Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning politicized debanking is intended to reverse what some analysts say is a trend of banks and payment services refusing service to people and companies for political, religious, or ideological reasons. 

Advocates against political debanking cite cases of Christians and conservatives who they say have been victims of this process. This includes allegations by Christian organizations including Tennessee-based nonprofit Indigenous Advance Ministries, as well as Sam Brownback, the chairman of the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), and the president himself.

Speaking to bank executives at the World Economic Forum in January, Trump said, “I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America.”

Many conservative groups expressed support for this executive order. 

“Everyone needs access to basic financial services,” Brian Knight, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a leading advocate against ideological debanking, told The Epoch Times.

“No American should have to worry that they could lose their bank account or have a payment declined because of their religious or political beliefs.”

Banks have denied that they have taken part in political debanking.

“We don’t close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,” Patricia Wexler, a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase, told The Epoch Times in a statement.

“We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.”

A Bank of America spokesperson told The Epoch Times in January: “We serve more than 70 million clients and we welcome conservatives. We are required to follow extensive government rules and regulations that sometimes result in decisions to exit client relationships. We never close accounts for political reasons and don’t have a political litmus test.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing advocacy group, criticized efforts by groups including Alliance Defending Freedom, calling them “an ongoing crusade to force private businesses to adhere to conservative Christian theology, in part by spreading the false narrative that private sector banks have been dropping conservative religious clients since the Obama administration.”

Trump’s executive order seeks to reorient federal regulators and law enforcement away from practices that may have supported political debanking and toward actions that will actively oppose it. 

Here are five key takeaways from the order.

1. Regulators Drop ‘Reputational Risk’

The order directs federal regulators to stop using criteria such as “reputational risk,” which some banks say have been used to pressure them to cancel customers whose political or religious views government officials don’t like.

Some concerned shareholders say that banks that consider political views in deciding who they will serve also creates risks. One case in point, says Jerry Bowyer, CEO of Bowyer Research and an advocate for shareholders and customers against political debanking, is Trump’s allegation that several banks closed his accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol.

“Just think about that—you debanked someone who might be the President of the United States,” Bowyer told The Epoch Times. “That doesn’t sound like risk management to me; that sounds like courting risk.”

“Turns out that it was,” he said.

Bank regulators have already taken steps to remove “reputational risk” from their criteria. In June, the Federal Reserve announced that reputational risk will no longer be a component of its bank supervision process, and said it was working with other regulatory agencies to assist them in also dropping this criterion.

2. Investigations of Unlawful Debanking to Commence

The executive order requires federal banking regulators to investigate complaints of political debanking and pass any cases on to the U.S. attorney general’s office. Penalties for violations could include fines and consent decrees, as well as reinstating any customers who were unlawfully cancelled.

This could include not only persons who have been refused service for ideological reasons but also companies.

Operation Choke Point, which was enacted under the Obama administration, was a case in which regulators allegedly pressured banks to refuse service to industries like gun retailers and payday lenders, treating them as high-risk entities.

A more recent version of this was Citibank’s policy, which started in 2018 but ended in June of this year, to refuse banking services to gun stores that sold to customers under the age of 21, which effectively prohibited business with much of the industry.

3. Financial Privacy Also a Focus

Trump’s executive order also urges a federal investigation into alleged warrantless data mining of customers’ accounts by Bank of America (BOA) to hand over information to law enforcement regarding customers who traveled to Washington D.C., shopped at sporting goods stores that sold guns like Bass Pro Shops or Cabela’s, or expressed conservative political views during the 2021 Capitol breach.

In May 2023, U.S. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a letter to BOA CEO Brian Moynihan that stated an FBI whistleblower charged that the bank “provided the FBI—voluntarily and without any legal process—with a list of individuals who had made transactions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area with a BoA credit or debit card between January 5 and January 7, 2021,” and highlighted customers who bought firearms with a BOA credit card.

4. SBA to Reinstate Religious Organizations

Trump’s executive order also instructs the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to reinstate clients who have been denied loans or other services for political reasons.

Previously, the SBA had prohibited any group that was “principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling, or indoctrinating religion” from applying for Economic Injury Disaster Loans. 

