President Donald Trump is reportedly "open" to meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian at the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week.

The post Report: Trump ‘Open’ to Meeting Iranian President at U.N., Deciding ‘If and When Do I Blow the Entire Nation Up’ appeared first on Breitbart.

Waymo bans weapons inside its driverless taxis—and recent incidents show the company can stop a ride and call police when a firearm is detected.

The post Your Waymo Is Watching You. Don’t Bring a Gun. appeared first on The Truth About Guns.

Mexico’s government is remaining silent about the details surrounding the kidnapping and subsequent release of a politically connected jeweler in the cartel-controlled state of Sinaloa.

The post Mexican Authorities Remain Silent After Kidnapping, Release of Politically Connected Jeweler appeared first on Breitbart.

Disney's "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" star Mark Ruffalo and the equally far-left Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren, are begging radical California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) not to drop his lawsuit attempting to prevent the merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery.

The post Mark Ruffalo, Senator Warren Freak Out Over Reports of a Paramount Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement: ‘Don’t You Dare Cave’ appeared first on Breitbart.

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinpeng will likely confront China’s ties to Iran, the artificial intelligence race, Chinese prisoners, and Taiwan policy in their meeting in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 24.

Adam Savit, director for China Policy at America First Policy Institute, said the summit should be viewed as a follow-up to Trump’s May trip to China, not a reset.

“It’s building on the gains that President Trump’s leverage brought to Beijing, basically opened up personal diplomacy and a channel for negotiations,” he told the Daily Signal.

Iran

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced sanctions on countries that support Iran, raising questions about if China, Iran’s top trading partner, would be included.

Trump will be able to talk directly with Chinese officials about the conflict, revealing how far the administration is willing to go to hold China accountable for potential involvement.

China claims they don’t directly fund Iran, but they accounted for 90% of their oil revenues at least before the war, which funds Iran’s treasure chest, Savit said.

“There’s an interesting tightrope that they’re walking, in which they’re trying to hold countries accountable for supporting Iran, but they also want to maintain a relatively predictable and stable U.S.-China relationship,” Heritage Foundation China expert Andrew Harding told the Daily Signal.

China has rare earth mineral leverage on the U.S., but the U.S. has leverage on chips, and both countries can play these tools against one another, said Michael Lucci, founder of State Armor.

“I would expect all that to be at play under the guise of both sides projecting as if the relationship is stable,” Lucci said. “The countries are competing extremely viciously and separating from vulnerabilities from one another as quickly as possible. But on the surface, both sides are content to protect stability.”

Artificial Intelligence

The AI race is top of mind for many in Washington heading into the summit.

Tech companies like Anthropic and Open AI have recently raised concerns about safety threats associated with rapidly developing AI, and many have urged the president to make a deal with Xi to slow down the AI race.

The Trump administration has taken a light tough approach to AI, stressing the need to win the AI race with China instead of imposing regulations on emerging U.S. technology.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said Trump and Xi would win a Nobel Peace prize if they made a deal on AI.

“Even if just the U.S. and China could agree on some shared standards and testing for development of this technology, I think that’d be a wonderful accomplishment that the two of them can deliver,” he told Fortune.

But Trump has made clear that he is not interested in pursuing a slowdown.

Altman, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, and Qualcomm’s Cristiano Amon plan to attend next week’s Sept. 24 state dinner with Trump and Xi.

Trump’s AI policy is heavily influenced by Huang, who received approval from the government to sell H200 processors to major Chinese technology firms. Trump could make an agreement to sell more chips to China, though China hawks warn against weakening existing controls on semiconductors because it could enhance China’s military and intelligence capabilities.

Taiwan

“Even if there’s one or two mentions about it, that alone could be the defining issue of the summit,” Harding said.

Trump’s last visit to China left unanswered questions about potential changes to U.S. Taiwan policy. Trump said that arms sales to Taiwan can be “a very good negotiating chip,” though the U.S. usually uses arm sales as a way to help Taiwan deter China.

“President Trump should make clear that U.S. decisions on Taiwan policy, including arms sales, will be based on Taiwan’s security requirements and U.S. law and not used as bargaining leverage in any negotiation with Beijing,” writes Harding.

Lucci does not expect U.S. policy on Taiwan to change.

“President Trump, in his first year, approved a record amount of weapons for Taiwan,” he said, “and I think it’s very important to note that the amount of weapons Trump approved to Taiwan in 2025 is more than the entire four years of President Joe Biden.”

Release of Hostages

“This is just how the Chinese Communist Party negotiates,” Lucci said. “They grab a bunch of American hostages so that we have to ask for them back in the next summit.”

Trump is expected to discuss with Xi the release of American hostages such as Min Zin, a University of California-Berkeley scholar, who was detained in China in June when he traveled there for an academic workshop.

