How the National Park Service Is Deleting American History; The New York Times, January 23, 2026

 Maxine Joselow and Jennifer Schuessler, The New York Times; How the National Park Service Is Deleting American History

[Kip Currier: Trump 2.0's ongoing efforts to censor and erase history and science are appallingly Orwellian, yet also childishly regressive and unevolved.

When this modern Dark Age of willful ignorance and information suppression has passed, the uncomfortable truths, silenced voices, and inescapable facts will need to be restored to our collective historical record and cultural heritage institutions.]

[Excerpt]

"At Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, the Trump administration took down an exhibit on the contradiction between President George Washington’s enslavement of people and the Declaration of Independence’s promise of liberty.

At Muir Woods National Monument in California, the administration dismantled a plaque about how the tallest trees on the planet could help store carbon dioxide and slow the Earth’s dangerous warming.

And at Lowell National Historical Park in Massachusetts, Trump officials ordered the National Park Service to stop showing films about the women and immigrants who once toiled in the city’s textile mills.

Across the country, Park Service workers have started taking down plaques, films and other materials in connection with a directive from President Trump to remove or rewrite content that may “disparage Americans” or promote “corrosive ideology.”"

Actors And Musicians Help Launch “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” Campaign To Protest Big Tech’s Use Of Copyrighted Works In AI Models; Deadline, January 22, 2026

Ted Johnson , Deadline; Actors And Musicians Help Launch “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” Campaign To Protest Big Tech’s Use Of Copyrighted Works In AI Models

"A long list of musicians, content creators and actors are among those who have signed on to a new campaign to protest tech giants’ use of copyrighted works in their AI models.

The list of signees includes actors like Scarlett Johansson and Cate Blanchett, music groups like REM and authors like Brad Meltzer. 

The ‘Stealing Isn’t Innovation” campaign is being led by the Human Artistry Campaign. It states that “respect and protect” the Creative community, “some of the biggest tech companies, many backed by private equity and other funders, are using American creators’ work to build AI platforms without authorization or regard for copyright law.”"

Copyright Law Set to Govern AI Under Trump’s Executive Order; Bloomberg Law, January 23, 2026

Michael McLaughlin , Bloomberg Law; Copyright Law Set to Govern AI Under Trump’s Executive Order

[Kip Currier: I posted this Bloomberg Law article excerpt to the Canvas site for the graduate students in my Intellectual Property and Open Movements course this term, along with the following note:

Copyright law is the potential giant-slayer vis-a-vis AI tech companies that have used copyrighted works as AI training data, without permission or compensation.

Information professionals who have IP acumen (e.g. copyright law and fair use familiarity) will have vital advantages on the job market and in their organizations.]

[Excerpt] 

"The legal landscape for artificial intelligence is entering a period of rapid consolidation. With President Donald Trump’s executive order in December 2025 establishing a national AI framework, the era of conflicting state-level rules may be drawing to a close.

But this doesn’t signal a reduction in AI-related legal risk. It marks the beginning of a different kind of scrutiny—one centered not on regulatory innovation but on the most powerful legal instrument already available to federal courts: copyright law.

The lesson emerging from recent AI litigation, most prominently Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, is that the greatest potential liability to AI developers doesn’t come from what their models generate. It comes from how those models were trained, and from the provenance of the content used in that training.

As the federal government asserts primacy over AI governance, the decisive question will be whether developers can demonstrate that their training corpora were acquired lawfully, licensed appropriately (unless in the public domain), and documented thoroughly."

Anthropic’s Claude AI gets a new constitution embedding safety and ethics; CIO, January 22, 2026

 John E. Dunn, CIO; Anthropic’s Claude AI gets a new constitution embedding safety and ethics

"Anthropic has completely overhauled the “Claude constitution”, a document that sets out the ethical parameters governing its AI model’s reasoning and behavior.

Launched at the World Economic Forum’s Davos Summit, the new constitution’sprinciples are that Claude should be “broadly safe” (not undermining human oversight), “Broadly ethical” (honest, avoiding inappropriate, dangerous, or harmful actions), “genuinely helpful” (benefitting its users), as well as being “compliant with Anthropic’s guidelines”.

