Stars and Stripes job applicants are asked if they back Trump policies; The Washington Post, January 14, 2026

Liam Scott, The Washington Post; Stars and Stripes job applicants are asked if they back Trump policies

"Applicants for positions at the U.S. military newspaper Stars and Stripes are being asked how they would support the president’s policy priorities, raising concerns among some staffers and media watchers about the prospects for the historic outlet’s editorial independence.

First published during the Civil War and continually published since World War II, Stars and Stripes reports on and for the U.S. military community. While it is partly funded by the Pentagon and its staffers are Defense Department employees, Congress has mandated the publication’s independence and taken measures to guarantee it.

But in recent months, applicants for positions at the publication — which reaches about 1.4 million people a day across its platforms, according to the publisher — have been asked: “How would you advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

That question has prompted worries about whether President Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to influence the newspaper’s independence by making an ideological litmus test part of the hiring process, a concern one administration official said was unjustified.

Stars and Stripes leadership was not aware that applicants were being asked that question until The Washington Post inquired about it this month, according to Jacqueline Smith, the newspaper’s ombudsman, a congressionally mandated position charged with defending the newspaper’s editorial independence.

“Asking prospective employees how they would support the administration’s policies is antithetical to Stripes’ journalistic and federally mandated mission,” Smith said. “Journalistically, it’s against ethics, because reporters or any staff member — editors, photographers — should be impartial.”

Smith confirmed that applicants are being asked that question when applying for Stars and Stripes positions on USAJobs, the U.S. government’s employment site. The Office of Personnel Management, not the newspaper’s leadership, was responsible for adding the question, she added."

Trump Unmasked; The New York Times, January 13, 2026

Thomas B. Edsall, The New York Times; Trump Unmasked

"President Trump is showing symptoms of an addiction to power, evident in his compulsion to escalate claims of dominion over domestic and international adversaries. The size and scope of his targets for subjugation are spiraling ever upward...

Perhaps most spectacularly, during a Jan. 7 interview with four Times reporters, Trump was asked if there were any limits on his global powers.

He replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

“I don’t need international law,” he added.

Trump may think his own morality and his own mind are the only constraints on his otherwise limitless power, but if we are dependent on either — not to mention Trump’s sense of empathy, compassion or sympathy for the underdog — we are in deep trouble. The nation, the Western Hemisphere and the world at large need to figure out how to place restraints on this ethically vacuous president, or we will all suffer continued and ever-worsening damage."

Trump Lays Out a Vision of Power Restrained Only by ‘My Own Morality’; The New York Times, January 8, 2026

David E. SangerTyler PagerKatie Rogers and Zolan Kanno-Youngs , The New York Times; Trump Lays Out a Vision of Power Restrained Only by ‘My Own Morality’

[Kip Currier: Trump's statement below is contrary to the very founding ideals and precepts of the United States of America. Indeed, this nation is the manifestation of revolutionary action against unaccountable one-person rule.

For Trump to unabashedly declare that "the only thing that can stop me" is "my own morality" and "my own mind" is Shakespearean in its arrogance and grandiosity.

It is hubris immortalized in Greek tragedy.]

[Excerpt]

"Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

“I don’t need international law,” he added. “I’m not looking to hurt people.”"

Ethics watchdog outlines allegations against Georgia Republican’s chief of staff; Politico, January 5, 2026

HAILEY FUCHS, Politico; Ethics watchdog outlines allegations against Georgia Republican’s chief of staff

"A nonpartisan Congressional watchdog is alleging that Brandon Phillips, who has served as Rep. Mike Collins’ chief of staff, hired a romantic interest as an office intern and illicitly used his office’s Congressional resources.

The report from the Office of Congressional Conduct, released Monday, also claims the intern “did not perform duties commensurate with her compensation.”

“Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Mr. Phillips discriminated unfairly by dispensing special favors or privileges by participating in the retention of an employee with whom Mr. Phillips had a personal relationship,” the report states...

The House Ethics Committee does not comment on ongoing investigations but said it is currently reviewing the allegations against both Collins and Phillips."