“Ezra Jin was released after the last summit, so I’m sure that we’ll be looking for more religious leaders and other people on exit bans and things like that to be released,” Lucci said.

Additionally, Jimmy Lai, a 78-year-old newspaper publisher sentenced to 20 years in prison, will die in prison unless Trump is able to secure his freedom. Trump promised in his 2024 campaign to free Lai, but it has not yet happened.

The hostages demonstrate that “the lack of freedom of religion in China, and that only state-sanctioned churches can can operate freely,” Savit said.

“What [Trump] can do is keep the pressure up, raise the issue, put it in the mix for the summit conversation, but you know it ultimately comes down to Beijing calculating their own interests in these exchanges,” he said.

One person was killed and seven others were injured when a nonagenarian bulldozed her Buick SUV Saturday into a patio populated with brunch diners on the Jersey Shore.

The post Report: Senior, 93, Mistakes Gas Pedal for Brake and Plows SUV into Outdoor Cafe, 7 Injured, 1 Dead appeared first on Breitbart.

While President Donald Trump wants to put an end to mail-in voting, more Democrats plan to vote in person this fall than in past elections, according to an NBC News poll released Sunday.

The post Poll: More Democrats Plan to Ditch Mail-In Ballots and Vote in Person in Midterms appeared first on Breitbart.

NASCAR drivers Ryan Blaney and Carson Hocevar were caught on video trading punches on pit road after Blaney smashed into him

The post WATCH: Ryan Blaney and Carson Hocevar Trade Punches in Wild NASCAR Brawl appeared first on Breitbart.

America’s top universities can’t quit and won’t quit DEI no matter how unpopular it is with the American people.

A recent editorial in the New York Times titled “This California Educational Juggernaut Doesn’t Need the SAT,” highlighted the mentality that has led to the erosion of merit in our nation’s top schools and the flagging public support that was once near universal.

The author of the piece, Miriam Pawel, acknowledged that the University of California’s abandonment of the SAT, which had already become quite watered down in recent decades, may have led to a less able student body, but that it didn’t matter.

By admitting more nonwhite students with weaker test scores, the state is fixing inequality through DEI by giving them a new leg up in a world that’s unfair to them, or something like that.

What about exceptional student applicants who don’t check the correct, “historically oppressed” boxes? Meh, too bad.

Pawel argued that the focus on equality over merit hasn’t really been a problem, and if it is, then the K-12 schools are really at fault and need to be fixed.

You can thank teachers’ unions and the leftists in the state capital who block any kind of reforms that would help on that front.

“What has made the University of California exceptional is its commitment to increase access without sacrificing excellence,” Pawel then wrote without evidence.

She also went with this incredible line: “Students on University of California campuses may struggle with basic math, but they are graduating at record rates.”

In other words, students at California’s “flagship” universities may lack the basic skills once expected of them, but they are graduate regardless. See, everything is fine!

The truth is that at the end of the day bringing in the best and brightest students and giving them the tools to actually succeed isn’t their priority.

A college degree in far too many cases is no longer about developing people with the greatest skills, the most expansive minds, and the strongest leadership abilities. Instead, our top schools have become racial and ideological sorting machines, giving stamps of approval to the next generation of pseudo-elites regardless of their abilities.

The left-wing, racialist mindset is pervasive. It saturates the ever-expanding bureaucracies that control higher ed and explode costs for students and taxpayers. It creates a chilling atmosphere among the dwindling faculty who still take their expertise and roles as educators seriously. And it vicariously infects every institution that relies on college graduates.

Unwinding this system is daunting, but it must be done. It won’t happen at the behest of the universities themselves. They’ve too successfully created a self-replicating system of DEI that builds upon itself.

Instead, it’s going to take a massive, ongoing, and relentless effort at the state and federal levels to undo the DEI problem. And not just through the courts. This Trump administration has taken that job even more seriously than the first go around. That’s likely, at least in part, because of the Great Awokening opening so many eyes to the threat.

But their efforts are nonetheless commendable. No longer are America’s top universities going to be handed a blank check to carry out a perverse, discriminatory agenda. They will either reform or face lawsuits and defunding.

For instance, the Treasury Department announced in early September that “schools rebranding race-based preferences as equitable, inclusive, or diversity-enhancing does not change their discriminatory nature,” and proposed regulations to “establish a clear standard, and the institutions that continue to use discriminatory practices will no longer receive the benefits of federal tax-exempt status.”

Wonderful.

As one might expect, this announcement from the Treasury Department wasn’t taken very well by higher education’s white knights, er, I should say perfectly statistically racially diverse knights in the left-leaning media.

“Trump’s Latest Move Threatens Any College That Seeks to Promote Equality” read one headline at Inside Higher Ed.

