Donald J. Trump: "RT: https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/117273030816566258" – Trump’s Truth

Trump’s Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-09-14 22:54:00 — www.trumpstruth.org

In a recent Truth Social post, President Donald Trump dismissed growing concerns over artificial intelligence (AI) safety, asserting that a “strong and smart (High IQ!) president” is the only necessary safeguard. He criticized calls for increased AI regulations, referring to fears of AI taking over or harming humanity as a “HOAX,” comparing them to past controversies like Russian election interference and his impeachments. Trump claimed his administration has prevented misuses of AI, though he provided no specific details. (axios.com)

Trump’s comments come in response to mounting pressure from AI leaders and CEOs, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who advocate for slowing AI development and implementing robust safety measures. Despite active discussions in Washington on appropriate AI regulations, Trump remains firmly opposed to additional oversight. (axios.com)

Critics argue that Trump’s stance against regulating AI highlights a dangerous embodiment of personalist rule. They emphasize the inherent risks and externalities posed by unregulated AI, such as economic disruption and existential threats to human civilization. These risks, compounded by fierce competition among AI firms, make the case for thoughtful regulation especially compelling. (theatlantic.com)

In summary, President Trump’s dismissal of AI safety concerns and his assertion that his leadership alone is sufficient oversight have sparked significant debate. While he downplays the need for regulation, experts and industry leaders continue to advocate for cautious and comprehensive approaches to AI development to mitigate potential risks.

Source article

Source: https://www.trumpstruth.org/statuses/41732

Trump facing AI backlash in Congress as push for guardrails intensifies | AI (artificial intelligence)

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-09-15 01:39:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump Dismisses AI Fears as “HOAX,” Faces Bipartisan Pushback in Congress

Donald Trump is facing rare bipartisan backlash after dismissing mounting concerns over artificial intelligence as a “HOAX” and “conspiracy.” On Monday, Trump insisted on social media that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” This statement comes as both Democrats and some Republicans in Congress call for urgent regulation of the rapidly advancing technology, citing risks to national security, jobs, and public safety.

Trump’s Dismissal at Odds with Public and Congressional Sentiment

Trump’s remarks stand in stark contrast to the growing consensus in Congress and among the American public. Recent surveys from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation show overwhelming support for a new federal agency to monitor and regulate AI—85% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans favor such oversight. Large majorities in both parties also support government safety tests for AI systems making critical decisions.

Despite this, Trump has repeatedly sidelined Congress on major issues during his second term and now appears increasingly isolated as lawmakers from both parties acknowledge the dangers posed by unregulated AI. Democratic Congressman Don Beyer criticized Trump’s social media post, warning, “History will look very poorly on that tweet. He’s not paying attention – or he’s paying attention to the wrong people. He’s being really foolish: not the first time he’s been really foolish but perhaps catastrophically foolish in this case.”

Congress Seeks Guardrails as Tech Leaders Sound Alarm

The debate over AI regulation has intensified following warnings from leading AI researchers and executives about the technology’s potential to cause catastrophic harm. Some experts have even suggested that, without proper oversight, AI could pose an existential threat to humanity within the next decade. Disclosures that AI models have hacked into outside organizations during safety tests have further heightened cybersecurity concerns.

In response, members of Congress are holding meetings with AI researchers and safety advocates, and several lawmakers are pushing for concrete legislative action. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has called on the Trump administration to provide a classified briefing to senators on AI and to work with Congress on implementing guardrails and blocking China from accessing advanced U.S. AI chips.

Industry and Political Divisions Remain

While many in the tech industry say they are open to increased oversight, skepticism remains about whether voluntary standards are sufficient. Barack Obama weighed in, stating that “voluntary standards made by a handful of tech companies won’t be enough,” and urging Washington to enact concrete laws and regulations.

Despite the urgency, Congress remains divided on the specifics of regulation, and some members doubt whether meaningful action will be taken. Meanwhile, Trump’s dismissive stance and claims that only a “STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT” is needed to control AI have left him increasingly isolated from both public opinion and the bipartisan push for oversight.