The SBA ended this policy in July, in compliance with a 2016 Supreme Court decision in the case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, which stated that excluding religious organizations from government programs was a violation of the First Amendment.

5. State ‘Fair Access’ Laws

Several states have recently passed “fair access” banking laws that prohibit denying financial services by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions on political or religious grounds. Florida enacted such a law in 2023, and Tennessee did so in 2024.

Similar laws have been introduced in state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota, according to a legal analysis by law firm Latham & Watkins. 

The firm stated that critics of laws against political debanking “see such initiatives as an attack on environmental, social, and corporate-governance (ESG) policies in the financial system.”

Data center demand is rising at a break neck speed, with little signs of slowing.

As the electricity consumption of AI rises, by 2028, a projected 12% of U.S. electricity demand could be driven from data centers. Beyond America, countries are pouring billions into AI sovereignty efforts which require data center facilities running 24/7 to power them.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows data center demand as a share of total power consumption, based on data from the IEA.

The Boom in Data Center Demand

Here is the share of each region’s total power demand that is driven by center centers:

As we can see, America’s data center demand leads globally, at 8.9% of total power consumption.

In Virginia, data centers account for 26% of the state’s total power consumption—or nearly triple the national average. This year, the state’s leading utility firm expects to connect 15 new data centers given surging demand.

As big tech ramps up AI spending, a significant share is being funnelled into massive data centers along with the energy sources that power them. In particular, demand for nuclear is expanding at the fastest rate in decades.

By comparison, data centers comprise 4.8% of the total power share in the European Union and 2.3% in China.

To learn more about this topic from a global perspective, check out this graphic on the growth of data center capacity worldwide since 2005.

Authored by Rachel Ann T. Melegrito via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Up to half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients show lung abnormalities on chest CT scans long after the acute infection is over. Many fear these changes mean lasting damage or worsening lung disease.

However, new guidelines on treating long COVID confirm that lung abnormalities usually stabilize or even improve over time.

“The lungs are an organ, like skin, that are in constant contact with the environment. Because of that, they have a significant amount of stem cells in reserve and cells ready for healing,” Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

Recovery Takes Time

Researchers found that in patients with lung damage following a COVID-19 infection, around 90 percent who continued to show lung abnormalities at the time of hospital discharge began to see improvements one to three years after infection.

After a COVID-19 infection, roughly six in 100 people are estimated to develop persistent symptoms that can last for months to years—a condition known as long COVID. Common complaints include fatigue, joint and muscle aches, breathlessness, headaches, and difficulty concentrating, often called “brain fog.” Symptoms typically improve over time—usually within four to nine months.

Lung recovery tends to follow a similar trajectory. After infection, the lungs can show changes that resemble scarring—such as inflammation, collapsed air sacs, or temporary thickening of lung tissue—but these often heal on their own, Dr. Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of Independent Medical Alliance, who is not one of the authors of the treatment guideline, told The Epoch Times.

Based on Varon’s clinical experience, most patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-related lung issues show improvement on scans and of symptoms within three to six months. However, he noted that some people, especially older adults or those who had severe illness, can have lingering lung changes or symptoms for a year or more.

In COVID-19, the early lung damage is mostly due to inflammation, not permanent destruction, he said. Once the infection clears and inflammation goes down, the lungs can start to heal, absorbing fluid and repairing tissue, a process that can take several months.

“The body has the capacity to heal,” Dr. Pierre Kory, founder of Leading Edge Clinic, which treats long COVID patients, told The Epoch Times. COVID is typically an acute illness that heals over time rather than a chronic inflammatory condition—though in some cases, lingering lung inflammation or fibrosis can persist, he said.

Many post-COVID lung changes seen in scans are not signs of permanent damage. They often reflect the lung’s natural healing process after inflammation, similar to what’s seen in other viral pneumonias or recovery from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Over time, these abnormalities often fade as the tissue repairs itself.

Unlike chronic conditions such as interstitial lung disease, which involve ongoing triggers and progressive scarring, post-COVID changes are typically non-progressive.

However, older patients who had been on mechanical ventilation or had severe or critical initial infection were more likely to have persistent lung changes, possibly due to the extent of initial lung injury.