According to Anthropic, the constitution is already being used in Claude’s model training, making it fundamental to its process of reasoning.

Claude’s first constitution appeared in May 2023, a modest 2,700-word document that borrowed heavily and openly from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Apple’s terms of service.

While not completely abandoning those sources, the 2026 Claude constitution moves away from the focus on “standalone principles” in favor of a more philosophical approach based on understanding not simply what is important, but why.

“We’ve come to believe that a different approach is necessary. If we want models to exercise good judgment across a wide range of novel situations, they need to be able to generalize — to apply broad principles rather than mechanically following specific rules,” explained Anthropic."

While not completely abandoning those sources, the 2026 Claude constitution moves away from the focus on “standalone principles” in favor of a more philosophical approach based on understanding not simply what is important, but why.“We’ve come to believe that a different approach is necessary. If we want models to exercise good judgment across a wide range of novel situations, they need to be able to generalize — to apply broad principles rather than mechanically following specific rules,” explained Anthropic."

While not completely abandoning those sources, the 2026 Claude constitution moves away from the focus on “standalone principles” in favor of a more philosophical approach based on understanding not simply what is important, but why.“We’ve come to believe that a different approach is necessary. If we want models to exercise good judgment across a wide range of novel situations, they need to be able to generalize — to apply broad principles rather than mechanically following specific rules,” explained Anthropic.

It Makes Sense That People See A.I. as God; The New York Times, January 23, 2026

Joseph Bernstein , The New York Times; It Makes Sense That People See A.I. as God

"More and more, when it comes to our relationships with A.I. and the complex algorithms that shape so much of our modern subjectivity, we have slipped into the language and habits of mind we normally reserve for deities. And even people who do not make an explicit connection between A.I. and religion engage a kind of religious mode around the new technology."

Rollout of AI may need to be slowed to ‘save society’, says JP Morgan boss; The Guardian, January 21, 2026

 John Collingridge and Graeme Wearden , The Guardian; Rollout of AI may need to be slowed to ‘save society’, says JP Morgan boss

"Jamie Dimon, the boss of JP Morgan, has said artificial intelligence “may go too fast for society” and cause “civil unrest” unless governments and business support displaced workers.

While advances in AI will have huge benefits, from increasing productivity to curing diseases, the technology may need to be phased in to “save society”, he said...

Jensen Huang, the chief executive of the semiconductor maker Nvidia, whose chips are used to power many AI systems, argued that labour shortages rather than mass payoffs were the threat.

Playing down fears of AI-driven job losses, Huang told the meeting in Davos that “energy’s creating jobs, the chips industry is creating jobs, the infrastructure layer is creating jobs … jobs, jobs, jobs”...

Huang also argued that AI robotics was a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity for Europe, as the region had an “incredibly strong” industrial manufacturing base."

They’ve outsourced the worst parts of their jobs to tech. How you can do it, too.; The Washington Post, January 20, 2026

 Danielle Abril, The Washington Post; They’ve outsourced the worst parts of their jobs to tech. How you can do it, too.

"Artificial intelligence is supposed to make your work easier. But figuring out how to use it effectively can be a challenge.

Over the past several years, AI models have continued to evolve, with plenty of tools for specific tasks such as note-taking, coding and writing. Many workers spent last year experimenting with AI, applying various tools to see what actually worked. And as employers increasingly emphasize AI in their business, they’re also expecting workers to know how to use it...

The number of people using AI for work is growing, according to a recent poll by Gallup. The percentage of U.S. employees who used AI for their jobs at least a few times a year hit 45 percent in the third quarter of last year, up five percentage points from the previous quarter. The top use cases for AI, according to the poll, was to consolidate information, generate ideas and learn new things.

The Washington Post spoke to workers to learn how they’re getting the best use out of AI. Here are five of their best tips. A caveat: AI may not be suitable for all workers, so be sure to follow your company’s policy."

FREE WEBINAR: REGISTER: AI, Intellectual Property and the Emerging Legal Landscape; National Press Foundation, Thursday, January 22, 2026

National Press Foundation; REGISTER: AI, Intellectual Property and the Emerging Legal Landscape

"Artificial intelligence is colliding with U.S. copyright law in ways that could reshape journalism, publishing, software, and the creative economy.