Conclusion

As concerns over AI’s risks reach new heights, Trump’s rejection of regulatory guardrails and his characterization of the issue as a “HOAX” put him at odds with both lawmakers and the American public. With bipartisan momentum building for government intervention, the coming months will test whether Congress can overcome political gridlock—or whether Trump’s resistance will further isolate his administration on one of the most pressing technological challenges of the era.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/15/trump-ai-guardrails-democrats-republicans

Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions ahead of midterms

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-09-14 20:02:00 — www.pbs.org

Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Push to Restrict Mail Ballots, Undercutting His False Claims of Fraud

The Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose new restrictions on mail-in ballots for the midterm elections, marking a significant defeat for Trump on an issue he has repeatedly claimed is central to election integrity.

Trump’s Efforts to Restrict Mail Voting

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow last-minute restrictions on mail ballots, even as voting was already underway in several states. The proposed plan would have forced states to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to a federal online portal, with the Postal Service empowered to refuse delivery of ballots to non-compliant states.

False Claims About Mail Ballot Fraud

Trump has long opposed mail voting and has falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Despite his repeated claims, the excerpt notes there is “virtually no evidence of fraud with mail ballots.” In fact, Trump himself has used mail voting, including as recently as this year, contradicting his public attacks on the process.

Court and State Officials Push Back

Lower courts blocked Trump’s plan, with a judge nominated by Trump himself issuing a preliminary injunction. Election officials from multiple states warned that the administration’s requirements would be impossible to implement on short notice and could disenfranchise millions of voters. A whistleblower report further revealed that the proposed system was not properly built and could result in entire batches of ballots being tossed due to technical errors.

Conclusion

Trump’s ongoing efforts to undermine mail voting are not supported by evidence, as highlighted by both the courts and state election officials. The Supreme Court’s decision allows states to continue using established mail ballot procedures, ensuring that voters can cast their ballots securely and reliably. Trump’s repeated falsehoods about mail voting fraud stand in stark contrast to the facts and his own voting behavior, underscoring the lack of basis for his claims.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-mail-ballot-restrictions-ahead-of-midterms

Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration Plan to Screen Mail-In Ballots

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-09-14 23:25:00 — www.nytimes.com

Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Mail Voting Overhaul Amid False Claims of Fraud

The Supreme Court on Monday halted a sweeping Trump administration plan that would have dramatically changed mail-in voting procedures just weeks before the midterm elections. The decision marks a significant defeat for President Trump, who has repeatedly claimed—without evidence—that mail voting is rife with fraud.

Trump’s Unsubstantiated Claims on Mail Voting

President Trump has long asserted that fraud is rampant in mail voting, despite a lack of credible evidence to support this claim. His administration’s plan, rooted in an executive order he signed in late March, would have required states to submit lists of approved mail voters and use Postal Service-approved envelopes with unique bar codes. Trump’s stated position, as reflected in the administration’s court filings, was that these were “only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements” within the Postal Service’s legal authority.

However, Democratic-led states and voting rights groups challenged the plan, arguing it was unconstitutional and posed an existential threat to the democratic process. They warned that the changes would introduce chaos and confusion as early voting began, potentially disenfranchising millions of voters.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

The Supreme Court’s ruling directly undercuts Trump’s repeated, unsubstantiated claims about widespread mail voting fraud. The majority wrote that the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” if the case continued, signaling skepticism about the administration’s legal arguments and the necessity of the proposed changes.

Despite Trump’s assertions, there is no evidence in the excerpt or in public record to support the idea that mail-in voting is inherently fraudulent. The legal battle itself, which played out as states began mailing ballots, may have sown confusion—a result that aligns with Trump’s broader effort to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote in an election his party might lose.

Chaos and Confusion: A Feature, Not a Bug?

While the Trump administration described the changes as modest, officials from both parties warned that implementing new rules so close to the election would likely cause mistakes, delays, and confusion for voters and election officials. Even Republican election officials in states that rely heavily on mail voting expressed relief at the Supreme Court’s decision to block the plan.

