billionaire Frank McCourt has emerged as one of the most interesting contenders vying for control of the viral video platform. Notably, McCourt says he doesn't want TikTok for profit or power. 'This bid is about rebalancing power in the digital world,' McCourt told Forbes in an interview. 'We want to transform TikTok from a platform that extracts value from users into one that empowers them.' With just days remaining before the June 19 deadline to force a sale of or ban it outright, U.S. President Trump is reportedly preparing to grant a third extension, buying ByteDance and U.S. bidders more time to reach a potential deal. While the delays and negotiations so far speak to complex geopolitics and commercial uncertainty, they also bring to the fore systemic questions around the kind of internet people really want. McCourt is betting that Americans may want something radically different: Through his initiative Project Liberty, McCourt proposes to replatform TikTok using the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol — an open-source infrastructure designed to give users control over their data, identities and digital relationships. Instead of operating as a surveillance system reliant on addictive algorithms and opaque ad targeting, TikTok under McCourt's ownership would become 'open, interoperable, and user-owned,' he said. What would that look like? McCourt's consortium includes investor and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, entrepreneur Kevin O'Leary as well as a slate of technologists and public interest advocates. They're working with Guggenheim Securities and law firm Kirkland & Ellis to build what McCourt calls 'The People's Internet' — a decentralized alternative to today's predominantly closed digital ecosystems. The plan would also integrate TikTok with Frequency, a decentralized platform for creators that enables audience portability and transparent monetization. 'Whether or not we acquire TikTok, we're scaling DSNP and Frequency to empower users, creators, and developers to build a better digital experience outside the current walled gardens,' McCourt said. That approach ties in trends already underway in digital infrastructure: Social platform MeWe began transitioning to DSNP in 2022, while digital wellness app WeAre8 and AI learning company have signed on as Project Liberty partners. Meanwhile, states like Utah are pushing legislation like the Digital Choice Act, which Project Liberty helped craft, requiring greater transparency and interoperability from Big Tech. 'The Utah Digital Choice Act is one of the most promising, bipartisan efforts to truly reform the social media ecosystem by giving users more choice and ownership over their personal data,' noted Sarah Hubbard, associate director for technology and democracy of Harvard's Ash Center. 'What happens in Utah with HB418 might set a precedent for other states to follow,' she said. Many reform efforts to curb Big Tech's power have skeptics wondering whether structural change is at all possible in a system wired for monopoly, given that even open infrastructure can also be captured by concentrated power. 'Decentralization and federation aren't perfect, set-it-and-forget-it defenses,' stated science fiction writer Cory Doctorow in a Medium post pointing to email — the internet's oldest and most successful decentralized system — as a cautionary tale. 'Email is nominally decentralized, but most email traffic goes through a handful of extremely large servers run by a cartel of companies — Google, Apple, Microsoft, and a few internet service providers,' he said. 'This makes running your own mail server so hard that it's nearly impossible.' Others argue that even a decentralized, 'values-aligned' TikTok won't resolve the deeper structural issues baked into the American internet economy.'If the core concerns are digital-data surveillance and the targeting of individual users in ways that can manipulate or endanger them, then we have plenty of domestic threats to face first,' notes Kyle Chayka in The New Yorker. Even within the deal landscape, McCourt faces stiff competition. Names such as Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon's have surfaced as potential bidders, while President Trump in January said he wants the U.S. to receive a 50% stake in TikTok as a condition of any sale, raising concerns about regulatory overreach and political leverage. In a previous interview with Forbes, McCourt framed his TikTok bid as a response to a broken internet. 'Removing ByteDance's algorithm isn't a limitation — it's freedom,' he said, adding his vision to build a TikTok where users can control exactly how they discover and experience content 'instead of an algorithm secretly deciding for them.' McCourt insists his goal is not control, but decentralization. 'I have no desire to become the CEO of TikTok,' he said. 'This bid isn't about consolidating power, it's about decentralizing it.' Even with a strong public-interest pitch, McCourt may have to persuade investors that such a reimagining won't undercut TikTok's revenue engine. Nonetheless, the vision has attracted high-profile backers — including Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, who told Semafor that a remade TikTok 'will embrace the critical values of privacy, data sovereignty, and user mental health.' Whether users will trade algorithmic ease for autonomy – and are ready to reclaim the internet from the systems that shaped it – is the million-dollar question. 'We're not just acquiring a platform,' he said. 'We're proposing to fundamentally change how it's governed and how data is handled, using open protocols and shared ownership.' Long term, McCourt believes, the internet is likely going to evolve into a public utility model, interoperable, decentralized, and 'governed by the people it serves.'