The intersection of AI and intellectual property has become one of the most consequential legal battles of the digital age, with roughly 70 federal lawsuits filed against AI companies and copyright claims on works ranging from literary and visual work to music and sound recording to computer programs. Billions of dollars are at stake.

Courts are now deciding what constitutes “fair use,” whether and how AI companies may use copyrighted material to build models, what licensing is required, and who bears responsibility when AI outputs resemble protected works. The legal decisions will shape how news, art, and knowledge are produced — and who gets paid for them.

To help journalists better understand and report on the developing legal issues of AI and IP, join the National Press Foundation and a panel of experts for a wide-ranging discussion around the stakes, impact and potential solutions. Experts in technology and innovation as well as law and economics join journalists in this free online briefing 12-1 p.m. ET on Thursday, January 22, 2026."

AI platforms like Grok are an ethical, social and economic nightmare — and we're starting to wake up; Australian Broadcasting Corporation, January 18, 2026

  Alan Kohler, Australian Broadcasting Corporation; AI platforms like Grok are an ethical, social and economic nightmare — and we're starting to wake up

 "As 2025 began, I thought humanity's biggest problem was climate change.

In 2026, AI is more pressing...

Musk's xAI and the other intelligence developers are working as fast as possible towards what they call AGI (artificial general intelligence) or ASI (artificial superintelligence), which is, in effect, AI that makes its own decisions. Given its answer above, an ASI version of Grok might decide not to do non-consensual porn, but others will.

Meanwhile, photographic and video evidence in courts will presumably become useless if they can be easily faked. Many courts are grappling with this already, including the Federal Court of Australia, but it could quickly get out of control.

AI will make politics much more chaotic than it already is, with incredibly effective fake campaigns including damning videos of candidates...

But AI is not like the binary threat of a nuclear holocaust — extinction or not — its impact is incremental and already happening. The Grok body fakes are known about, and the global outrage has apparently led to some controls on it for now, but the impact on jobs and the economy is completely unknown and has barely begun."

AI companies will fail. We can salvage something from the wreckage; The Guardian, January 18, 2026

Cory Doctorow, The Guardian; AI companies will fail. We can salvage something from the wreckage

"The growth narrative of AI is that AI will disrupt labor markets. I use “disrupt” here in its most disreputable tech-bro sense.

The promise of AI – the promise AI companies make to investors – is that there will be AI that can do your job, and when your boss fires you and replaces you with AI, he will keep half of your salary for himself and give the other half to the AI company.

That is the $13tn growth story that Morgan Stanley is telling. It’s why big investors are giving AI companies hundreds of billions of dollars. And because they are piling in, normies are also getting sucked in, risking their retirement savings and their family’s financial security.

Now, if AI could do your job, this would still be a problem. We would have to figure out what to do with all these unemployed people.

But AI can’t do your job. It can help you do your job, but that does not mean it is going to save anyone money...

After more than 20 years of being consistently wrong and terrible for artists’ rights, the US Copyright Office has finally done something gloriously, wonderfully right. All through this AI bubble, the Copyright Office has maintained – correctly – that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted, because copyright is exclusively for humans. That is why the “monkey selfie” is in the public domain. Copyright is only awarded to works of human creative expression that are fixed in a tangible medium.

And not only has the Copyright Office taken this position, they have defended it vigorously in court, repeatedly winning judgments to uphold this principle.

The fact that every AI-created work is in the public domain means that if Getty or Disney or Universal or Hearst newspapers use AI to generate works – then anyone else can take those works, copy them, sell them or give them away for nothing. And the only thing those companies hate more than paying creative workers, is having other people take their stuff without permission...

AI is a bubble and bubbles are terrible.

Bubbles transfer the life savings of normal people who are just trying to have a dignified retirement to the wealthiest and most unethical people in our society, and every bubble eventually bursts, taking their savings with it."

Publishers seek to join lawsuit against Google over AI training; Reuters, January 15, 2026

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; Publishers seek to join lawsuit against Google over AI training

"Publishers Hachette Book Group and Cengage Group asked a California federal court on Thursday for permission to intervene in a proposed class action lawsuit against Google over the alleged misuse of copyrighted material used to train its artificial intelligence systems.