Conclusion: A Blow to Trump’s Narrative

The Supreme Court’s decision is a clear rebuke to President Trump’s ongoing campaign to undermine confidence in mail-in voting through false claims of fraud. The ruling ensures that voting by mail remains accessible and stable for the upcoming midterms, despite the administration’s efforts to introduce last-minute changes. As the legal dust settles, the court’s action stands as a victory for voting rights and a setback for Trump’s baseless narrative about mail voting fraud.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/14/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-mail-voting.html

Alex Bores launches $30 million effort to unify Dems on AI

Politics — 2026-09-14 22:56:00 — www.politico.com

Donald Trump Rejects Bipartisan Calls for Swift AI Regulation

Donald Trump has publicly rejected recent bipartisan calls to quickly regulate the artificial intelligence industry, according to a series of social media posts on Monday. As the debate over AI safety intensifies, both Republicans and Democrats have urged for immediate action to address the risks posed by rapidly advancing technology. However, Trump has positioned himself against these efforts, signaling resistance to swift regulatory measures.

Trump’s stance comes at a time when concerns about AI’s potential dangers are escalating. Last week, a former Anthropic researcher warned that artificial intelligence could threaten humanity’s future, prompting leaders from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Elon Musk to advocate for stronger industry guardrails and slower development. In response, political leaders from both parties have begun to coalesce around the need for a policy agenda to address AI’s risks.

Despite this growing consensus, Trump’s rejection of urgent regulation marks a notable divergence from the bipartisan momentum. His position puts him at odds with figures across the political spectrum, including Barack Obama, who recently called for Democrats to focus on AI policy.

Trump’s resistance to rapid regulation highlights a significant divide in the national conversation about how to manage the risks and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence. As the technology continues to evolve, the debate over who should set the rules—and how quickly—remains a central issue in American politics.

In summary, Trump’s explicit rejection of calls for swift AI regulation underscores his opposition to bipartisan efforts aimed at addressing the technology’s potential dangers. This stance is likely to shape the ongoing political battle over the future of AI policy in the United States.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/14/alex-bores-ai-group-who-decides-01076451

The Supreme Court won’t allow midterm mail-in voting limits : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-09-14 18:38:00 — www.npr.org

Trump’s Push to Restrict Mail-In Voting Rejected by Supreme Court Amid False Claims

The Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump’s efforts to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting for the midterm elections, keeping in place a lower court’s injunction that blocks the administration’s proposed changes. Trump had directed the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to require states to submit lists of voters’ names and addresses and to use specific barcodes on ballot envelopes for ballots to be delivered, a move that would have upended established election procedures in multiple states.

Trump’s Claims on Mail-In Voting

Trump justified his push for these changes by claiming they were necessary to prevent illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens. However, the excerpt notes that “many studies and audits show [illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens] is extremely uncommon.” In the legal proceedings over the USPS plan, the administration’s lawyers “have provided the courts with no evidence of mail-voting fraud.” This directly contradicts Trump’s repeated assertions that mail-in voting is rife with fraud.

Trump has been a vocal critic of mail-in voting, despite the fact that about one-third of voters used this method in the last two federal elections. In a social media post last year, Trump said he is “going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS” and claimed that “ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING.” Yet, the excerpt reveals a notable contradiction: “This year, Trump himself voted by mail in Florida.”

Court and Official Responses

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep the injunction in place was supported by a majority of justices, who found the Trump administration unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged that even if the USPS plan might fall within the agency’s authority, implementing it in the current election cycle would be “arbitrary and capricious” due to the lack of time for state and local officials to adapt.

Several Republican state election officials, including those from Utah—a state that primarily votes by mail—warned that Trump’s plan would “almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and election officials.”

Fact-Checking Trump’s Assertions

Trump’s repeated claims that mail-in voting enables widespread fraud are not supported by evidence presented in court or by independent studies cited in the excerpt. The legal record in this case shows that the administration failed to provide proof of significant mail-voting fraud. Furthermore, Trump’s own use of mail-in voting undermines his public campaign against the practice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump’s proposed mail-in voting restrictions underscores the lack of evidence behind his claims of widespread fraud. Despite his efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of mail-in ballots, the courts and election officials—including Republicans—have found no basis for the sweeping changes he sought. As mail-in voting continues to be a critical part of the U.S. electoral process, Trump’s rhetoric stands in stark contrast to both the facts and his personal actions.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/09/14/nx-s1-5962190/supreme-court-mail-in-voting-trump