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The peril of government by soldiers
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now Trump and his Cabinet advisers are making things even worse by repeating a tragic mistake: calling in the military, a force ill-suited to the job of ordinary policing, to suppress the expression of dissent against unpopular and unwarranted government actions. We have seen this before. It did not end well for those who deployed the troops against the American people. Advertisement In 1766, Benjamin Franklin testified before the British Parliament in opposition to the newly instated Stamp Act. Colonists had protested the act — in part because the burdensome tax on printed materials like newspapers, pamphlets, and almanacs — came at a moment of economic distress, but mainly because the act violated a right deeply rooted in British history: the right of the people to consent to taxation. Advertisement The colonists had no representatives in Parliament, and their colonial legislatures had not been consulted on the Stamp Act. Protests were mostly peaceful but turned violent in Boston, where crowds destroyed the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson, believed (wrongly) to be a supporter of the tax. A member of Parliament asked Franklin whether soldiers could enforce the Stamp Act. Franklin tried to disabuse Parliament of this terrible idea which was, in any event, a violation of England's Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that keeping a standing army in peacetime without the people's consent was against the law. If Britain sends a military force to America, Franklin said, 'they will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do without them. They will not find a rebellion; they may indeed make one.' Franklin's advice was ignored. The crown sent troops to enforce constitutionally dubious laws such as the Townshend Duties, which levied import taxes on tea, glass, paper, and paint, among other daily goods. As Franklin anticipated, protesters were inflamed. The two thousand soldiers who occupied Boston in 1768 provoked the infamous Boston Massacre of 1770; five townsmen were gunned down on King Street in front of the Old State House. Four years later, after the Boston Tea Party, Parliament stripped Massachusetts of the self-government guaranteed by its charter and placed the Colony under martial law. The military governor, General Thomas Gage, once more used soldiers to suppress dissent. On April 18, 1775, he sent a thousand regulars out into the countryside, aiming to arrest resistance leaders and capture stockpiled weapons. This time they did find Americans in arms — the rebellion was sparked, and the Colonies were lost. Advertisement In Boston, this pattern of resistance was deeply etched in the consciousness of its fiercely independent population. Nearly a century before the Battles of Lexington and Concord, townsmen in Boston had arrested Edmund Andros, a soldier sent by King James II to seize the Colony's original charter and create an authoritarian government. Nearly 80 years after Lexington and Concord, President Franklin Pierce dispatched US Marines to Boston to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Anthony Burns, who had escaped from slavery in Virginia and fled to Boston, was captured by US marshals in May 1854. Boston abolitionists organized massive protests to prevent his deportation. They were unsuccessful. The protests turned into an assault on the courthouse where Burns was held, and a deputy marshal was killed in the fray. Fifteen hundred state militia and several hundred marines, supported by horse-drawn artillery, escorted Burns down State Street to a federal ship waiting to bring him back to Virginia. Massive force prevented further violence in Boston on that day, but it also spurred a transformational movement. Moderate and even pro-slavery Bostonians whose fortunes were built on New England's textile economy and its ties to the Cotton Kingdom were shocked by the scene of federal troops trampling the freedom of their city and Commonwealth. In the words of Amos Lawrence, son of the founder of the Lawrence textile mills, 'We went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs, and waked up stark mad Abolitionists.' Advertisement Boston had known abolitionists for decades — a small minority of its citizens, generally unpopular for their strident views. But the Burns incident triggered a change of heart among moderates, conservatives, and compromisers, people who tolerated the seemingly distant evil of slavery because it served their self-interest. The sight of marines with bayonets enforcing the law of slavery on the site where the Boston Massacre occurred, where colonists had arrested Andros and rejected a government of soldiers, crystallized what was at stake in appeasing the Slave Power — the planter oligarchs of the Southern states who wielded disproportionate influence in the US government. This change of heart explains the surge of support for a new antislavery party in the elections of 1856 and 1860. Thousands of New England men, not just a handful of abolitionists, turned out to enlist when, after the election of 1860, the Slave Power launched a violent rebellion against the Union. There are echoes of the Fugitive Slave Law in Trump's campaign to arrest and deport immigrants. Hard-working people who perform vital labor for the nation are being persecuted for seeking a better life and the human dignity America claims to stand for. The tactics of masked ICE agents who snatch people off the streets, terrorize their communities, and deny them due process is eerily reminiscent of the actions of the slave-catchers of the 1850s. Of course, today's issues are different from those of earlier centuries. Nevertheless, certain fundamental principles are essential and eternal if we claim to believe in self-government. Government should operate by deliberation and consent, not force or fiat. All people should be secure in their persons and properties, and government can intrude on this security only with due process and legitimate warrants. All people have the right to assemble and express their views, including criticism of the government, without fear of molestation. Advertisement Trump has undermined these principles and now turns to the military to enforce his will in the face of justified resistance. Wittingly or not, Trump seems to be betting that Americans have forgotten this history, that these constitutional traditions are dead. That leaves it up to the American people, in another moment of peril, to prove otherwise.