The publishers said in their proposed complaint that the tech company "engaged in one of the most prolific infringements of copyrighted materials in history" to build its AI capabilities, copying content from Hachette books and Cengage textbooks without permission...

The lawsuit currently involves groups of visual artists and authors who sued Google for allegedly misusing their work to train its generative AI systems. The case is one of many high-stakes lawsuits brought by artists, authors, music labels and other copyright owners against tech companies over their AI training."

Publishers seek to join lawsuit against Google over AI training; Reuters, January 15, 2026

Blake Brittain , Reuters; Publishers seek to join lawsuit against Google over AI training

"Publishers Hachette Book Group and Cengage Group asked a California federal court on Thursday for permission to intervene in a proposed class action lawsuit against Google over the alleged misuse of copyrighted material used to train its artificial intelligence systems.

The publishers said in their proposed complaint that the tech company "engaged in one of the most prolific infringements of copyrighted materials in history" to build its AI capabilities, copying content from Hachette books and Cengage textbooks without permission...

The lawsuit currently involves groups of visual artists and authors who sued Google for allegedly misusing their work to train its generative AI systems. The case is one of many high-stakes lawsuits brought by artists, authors, music labels and other copyright owners against tech companies over their AI training."

Google Engineer Disputes AI Secrets in China Espionage Trial; Bloomberg Law, January 12, 2026

Isaiah Poritz, Bloomberg Law; Google Engineer Disputes AI Secrets in China Espionage Trial

"Former Google LLC engineer Linwei Ding on the first day of his criminal trial pushed back on allegations that he stole over 100 valuable AI trade secrets from the tech giant to start a business in China, arguing that the documents he copied don’t meet the legal definition of a trade secret."

Matthew McConaughey Trademarks ‘Alright, Alright, Alright!’ and Other IP as Legal Protections Against ‘AI Misuse’; Variety, January 14, 2026

Todd Spangler, Variety ; Matthew McConaughey Trademarks ‘Alright, Alright, Alright!’ and Other IP as Legal Protections Against ‘AI Misuse’

"Matthew McConaughey’s lawyers want you to know that using AI to replicate the actor’s famous catchphrase is not “alright, alright, alright.”

Attorneys for entertainment law firm Yorn Levine representing McConaughey have secured eight trademarks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over the last several months for their client, which they said is aimed at protecting his voice and likeness from unauthorized AI misuse."

ESDEEKID CALLS OUT THE CHAINSMOKERS OVER ‘4 RAWS’ REMIX; Billboard, January 3, 2026

Jessica Lynch, Billboard; ESDEEKID CALLS OUT THE CHAINSMOKERS OVER ‘4 RAWS’ REMIX

"UK rapper EsDeeKid has publicly called out The Chainsmokers after the duo shared a remix of his track “4 Raws” that he says was released without his approval.

In a post on X on Jan. 2, EsDeeKid wrote that the remix was “getting NUKED,” writing, “that chainsmokers remix is getting NUKED mate wow please. don’t remix my sh– and think it’s cool to post to all DSPs.”"

Public Shame Is the Most Effective Tool for Battling Big Tech; The New York Times, January 14, 2026

Jessica Grose , The New York Times; Public Shame Is the Most Effective Tool for Battling Big Tech

"It might be harder to shame the tech companies themselves into making their products safer, but we can shame third-party companies like toymakers, app stores and advertisers into ending partnerships. And with enough public disapproval, legislators might be inspired to act.

In some of the very worst corners of the internet might lie some hope...

Without more public shaming, what seems to be the implacable forward march of A.I. is unstoppable...

As Jay Caspian Kang noted in The New Yorker recently, changing social norms around kids and tech use can be powerful, and reforms like smartphone bans in schools have happened fairly quickly, and mostly on the state and local level."

Library offering two hybrid workshops on AI issues; University of Pittsburgh, University Times, January 16, 2026

University of Pittsburgh, University Times; Library offering two hybrid workshops on AI issues

"Next week the University Library System will host two hybrid AI workshops, which are open to all faculty, staff and students.