Residual Signs Versus Permanent Damage

Chest CT scans often reveal lung changes long after COVID-19 infection that may look severe on imaging. These include ground glass opacities, which are hazy areas suggesting inflammation, or fibrous strands, thin bands of tissue left over from healing. However, many of these findings are residual effects from the infection, not signs of irreversible damage.

“Radiologic findings often lag behind clinical recovery and must be interpreted within a broader clinical framework,” said Varon, “I have seen patients that have ‘white lungs’ for months and are doing well.”

The disconnect between imaging and the actual patient condition may lead to confusion, unnecessary follow-up, or even overtreatment of long COVID.

“Some patients report persistent symptoms despite near-normal imaging,” Varon said, likely due to lingering viral effects or nervous system issues rather than actual lung damage.

“The key takeaway is that both lung damage and symptoms often improve—but not always in synchrony, and not always completely,” he said. That’s why an individualized, symptom-based follow-up approach remains essential in managing long COVID patients.

Preventing Costly Overtreatment

The new guidelines specifically address the tendency to over-interpret nonspecific findings as signs of progressive lung disease.

The new consensus advises using CT only when clinically indicated, such as in patients with persistent or worsening respiratory symptoms.

Mislabeling can also lead to costly treatments, repeated imaging, and even affect life insurance or disability claims. “These medications can cost up to $60,000 per year—and patients may not really need them,” Varon said.

The new guidelines suggest providers request follow-up chest CT only in patients whose respiratory symptoms persist or worsen three months after infection, with those symptoms lasting at least two months and with no other identifiable cause. They also recommend low-dose protocols for follow-up imaging to reduce radiation exposure.

CT was invaluable early in the pandemic, especially when RT-PCR testing was unreliable, Varon said, but its continued use in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic long COVID patients is often unnecessary.

The guidelines also urge radiologists to avoid using terms such as “fibrosis” or “interstitial lung disease,” which often imply progressive or permanent scarring, when describing nonspecific residual findings.

The bigger concern, Kory said, is the tendency to over-label nonspecific findings, like ground-glass opacities or mild fibrotic changes, as definitive signs of fibrotic interstitial lung disease. “I see this in my practice every single day,” he said. “These interpretations can trigger unnecessary anxiety, inappropriate referrals, and misguided treatment plans.”

Kory takes a symptom-focused approach, monitoring patients clinically and repeating imaging only if conditions worsen. “My experience in general is that yes, most things in medicine are overused, including imaging,” he said.

After years of pandemic-fueled surges and politically driven buying sprees, the U.S. gun market is sliding deeper into a downturn. With Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House, fears of sweeping federal gun bans from far-left Democrats have abated, stripping away one of the industry’s most reliable sales catalysts. 

The latest July figures from the FBI show 1.94 million National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background checks, down 4.2% from July 2024. After removing permit-related checks, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimated 978,731 checks directly tied to gun sales, an 8.1% drop year-over-year and the first sub-million reading in six years. 

“Summer months routinely show lower background check figures than other times of the year, and we’ve watched as the background check figures came down from astronomical highs several years ago,” Mark Oliva, public affairs officer with the NSSF, told firearms website Guns.com via an emailed response. 

Oliva noted, “There are factors that contribute to this, including relief of concern that politics would deny some from being able to exercise Second Amendment rights to purchase a firearm of one’s choice and economic uncertainty.”

The gun panic-buying frenzy of 2020 and 2021 was never sustainable and has since ended in a complete bust for the industry. Notably, the downturn is likely to persist through President Trump’s second term, given that a pro-2A administration won’t infringe on gun owners, unlike the Biden-Harris regime, which aggressively did so.

Nowhere is the gun bust more evident than in the decline of Smith & Wesson’s shares: SWBI vs. NICS… 

Meanwhile, precious metals such as gold might be at an all-time high, but ammo prices are at lows…

9mm retail prices via data from Black Basin.  

. . . 

Via Headline USA,

U.S. Border Patrol agents jumped out of the back of a rented box truck and made arrests Wednesday at a Los Angeles Home Depot store during an immigration raid that an agency official called “Operation Trojan Horse.”

“For those who thought immigration enforcement had stopped in Southern California, think again,” acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli posted on the social platform X after the raid.