A top DoJ official trained Pam Bondi on ethics rules in the department. Then he was fired; The Guardian, January 3, 2026

Sam Levine, The Guardian; A top DoJ official trained Pam Bondi on ethics rules in the department. Then he was fired

"Joseph Tirrell was reaching the end of a vacation on 11 July, and watching TV at home. He checked his email on his phone and saw a message from his employer, the Department of Justice. He thought it was strange that he was receiving email from the government on his personal account. Inside was a message that he was being fired from his job as the top ethics official at the department.

The notice, signed by Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, did not give a reason for his firing. It also misspelled his first name, addressing it to “Jospeh W Tirrell”. Tirrell called his bosses at the department, who at first seemed as surprised as he did, before eventually confirming that he had in fact been terminated.

At the start of the year, Tirrell knew that he might attract scrutiny from the incoming administration because he had signed off on special counsel Jack Smith receiving pro-bono legal services from a private law firm as he prepared to leave the government, something Tirrell said was clearly allowed under the department’s ethics rules. As the department’s top ethics official, he was responsible for overseeing ethics compliance across the agency and training the department’s top officers in their obligations. But as months passed and Tirrell remained in his job, he thought he was safe.

Tirrell is one of scores of career federal employees this year who have been dismissed without reason. He is now suing the department over his firing."

Excerpt: When the Ethics of Animal Research Hit Home; Undark, January 2, 2026

MELANIE D.G. KAPLAN , Undark; Excerpt: When the Ethics of Animal Research Hit Home

"What if subjecting Hammy to a mildly uncomfortable blood draw somehow helped me? Or another dog? What if a procedure caused significant pain but promised to improve my parents’ lives? Or the lives of a dozen friends? A hundred strangers? What if a lethal operation on Hammy might — no guarantees — benefit a million people 10 years from now?

As I contemplated these hypothetical questions, my mama bear heart said “No!” even if inflicting pain on Hammy meant saving the planet. Intellectually, I had to acknowledge that this line of questioning was provocative, and contemplating the answers lit up my brain in a not unwelcome way. Ethicists grapple with these dilemmas all the time.

“Since animal experimentation began, the public has asked whether the practice is justifiable,” Lori Gruen, an animal studies scholar at Wesleyan University, writes in “Ethics and Animals: An Introduction.” She reasons that while some experiments have caused useless suffering and death to animals, others have yielded insights important in the development of drugs and therapies. But, she asks, “Is the fact that some benefits have emerged from animal experiments enough to justify doing them?”"

Elon Musk’s 2025 recap: how the world’s richest person became its most chaotic; The Guardian, December 31, 3025

Nick Robins-Early and Dara Kerr, The Guardian; Elon Musk’s 2025 recap: how the world’s richest person became its most chaotic

"One of Musk’s final feuds of the year came from a more unusual source – famed 87-year-old author Joyce Carol Oates, whose cutting observation about him on X received more than 5.6m views.

“So curious that such a wealthy man never posts anything that indicates that he enjoys or is even aware of what virtually everyone appreciates – scenes from nature, pet dog or cat, praise for a movie, music, a book (but doubt that he reads); pride in a friend’s or relative’s accomplishment; condolences for someone who has died; pleasure in sports, acclaim for a favorite team; references to history,” Oates posted in November.

A day later, after Musk made a show of enthusiastically replying to several clips of movies on X, he responded to Oates’s critique.

“Oates is a liar and delights in being mean,” Musk posted. “Not a good human.”"

Ebenezer Scrooge and the dynamics of moral transformation: The ethics of Dickens’s ‘A Christmas Carol’; ABC, December 22, 2025

 Tara-Lyn Camilleri, ABC; Ebenezer Scrooge and the dynamics of moral transformation: The ethics of Dickens’s ‘A Christmas Carol’

"Given that Dickens wrote from within Victorian Christianity, I’ll assume he took for granted some meaningful form of free will, miracles and redemption. I don’t. Yet this Victorian ghost story still cheers me every year. In recent years I’ve found myself examining the popular moral we’ve attached to it — that it’s a story about choosing to do better, against the narrative itself."