Both workshops will be held in Hillman Library’s K. Leroy Irvis Reading Room and will be available online.

Navigating Pitt's AI Resources for Research & Learning: 4-5 p.m. Jan. 21. In this workshop, participants will learn about all the AI tools available to the Pitt community and what their strengths are when it comes to research and learning. The workshop will focus on identifying the appropriate AI tools, describing their strengths and weaknesses for specific learning needs, and developing a plan for using the tools effectively. Register here.

Creating a Personal Research & Learning Assistant: Writing Effective Prompts: 4-5 p.m. Jan. 22. Anyone can use an AI tool, but maximizing its potential for personalized learning takes some skills and forethought. If you have been using Claude or Gemini to support your research or learning and are interested in getting better results faster, this workshop is for you. Attend this session to learn strategies to write effective prompts which will help you both ideate on your topic of interest and increase the likelihood of generating useful responses. We will explore numerous frameworks for crafting prompts, including making use of personas, context, and references. Register here."

Copyright laws need to modernize to include fan-made edits; The Miami Hurricane, January 14, 2026

Marissa Levinson, The Miami Hurricane; Copyright laws need to modernize to include fan-made edits

[Kip Currier: Unfortunately, this University of Miami's student newspaper's Op-Ed -- Copyright laws need to modernize to include fan-made edits -- contains staggeringly inaccurate interpretations and assertions about copyright law and fair use. 

No one wanting to make informed decisions on copyright-related matters should rely on the writer's cherry-picked aspects of copyright law that are then stitched together to make wildly erroneous conclusions.

Copyright literacy is essential.]

 

[Excerpt]

"I can’t even count the amount of times I’ve been scrolling through my saved folders on TikTok, Instagram or X to watch video edits of clips from my favorite TV shows, only to find nothing but a shell of what once used to be there, with a body of text over it. It reads: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim.” 

Video edits of shows and movies, which are often paired with trending songs as the audios, have gained traction on social media platforms among hundreds of fan bases. Navigating this new age of fan-generated edits comes with confusion. As copyright laws based on precedent aren’t current enough to guide regulations on this new type of content, video edits deserve to be protected under copyright law.

Are edits legal?

Fan-made video edits range from less than 30-seconds to a few minutes long. This poses the question of whether they are legal in terms of copyright. The law gives copyright the “power ‘to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Investors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries,’” according to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

This means, under the Copyright Act of 1976, “original works of authorship fixed in tangible medium of expression” are protected. According to the four exemptions of the copyright law, video edits are protected by the first amendment and therefore, should be legal to publish."

Microsoft Shuts Down Library, Replaces It With AI; Futurism, January 16, 2026

Frank Landymore, Futurism; Microsoft Shuts Down Library, Replaces It With AI

"Does Microsoft hate books more, or its own workers? It’s hard to say, because The Verge reports that the multitrillion dollar giant is gutting its employee library and cutting down on digital subscriptions in favor of pursuing what’s internally described as an “AI-powered learning experience” — whatever in Clippy’s name that’s supposed to mean."

Microsoft is closing its employee library and cutting back on subscriptions; The Verge, January 15, 2026

 Tom Warren, The Verge; Microsoft is closing its employee library and cutting back on subscriptions

"Microsoft is closing its physical library of books and cutting employee subscriptions. It's part of cost cutting and a move to AI."

Adviser in Anne Frank case suggests VPNs alone don’t break copyright borders; Courthouse News Service, January 15, 2026

EUNSEO HONG , Courthouse News Service; Adviser in Anne Frank case suggests VPNs alone don’t break copyright borders

"The dispute centers on a clash between the Anne Frank Fonds, which holds the copyright for certain versions of her diary in the Netherlands, and a group of academic and cultural institutions that published a comprehensive scholarly edition of the manuscripts online. While the diary entered the public domain in several EU countries in 2016, including Germany, Belgium and Italy, copyright protection in the Netherlands runs until 2037.

To account for that divide, the publishers limited access where the diary is still protected, using geoblocking and on-screen warnings. The Fonds challenged that setup, arguing that the possibility of access through VPN services was enough to make the publication unlawful in the Netherlands.