“The enforcement of federal law is not negotiable and there are no sanctuaries from the reach of the federal government.”

Messages were sent to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seeking details on the raid, including how many people were arrested. U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Greg Bovino reposted Fox News reports of Monday’s arrests on X, calling the action “Operation Trojan Horse.”

Breaking: DHS arrives in Penske trucks at a Home Depot in McArthur Park area of LA for early morning immigration enforcement. The area was filled with migrants who scattered. DHS says MS 13 has a chokehold on this area, which is one reason they’re carrying out the highly… pic.twitter.com/hTskuM9Q4l

— Matt Finn (@MattFinnFNC) August 6, 2025

Photos on social media showed the moment the rear door of the rented Penske truck opened, revealing several uniformed agents with guns.

A spokesperson for Penske Truck Rental said the company was looking into the use of its vehicles by federal officials, saying its regulations prohibit transporting people in truck cargo areas.

“The company was not made aware that its trucks would be used in today’s operation and did not authorize this,” spokesperson Randolph P. Ryerson said in an email.

“Penske will reach out to DHS and reinforce its policy to avoid improper use of its vehicles in the future.”

A Massachusetts county sheriff, Steven W. Tompkins, 67, was federally indicted on charges of extorting an executive at a cannabis company so that he could own stock in the business – and then demanded his money back when his investment dropped in value, according to the US Attorney’s Office.

Tompkins – who has led the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department since his 2013 appointment, was indicted on two counts of extortion under color of official right.

The cannabis company, which was unnamed in the announcement, applied for a license to open a retail dispensary in Boston in 2019 – which required a ‘positive impact plan’ or PIP, which was satisfied by a partnership with the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department in order to employ released offenders as part of a re-entry program.

According to federal prosecutors, Tompkins pressured a company executive to allow him to purchase stock as the company prepared to go public. The executive, who feared the sheriff could use his position to threaten the PIP plan and their licensing approval – or impact the timing of their IPO, bent the knee to Tompkins’ demands.

In November 2020, Tompkins wired $50,000 to purchase stock at around $1.73 per share. After a reverse stock split, he was left with 14,417 shares at a price of $3.46 per share. 

When the IPO launched in 2021, the stock was valued at around $9.60 per share, however by May of 2022 the stock’s value had dropped and Tompkins had lost money on the investment. He then demanded a refund of his $50,000 – which the company executive agreed to, and did so in the form of checks issued between May 2022 and July 2023. The executive wrote “loan repayment” or “company expense” to hide their nature, 10 Boston reports.

“Elected officials, particularly those in law enforcement, are expected to be ethical, honest and law abiding – not self-serving. His alleged actions are an affront to the voters and taxpayers who elected him to his position, and the many dedicated and honest public servants at the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department. The people of Suffolk County deserve better,” US Attorney Leah B. Foley wrote in a media release. 

More via the release:

As Sheriff, Tompkins oversees approximately 1,000 correctional officers and other employees responsible for operating and maintaining correctional facilities in Boston at the House of Correction and the Nashua Street Jail.

The charges of extortion under color of official right each provide for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case.

U.S. Attorney Foley and FBI SAC Docks made the announcement. Special assistance was provided by the Internal Revenue Service. Assistant United States Attorneys John Mulcahy of the Public Corruption & Special Prosecutions Unit and Dustin Chao, Chief of the Public Corruption & Special Prosecutions Unit are prosecuting the case.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

In a major U-turn in energy policy, Mexico has unveiled a 10-year plan to reverse a years-long decline in oil and gas production by tapping more unconventional resources through fracking. 

Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, the world’s most indebted energy firm, has seen declines in its output in recent years as old shallow-water conventional fields mature.  

Now the government and its state-controlled energy giant want to revitalize production via fracking, Reuters reports, citing the revitalization plan. 

In the late 2010s, then-President Enrique Peña Nieto sought to open shale basins, including the Burgos Basin, a shale-rich basin in northeastern Mexico, for natural gas exploration and development by private companies.

However, Peña Nieto’s successor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, cancelled the contracts. Former president Lopez Obrador ruled out fracking during his term in office between 2018 and 2024. 

But his successor and mentee, current President Claudia Sheinbaum, has agreed to give the green light increased fracking despite a campaign pledge last year that she would not allow it.  