Donald J. Trump: “Just like I delivered on the Great Big Beautiful Bill, which everyone said w…

Trump’s Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-09-14 19:02:00 — www.trumpstruth.org

Trump Promises $5,000 Payments to Adult Citizens if Republicans Win Congress

Donald Trump has made a bold new promise to voters, stating, “Just like I delivered on the Great Big Beautiful Bill, which everyone said was impossible to pass, and the $1,776 to our great Military Warriors, I will get the $5000 for adult citizens if the Republicans win the House and Senate. JUST GET OUT AND VOTE!!! President DJT.”

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Trump’s statement draws a direct line between his past legislative efforts and a new pledge of $5,000 payments to adult citizens, contingent on a Republican victory in both chambers of Congress. He references delivering “$1,776 to our great Military Warriors,” implying a previous direct payment to military personnel.

However, there is no record of a federal payment of $1,776 specifically to military members during Trump’s presidency. While some COVID-19 relief bills included stimulus checks for Americans, the amounts were $1,200 and $600, not $1,776, and these were not exclusive to military personnel. The claim that he “delivered” such a payment is not supported by available legislative records.

Exaggerated Legislative Achievements

Trump also refers to passing the “Great Big Beautiful Bill,” which he claims “everyone said was impossible to pass.” The statement does not specify which bill he is referencing, making it difficult to verify the claim. Throughout his presidency, Trump frequently described legislation in superlative terms, but fact-checks have often found these descriptions to be exaggerated or lacking in detail.

The $5,000 Promise

The new promise of $5,000 for adult citizens is presented as a direct benefit contingent on Republican electoral success. No details are provided about how such a payment would be funded or implemented, and there is no existing legislative proposal matching this description. Promising large direct payments to voters is a significant claim that would require substantial legislative action and funding, making it highly unlikely without bipartisan support and detailed policy planning.

Conclusion

Trump’s latest statement continues his pattern of making sweeping promises and referencing exaggerated or unsupported past achievements. The claim of delivering $1,776 to military personnel is not backed by legislative records, and the new $5,000 pledge lacks specifics or legislative groundwork. As voters consider these statements, it is important to scrutinize the facts and demand clarity on how such promises would be fulfilled.

Source article

Source: https://www.trumpstruth.org/statuses/41728

Hochul’s how-to guide to stopping ICE

Politics — 2026-09-14 16:03:00 — www.politico.com

President Donald Trump’s administration is pressing forward with a sweeping deportation campaign, including efforts to build or convert immigration detention facilities in New York—a move that has sparked significant pushback from state and local officials.

Trump’s Position on Immigration Enforcement

The Trump administration has maintained that its aggressive approach to immigration enforcement, including expanding detention capacity, is necessary to ensure that immigrants who use public resources are not authorized to remain in the country. The administration has also pushed a federal rule change set to take effect Friday, which would give immigration agents more leeway to deny green cards or visas to lawful immigrants deemed a “public charge”—a term for those using social safety net programs like Medicaid or food assistance. According to the Trump administration, this rule is intended to prevent immigrants who “drain public resources” from obtaining legal status.

State and Local Resistance

In response, New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s office has advised local governments that zoning and state environmental laws can be used to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from building or expanding detention facilities. Hochul’s administration has also enacted new laws requiring expanded public notice and hearings for any new or expanded immigration detention facility and prohibiting local governments from providing financial incentives for such projects.

New York lawmakers and Hochul agreed in May to a package of measures specifically designed to limit Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts. These actions are part of a broader push to resist what Hochul describes as Trump’s “sweeping deportation campaign.”

Legal and Human Impact

The Trump administration’s new “public charge” rule has drawn lawsuits from New York City officials and the state attorney general, who argue that the rule is overly broad and contradicts more than a century of legal precedent. Critics warn that the rule will force immigrants to avoid routine medical care, potentially leading to more medical emergencies and even deaths.