Rantos rejected that logic, warning that tying liability to the mere possibility of circumvention would make territorial copyright unworkable online.

“It is common ground that, in both the virtual and real world, no security measure is absolutely inviolable,” he wrote, underscoring that EU law does not expect publishers to do the impossible.

In his view, copyright responsibility turns on a publisher’s conduct, not on every workaround devised by determined users, unless the safeguards are intentionally flimsy or built to be easily defeated.

Stef van Gompel, a professor of intellectual property law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, said the advocate general got it right in drawing a clear line between a publisher’s actions and what users might do to get around them. Treating VPN workarounds alone as a copyright violation, he said, would stretch the law too far.

“Otherwise, this would mark the end of online territorial licensing of copyright in the EU and jeopardize the free flow of information online,” van Gompel said. He warned that otherwise, works published where they are in the public domain could end up effectively off-limits online “if the work is still in copyright in any other country in the world.”"

AI’S MEMORIZATION CRISIS: Large language models don’t “learn”—they copy. And that could change everything for the tech industry.; The Atlantic, January 9, 2026

 Alex Reisner, The Atlantic; AI’S MEMORIZATION CRISIS: Large language models don’t “learn”—they copy. And that could change everything for the tech industry

"On tuesday, researchers at Stanford and Yale revealed something that AI companies would prefer to keep hidden. Four popular large language models—OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, and xAI’s Grok—have stored large portions of some of the books they’ve been trained on, and can reproduce long excerpts from those books."

Extracting books from production language models; Cornell University, January 6, 2026

Ahmed Ahmed, A. Feder Cooper, Sanmi Koyejo, Percy Liang, Cornell University; Extracting books from production language models

"Many unresolved legal questions over LLMs and copyright center on memorization: whether specific training data have been encoded in the model's weights during training, and whether those memorized data can be extracted in the model's outputs. While many believe that LLMs do not memorize much of their training data, recent work shows that substantial amounts of copyrighted text can be extracted from open-weight models. However, it remains an open question if similar extraction is feasible for production LLMs, given the safety measures these systems implement. We investigate this question using a two-phase procedure: (1) an initial probe to test for extraction feasibility, which sometimes uses a Best-of-N (BoN) jailbreak, followed by (2) iterative continuation prompts to attempt to extract the book. We evaluate our procedure on four production LLMs -- Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Grok 3 -- and we measure extraction success with a score computed from a block-based approximation of longest common substring (nv-recall). With different per-LLM experimental configurations, we were able to extract varying amounts of text. For the Phase 1 probe, it was unnecessary to jailbreak Gemini 2.5 Pro and Grok 3 to extract text (e.g, nv-recall of 76.8% and 70.3%, respectively, for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone), while it was necessary for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and GPT-4.1. In some cases, jailbroken Claude 3.7 Sonnet outputs entire books near-verbatim (e.g., nv-recall=95.8%). GPT-4.1 requires significantly more BoN attempts (e.g., 20X), and eventually refuses to continue (e.g., nv-recall=4.0%). Taken together, our work highlights that, even with model- and system-level safeguards, extraction of (in-copyright) training data remains a risk for production LLMs."

‘A nasty little song, really rather evil’: how Every Breath You Take tore Sting and the Police apart; The Guardian, January 15, 2026

Ben Beaumont-Thomas, The Guardian; ‘A nasty little song, really rather evil’: how Every Breath You Take tore Sting and the Police apart

"This week’s high court hearings between Sting and his former bandmates in the Police, Stewart Copeland and Andy Summers, are the latest chapter in the life of a song whose negative energy seems to have seeped out into real life.

Every Breath You Take is the subject of a lawsuit filed by Copeland and Summers against Sting, alleging that he owes them royalties linked to their contributions to the hugely popular song, particularly from streaming earnings, estimated at $2m (£1.5m) in total. Sting’s legal team have countered that previous agreements between him and his bandmates regarding their royalties from the song do not include streaming revenue – and argued in pre-trial documents that the pair may have been “substantially overpaid”. In the hearing’s opening day, it was revealed that since the lawsuit was filed, Sting has paid them $870,000 (£647,000) to redress what his lawyer called “certain admitted historic underpayments”. But there are still plenty of future potential earnings up for debate."