“We’re going to address all the geological potential we have,” Reuters quoted Pemex chief executive Victor Rodriguez as saying during a presentation of the plan. 

Pemex has been fracking onshore fields close to the Gulf of Mexico coast, but it does not report shale production separately and it is not clear how much the fracking has contributed to output. It’s clear that most of oil and gas production comes from conventional resources at old offshore platforms in shallow waters. 

The steady decline in Pemex’s output and the tense trade and tariff relations with the U.S. has apparently prompted Mexico to expand domestic fracking in a bid to reduce its high dependence on natural gas imports from the United States. 

Over the past decade, Mexican imports of U.S. natural gas, mostly via pipelines, have jumped thanks to new pipelines built between the U.S. and Mexico.

Mexico has an estimated 545 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas resources, the sixth largest in the world, per U.S. government data. 

Six months after the devastating and deadly Pacific Palisades fire, a massive inferno that left thousands homeless, blamed by some on the incompetence of far-left Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, another wildfire flared up on Thursday in Ventura County. 

The Canyon Fire, impacting Southern California’s Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, has consumed an estimated 4,856 acres and remains uncontained, prompting evacuations.

The Gifford Fire, affecting San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, has expanded to 99,232 acres, making… pic.twitter.com/D1OOpvR8sZ

— Pacific Disaster Center – PDC Global (@PDC_Global) August 8, 2025

Cal Fire reports that the Canyon Fire, which erupted yesterday afternoon near Piru, Ventura County, has exploded in size from 30 acres to 4,856 acres by early Friday morning, with 0% contained. 

Evacuation orders have been issued for six zones across Los Angeles County, including Val Verde, Hasley Canyon, and Castaic, as well as four areas in Ventura County, including Lake Piru Recreation Area and communities east of Piru. Eight additional areas are under evacuation warnings. 

The #CanyonFire continues to burn and our first responders are on the front lines protecting communities.

To our firefighters, law enforcement, and emergency crews: THANK YOU!

📲 Stay updated: https://t.co/p46PbDzAQW pic.twitter.com/DSyM8de3a1

— Los Angeles County (@CountyofLA) August 8, 2025

On Thursday, L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger wrote on X: “The Canyon Fire is spreading fast under extreme heat & dry conditions near Ventura–L.A. County line. If you’re in Santa Clarita, Hasley Canyon, or Val Verde, take evacuation orders seriously — when first responders say GO, leave immediately. Keep aware—please don’t risk lives.”

My view of the Canyon Fire. Keeping all involved in my prayers. pic.twitter.com/XJz7AkxyNg

— Lost in the Burbs (@lostintheburbs) August 8, 2025

This latest blaze comes just six months after January’s wildfires ravaged the Palisades. Displaced residents are now fighting back, filing a lawsuit against the L.A. Department of Water and Power for failing to follow its own policy, then allegedly changing that policy and altering computer records to cover up a more than four-hour delay in cutting power to the Pacific Palisades on Jan. 7.

“They’re altering records. They’re denying things that can’t be denied,” said Michael Valentine, who lost his home in the Palisades Fire, adding, “You know, it seems to be that they’re doing everything they can to get out from responsibility… It’s beyond shocking. It’s actually quasi-criminal.”

Related:

• Another ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Comes True: California Bill Passes To Buy Fire-Ravaged Palisades For Low-Income Apartments

• $100 Million In Palisades Relief Disappears In Democratic Party’s NGO Network

• How Things Stand 6 Months After Palisades Fire

.  .  .  

Authored by Victoria Friedman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy criticized the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) to personalize airline ticket prices, saying on Aug. 5 that his department would investigate if any business were found doing so.

“Let’s sell prices on seats for what they should go for,” Duffy said in response to a question during a press conference on whether he had any concerns over airlines using AI to dynamically price tickets based on personal data, such as income. “To try to individualize pricing on seats based on how much you make or don’t make or who you are, I can guarantee you that we will investigate if anyone does that.”

Last week, Delta Air Lines told lawmakers that it does not and will not use AI to set prices for individual travelers.

Duffy said: “Delta has clarified that they are not going to do that. I’ll take them at face value and in their clarification, but we would engage very strongly if any company tries to use AI to individually price their seating.”