“New IRS proposal threatens universities’ tax-exempt status over diversity programs,” read another from Politico.

The administration isn’t going after “diversity” or “equality” in higher education. It’s going after a broad set of programs that illegally racially discriminate—mostly against white and Asian students—to boost favored racial groups that many of our nation’s top schools have decided to admit even if their qualifications don’t match their peers.

Now, you might be thinking, “Hey, didn’t the Supreme Court already rule against that nonsense?”

It did.

But as we’ve seen, schools have found ways to dodge the ruling by relabeling programs, changing admission metrics to appear neutral while fishing for particular racial outcomes, and fishing for the “right” groups by essentially asking students to mention their race in admissions essays, giving them a leg up in admissions.

These schemes are eroding the quality of the student body at many schools, but they clearly don’t care. The few lonely voices on the inside practically begging their institutions to bring in students who don’t require years of remedial courses have mostly been ignored.

If our nation’s top schools want to commit institutional seppuku on behalf of DEI, it’s not going to be easy to stop them. But we can, at least, do what should have been done long ago: remove the massive financial aid the federal government has handed them on our behalf for generations.

And if they want to essentially take the path of passive-aggressively propping up DEI now, tomorrow, and forever, we have every right—in fact, I’d say our government has the prerogative—to remove its considerable support entirely.

Honestly, I wish it didn’t have to be this way. There was a time, long ago, in which it made sense for Americans to extend broad funding to our nation’s colleges and universities. They’ve provided the U.S. with a significant technological edge; they were once a pathway for Americans of many different backgrounds to find success.

But the ideological excess that was once fringe and ancillary has become their primary reason for being. Not only has higher education been compromised and gobbled up by its far-left wing, it’s for far too long shut the door on talented young Americans because they have the “wrong” skin color. They’ve become racialist, barely disguised activist factories.

The only thing that’s going to stop the scam is for this administration and ones that follow to methodically, relentlessly pressure them to change, obey the law, and start serving the American people rather than the interests of globalist, race-obsessed leftists.

Eagle Pass Police Department officers assigned to the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force arrested an El Paso woman at the Camino Real Port of Entry on Thursday. Authorities say the suspect, 29-year-old Melanie Christine Cuellar, had been sought in connection with a deadly 2025 hit-and-run accident.

The post Woman Wanted for Fatal Hit-and-Run Crash in El Paso Arrested at Texas Border After Year in Mexico appeared first on Breitbart.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has put illegal voters on notice with the 2026 midterms only weeks away, announcing charges against 16 people in multiple states for election crimes that include noncitizens casting ballots.

The post VIDEO: DOJ Crackdown on Illegal Alien Voting Picks Up Steam with Charges Announced in Seven States appeared first on Breitbart.

Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) said some of President Donald Trump’s advisers “are compromising his legacy.” Host Margaret Brennan said, “You have been speaking for months about your concerns regarding President Trump’s immigration policies but

The post Rep. Salazar: Some of Trump’s Advisers ‘Are Compromising His Legacy’ appeared first on Breitbart.

In case you haven’t heard, Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei has published a new essay about the need to “pace” the class of products his own firm is pioneering. Amodei’s essay, plus a highly-orchestrated whistleblower campaign about the supposedly existential AI threat has elevated the debate about regulating frontier AI models. A consensus seems to be forming that the best option is a neutral, “third party” watchdog.

At first blush, this sounds promising. In practice, however, neutrality is as rare as a hundred karat diamond and as elusive as a snow leopard. I also have deep concerns about the “effective altruism” program that pervades the space. It’s hard to trust a watchdog made up of utilitarian atheists who think they’re building actual intelligent beings, and who, as Christopher Rufo put it, “have abysmal instincts on so many big-ticket issues—sexuality, addiction, climate, shrimp, human nature.”

Still, I assume that Amodei and others like him are sincere. But motives don’t much matter. If the structure is wrong, a watchdog will concentrate power rather than protect the public and enhance domestic innovation. That is, it will serve the firms it oversees and the political class that wants to choreograph the economy. Rather than sharpening the natural discipline imposed by market competition and civil liability, it will dull it.

Even if we set aside the visions of a murderous Super AI, reasonable people still worry about frontier risks. They would like some assurance before a system scales up and is released into the wild.

But first, let’s understand where we are. We don’t live in a lawless jungle. We already have powerful forces in place, including market competition and liability laws. If a company ships a harmful model, it will get sued. If the mistake is bad enough, it will die and its competitors will live on.

That is why companies have general counsels, insurers, and risk teams. Tort law is still sorting the details for large language models and agentic systems. (I myself am a party to the $1.5 billion class action settlement involving copyright violations by Anthropic.) Still, the basic incentive is strong: If you bear the risk, you invest in testing, red-teaming, guardrails, and governance. You do this before release, not after someone is harmed.