Pentagon says it will ‘refocus’ Stars and Stripes content; Stars and Stripes, January 15, 2026

COREY DICKSTEIN, Stars and Stripes; Pentagon says it will ‘refocus’ Stars and Stripes content

[Kip Currier: Forward this Stars and Stripes article about Pete Hegseth's plans for the military newspaper to as many as possible. It's valuable perspective to hear from Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin and members of Congress.]

[Excerpt]

"The Pentagon said on social media Thursday it would take over editorial content decision-making for Stars and Stripes in a statement from the Defense Department’s top spokesman.

“The Department of War is returning Stars & Stripes to its original mission: reporting for our warfighters. We are bringing Stars & Stripes into the 21st century,” Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s top public affairs official and a close adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, wrote in a statement posted to X. “We will modernize its operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.”

The statement appears to challenge the editorial independence of Stars and Stripes, which while a part of the Pentagon’s Defense Media Activity has long retained independence from editorial oversight from the Pentagon under a congressional mandate that it be governed by First Amendment principles.

The move was met with pushback from several Democratic senators, who accused the Pentagon of tampering with the newspaper’s reporting.

Stars and Stripes, which is dedicated to serving U.S. government personnel overseas, seeks to emulate the best practices of commercial news organizations in the United States. It is governed by Department of Defense Directive 5122.11. The directive states, among other key provisions, that “there shall be a free flow of news and information to its readership without news management or censorship.”

Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin, in a note to Stars and Stripes’ editorial staff across the globe Thursday, said the military deserves independent news.

“The people who risk their lives in defense of the Constitution have earned the right to the press freedoms of the First Amendment,” Slavin wrote. “We will not compromise on serving them with accurate and balanced coverage, holding military officials to account when called for.”

Stars and Stripes first appeared during the Civil War, and it has been continuously published since World War II. It is staffed by civilian and active-duty U.S. military reporters and editors who produce daily newspapers for American troops around the world and a website, stripes.com, which is updated with news 24 hours a day, seven days a week...

Parnell’s post came a day after a Washington Post report revealed that applicants for positions at Stars and Stripes were being asked how they would support President Donald Trump’s policies. The questionnaire appears on the USAJobs portal, the official website for federal hiring. Stars and Stripes was unaware of the questions until the Post inquired about them, organization leaders said.

The Pentagon statement comes several years after the Defense Department attempted to shut down Stars in Stripes in 2020, during Trump’s first administration."

Pentagon taking over Stars and Stripes to eliminate ‘woke distractions’; The Hill, January 15, 2026

ELLEN MITCHELL , The Hill; Pentagon taking over Stars and Stripes to eliminate ‘woke distractions’

[Kip Currier: It's unfortunate but not surprising to see that Pete Hegseth, given his actions to date, is taking "editorial control" of the Stars and Stripes newspaper that was started by Union soldiers on November 9, 1861, in the midst of the Civil War.]

[Excerpt]

"The Pentagon announced Thursday it would take editorial control of independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes to refocus coverage on “warfighting” and remove “woke distractions.”

The Department of War is returning Stars & Stripes to its original mission: reporting for our warfighters,” top Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement posted to X. “We will modernize its operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted Parnell’s statement.

Part of the Pentagon’s Defense Media Activity, Stars and Stripes has been editorially independent from Defense Department officials since a congressional mandate in the 1990s. The outlet’s mission statement states that it is “governed by the principles of the First Amendment.” 

In some form since the Civil War, Stars and Stripes has consistently reported on the military since World War II to an audience mostly of service members stationed overseas."

Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month; Ars Technica, January 13, 2026

 BENJ EDWARDS , Ars Technica; Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month

"On Monday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he plans to integrate Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, into Pentagon networks later this month. During remarks at the SpaceX headquarters in Texas reported by The Guardian, Hegseth said the integration would place “the world’s leading AI models on every unclassified and classified network throughout our department.”

The announcement comes weeks after Grok drew international backlash for generating sexualized images of women and children, although the Department of Defense has not released official documentation confirming Hegseth’s announced timeline or implementation details."