The Atlanta-based airline said last month it planned to expand its AI dynamic pricing pilot across more of its domestic network. Delta is running the pilot in partnership with Fetcherr, an AI pricing company.

Delta President Glen Hauenstein said during a second-quarter earnings call on July 10 that Fetcherr currently handles 3 percent of its domestic network and that the goal is for that to increase to 20 percent by the end of 2025. He added that Delta was in the “heavy testing phase” with AI.

“We’re going to take out time and make sure the rollout is successful,” he said.

On its website, Fetcherr says it is “trusted by the world’s leading airlines,” listing Delta, Virgin Atlantic, Westjet, Viva, and Azul.

Data Privacy Concerns

On July 21, Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) wrote to Delta CEO Ed Bastian to clarify the airline’s plans to expand the use of AI to set individualized fares.

The senators said they believed that AI-based individualized pricing would not only present data privacy concerns but also mean that fare prices would increase up to “each individual consumer’s personal ‘pain point,’ at a time when American families are already struggling with rising costs.”

Delta responded on July 31, saying that the presupposition that the airline would use AI for individualized or “surveillance” pricing, which leverages consumers’ personal data or circumstances, was incorrect.

“There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized prices based on personal data,” Delta Chief External Affairs Officer Peter Carter said in the letter to the lawmakers. “Furthermore, we have zero tolerance for discriminatory or predatory pricing and fully comply with applicable laws in privacy, pricing and advertising.”

The airline said that its AI-powered pricing functionality is designed to enhance its current pricing processes using aggregated data, noting that the functionality could recommend that prices go down as well as up.

Delta said it does not share any personal information with Fetcherr.

Carter added that for the past three decades, Delta and other airlines have been using dynamic pricing for seats and that pricing is influenced by a wide range of fluctuating market conditions, including customer demand, fuel costs, competition, and purchasing data at an aggregated level—but not on specific consumers’ data.

Proposed Legislation

In their letter, the senators said that the implications of AI-driven personal dynamic pricing for privacy “are severe on their own.”

Citing a January Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report, the lawmakers said, “Surveillance pricing has been shown to utilize extensive personal information obtained through a variety of third-party channels, including data about a passenger’s purchase history, web browsing behavior, geolocation, social media activity, biometric data, and financial status.”

Blumenthal, Gallego, and Warner said former FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan cautioned against a “particularly egregious but conceivable example” of an airline’s use of AI to charge a higher fare to a passenger because “the company knows that they just had a death in the family and need to fly across the country.”

On July 23, Reps. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced proposals that would ban companies from using AI to set prices or wages based on Americans’ personal data.

Casar said in a statement that the “Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act” would prohibit practices such as raising prices for a customer after seeing the customer search for a family obituary online.

The Epoch Times reached out to Delta for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Activist judge James Boasberg has just been slapped down, after an appeals court removed an order which could have resulted in the Trump administration being found in contempt as part of a tense confrontation with the US District Judge. 

Earlier this year, Boasberg said he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt because it purportedly violated his orders to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

However in a 2–1 decision on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit indicated that Boasberg went too far. Judge Gregory Katsas said that one of Boasberg’s orders could have been read in different ways.

Pundits have used this case to accuse the administration of not following the law. Now will they recant? Just this week the New York Times published multiple articles using the contempt proceeding as evidence that President Trump isn’t following court orders. Correction time?

— Eric W. (@EWess92) August 8, 2025

“The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,” wrote Judge Gregory Katsas. “Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity.”

Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling doesn’t center around the lawfulness of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when the administration invoked the 1798 immigration law to send over 250 Venezuelan nationals to CEDOT, El Salvador’s maximum-security prison. 

“Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,” he added. “Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has.”

“Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.“

As the Epoch Times notes further, Judge Neomi Rao described Boasberg’s decision as an “egregious” abuse of the court’s contempt power and said Boasberg had lost the authority to try and “coerce compliance” with his original order. That’s because his initial halts on the deportations had been vacated by the Supreme Court in another decision from April.

One of the judges, Judge Cornelia Pillard, defended Boasberg and said the Trump administration appeared to have disobeyed his directions.

“Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them,” Pillard said. “This is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable as criminal contempt.”