Any third-party evaluator of advanced AI models must reinforce this existing discipline. It must not become a shield that blunts responsibility or a cartel that fixes the pace of innovation and locks out upstart competitors.

Here’s my working list of what the members of a neutral watchdog would need to have:

• Financial independence. No “issuer-pays” model that lets a lab pick and fund its own referee. Use a neutral clearinghouse that assigns evaluators and pays them from pooled assessments or risk-based premiums. Tie fees to rigor, not to pleasing the client.
• Ideological independence. It shouldn’t launder a political agenda through “safety.” Require viewpoint diversity on core questions—national security, speech, bioethics—and publish board members’ affiliations, funding, and prior advocacy.
• Reputational independence. If an organization markets, lobbies, consults, or receives grants from the firms it audits, it’s an agent, not an umpire. Bar evaluators from groups that work for the same clients. Cool-off periods before and after engagements should be standard.
• Philosophical clarity. Members should understand the differences between organisms and machines, and between humans and machines. They should grasp the strong critiques of “strong” AI, such as John Searle’s famous Chinese Room thought experiment. They should know the difference between real mental states, and machine outputs designed to mimic the actions of real people.   
• Moral seriousness. Evaluators should affirm inalienable moral truths—see the Declaration of Independence for examples—that aren’t hostage to a utilitarian calculus. They should defend moral bright lines, not greatest-good-for-the-greatest number altruism. Most safety failures are not trolley problems with no easy answer. They’re foreseeable temptations to cut corners.
• Political independence. There should be no “approved list” of pet evaluators who serve as quasi-state gatekeepers. Accreditation should be open, rule-bound, and competitive. Rotating assignments prevent cozy repeats.
• Economic literacy. Members need a working knowledge of price signals, tradeoffs, and public-choice dynamics that distort incentives. Capture occurs when a small group can externalize costs and internalize benefits while invoking the common good.
• Proven courage and discernment. Favor people who have resisted false intellectual orthodoxies when it mattered. The various COVID-era whoppers can serve as one such filter. If someone spoke out against lockdowns and phony statistics in the spring of 2020, that reveals moral courage and above-average skill at evaluating evidence in a context of uncertainty and social contagion. If someone showed no immunity to the social contagion, that’s a liability. Bonus points for anyone who also opposed “gender affirming care” when it was the hot new social justice cause.
• Technical grasp. A general understanding of the technologies involved: training regimes, evaluation methods, alignment strategies, and the dynamics of post-deployment drift. You don’t need to write the model code, but you should know where bodies can be buried.

The requirements above are about character and composition. They must be matched with operating rules that align incentives:

• Voluntary. To avoid making compliance costs prohibitive for small firms, certification from the watchdog should be voluntary.
• Open methods; readable reports. Badges without details are theater. Publish test plans, adversarial methods, and high-level results in plain English, with technical appendices for specialists. Where full disclosure would create new risks, use “publish or explain” summaries with verifiable artifacts under controlled access.
• Adversarial testing by default. Don’t just check if a lab met its own checklist. Try to break things—prompt-bypass attacks, spec-gaming, chained-agent exploits, and live-tool failures. Evaluate the training pipeline, deployment guardrails, and incident response, not just a pre-release demo.
• Rotation and plurality. Authorize multiple accredited evaluators. Assign them by lottery or rotation and require a second opinion on consequential releases. Competition disciplines the discipliners.
• Re-verification. Because models evolve, certifications should expire quickly, with surveillance audits and event-triggered reviews after major updates or incidents.
• Aligning liability. An evaluator’s verdict should not immunize the developer. It should inform courts, customers, and insurers. Where an evaluator’s negligence contributes to demonstrable harm—say, by skipping a required adversarial test—contract and insurance mechanisms should allow cost recovery. Everyone keeps skin in the game.

If we get these basics right, we won’t need a public/private/nonprofit cartel to “pace the frontier.” It will pace itself. The firms that ship frontier systems will bear the risk and, under credible evaluation, will show their work.

Until we have a live proposal that fits the criteria above, policymakers should resist the panic. Panic feeds the temptation to act first and ask questions later. That’s a good way to lock in yesterday’s mistakes, not to protect the public.

Elon Musk's SpaceX is reportedly in talks to buy customer and operational data from defunct and struggling startups, a move that could feed the training of its Grok AI models.

The post Elon Musk’s SpaceX in Talks to Buy Data from Failed Startups to Train Grok AI appeared first on Breitbart.

Sunday on ABC’s “Ths Week,” Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL) said Donald Trump is the “most corrupt” president “maybe ever in the United States.” Partial transcript as follows: JONATHAN KARL: I’m sure you saw Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding party supported by

The post Pritzker: Trump Is ‘Most Corrupt’ President Maybe Ever appeared first on Breitbart.