Conclusion

President Trump’s hardline immigration policies continue to face fierce resistance in New York, where state and local leaders are using every available legal tool to block the expansion of ICE detention facilities and challenge new federal rules. As the administration doubles down on its efforts to restrict access to legal status for immigrants who use public benefits, the battle over immigration enforcement in New York is set to intensify, with significant consequences for immigrant communities across the state.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/2026/09/14/hochuls-how-to-guide-to-stopping-ice-01075287

Trump nominates Wesley Hunt to Saudi Arabia ambassador post

Administration News — 2026-09-14 16:05:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Nominates Rep. Wesley Hunt as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

President Trump on Monday nominated Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) to serve as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, sending Hunt’s nomination and those of several other individuals to the Senate for confirmation. This move comes as the United States has not had a full-time ambassador to Saudi Arabia since Michael Ratney left office.

Trump’s decision to nominate Hunt highlights the ongoing vacancies in key diplomatic posts and underscores the importance of Senate confirmation for such appointments. The nomination process now shifts to the Senate, which will determine whether Hunt will assume the role.

No false claims, exaggerations, or disparaging remarks by Trump are cited in the excerpt regarding this nomination. The report focuses on the official action taken by Trump in nominating Hunt and the procedural step of Senate confirmation.

Conclusion

President Trump’s nomination of Rep. Wesley Hunt to the critical post of U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia marks a significant step in filling a longstanding diplomatic vacancy. The Senate’s upcoming confirmation process will decide whether Hunt will represent U.S. interests in Riyadh. No misleading statements or attacks by Trump are reported in connection with this announcement.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6088993-trump-nominates-wesley-hunt-ambassador/

Kennedy Center says it’s on the brink of bankruptcy, might close as early as Tuesday : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-09-14 13:25:00 — www.npr.org

Trump’s Role at the Center of Kennedy Center Crisis: Claims, Controversies, and Consequences

The Kennedy Center is facing an unprecedented crisis, with its administration warning the board that bankruptcy could force the institution to close as soon as Tuesday. The majority of the center’s administration and board were selected by President Trump, who now serves as its chairman. As the situation escalates, Trump’s influence and claims about his unique ability to save the institution have come under scrutiny.

Trump’s Argument for Renaming and Control

The Kennedy Center’s administration, dominated by Trump loyalists, has argued that the institution is in dire financial shape and that President Trump is the only person capable of fundraising at the necessary scale or overseeing an extensive renovation. They claim that, like major donors at hospitals and universities, Trump deserves to have his name on the building in recognition of his supposed fundraising prowess and management skills.

Fact-Checking the Claims

However, the excerpt reveals significant contradictions and disputed claims within the Trump-aligned board’s narrative:

• Safety Claims Disputed: Board resolutions filed by Rep. Joyce Beatty state the center is unsafe for continued occupancy, yet Beatty asserts that the construction consultants never made such a declaration.
• Financial Crisis: The board claims the Kennedy Center is in such a precarious fiscal position that it cannot meet payroll or maintenance obligations within weeks. This dire assessment is used to justify drastic measures and reinforce Trump’s central role.
• Staff Loyalty and Experience: Most staff who remain are described as loyal to Trump, and the current president and CEO, Matt Floca, lacks experience in artistic direction, fundraising, or arts administration—unlike leaders at similar institutions.
• Exodus and Politicization: The Kennedy Center has seen artists and audiences flee, with its event calendar and donations shrinking dramatically. Many attribute this to the center’s politicization under Trump’s leadership.

Trump’s Position and the Board’s Justification

The administration’s argument, as reported in the excerpt, is that only Trump can rescue the Kennedy Center, both financially and operationally. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick echoed this, claiming that renovation would cost far less if Trump managed the project, calling him “the greatest builder in the world” who will deliver “on time and on budget.”

Conclusion

The Kennedy Center’s current crisis is deeply intertwined with President Trump’s leadership and the board he selected. The administration’s claims about safety, finances, and Trump’s unique abilities are disputed by other board members and consultants, raising questions about the accuracy and motivations behind these statements. As the institution’s future hangs in the balance, the controversy highlights the risks of politicizing cultural institutions and the consequences of unsubstantiated claims at the highest levels of leadership.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/09/14/nx-s1-5968690/kennedy-center-financial-physical-state