Lawmaker Sues to Remove Trump’s Name From the Kennedy Center; The New York Times, December 22, 2025

Shawn McCreesh , The New York Times; Lawmaker Sues to Remove Trump’s Name From the Kennedy Center

"Representative Joyce Beatty, Democrat of Ohio, sued President Trump on Monday, seeking to force the removal of his name from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Ms. Beatty’s lawsuit names as defendants Mr. Trump and the loyalists he appointed to the center’s board. The suit contends that the board’s vote to change the name last week was illegal because an act of Congress is required to rename the building.

Ms. Beatty is represented by Norman Eisen, a White House ethics counsel in the Obama administration, along with Nathaniel Zelinsky, his co-counsel of the Washington Litigation Group.

Mr. Eisen said the name change “violates the Constitution and the rule of law because Congress said this is the name. He doesn’t have a right to change the name.”"

New Lawsuit Challenges Illegal Renaming of the Kennedy Center; Washington Litigation Group, December 22, 2025

Washington Litigation Group; New Lawsuit Challenges Illegal Renaming of the Kennedy Center

"Congresswoman Joyce Beatty today sued President Trump and others to stop the unlawful renaming of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Congresswoman in her capacity as an ex officio trustee of the Kennedy Center by the Washington Litigation Group and Democracy Defenders Action. Congresswoman Beatty participated in the recent Board meeting and alleges she was prevented from speaking when she attempted to object to the renaming. 

“Only Congress has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center. President Trump and his cronies must not be allowed to trample federal law and bypass Congress to feed his ego,” said Congresswoman Beatty. “This entire process has been a complete disgrace to this cherished institution and the people it serves. These unlawful actions must be blocked before any further damage is done.”

Shortly after President Kennedy’s assassination, Congress designated the Kennedy Center as the sole national memorial within the nation’s capital to the late President. The lawsuit argues that because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress. 

The suit follows a December 18, 2025 announcement that the Board had voted to rebrand the Kennedy Center with President Trump’s name, and the rapid installation of new exterior signage and related digital branding changes the next day. The lawsuit contends that the Board’s action is legally void and damages the institution’s public mission by turning a national memorial into a political vanity project.

“The President and his sycophants have no lawful authority to rename the Kennedy Center,” said Nathaniel Zelinsky, Senior Counsel at Washington Litigation Group and Amb. Norman Eisen (ret.), founder of Democracy Defenders Action. “Congress named the Kennedy Center as a national memorial to President Kennedy, and only Congress can change that. We are proud to represent Congresswoman Beatty as she defends the integrity of this institution and the separation of powers.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks the court to declare the Board’s renaming vote unlawful and without legal effect, order removal of the physical and digital signage and branding changes, restore the Kennedy Center’s lawful name, and prevent further attempts to rename it without congressional authorization.

WLG’s lead lawyers on the case are Senior Counsels Nathaniel Zelinsky and Kyle Freeny.  Also on the complaint from WLG are:  Thomas C. Green, John Aldock, Samantha P. Bateman, Elizabeth D. Collery, Mary L. Dohrmann, James I. Pearce, Barry Wm Levine.  WLG is litigating the case alongside Democracy Defenders Action."

The Benign Zombies of Pluribus; The Hastings Center for Bioethics, December 22, 2025

Jonathan D. Moreno, The Hastings Center for Bioethics; The Benign Zombies of Pluribus

"Whatever disagreements neuroethicists have, they all presuppose the annoying multiplicity of brains that somehow generate minds. Not so in Vince Galligan’s new streaming series Pluribus.

A coded message from deep space is the trigger for turning (nearly) all human beings into segments of a “hive mind,” a global super colony that the sociobiologist E.O. Wilson would have recognized from his work on ants. And wouldn’t you know it, those nerdy scientists hanging on every radio impulse from the universe in search of intelligent life provide the gateway to a radical loss of individuality. Thus the SETI geeks enter a long tradition of fictional scientists who unleash forces that quickly run out of control.

The results are mixed: No war, no violence, no racism or sexism.  Also, no personal uniqueness. Is it worth it?...

Like all such speculations Pluribus raises countless questions. How did this actually happen and why, if one member of the hive gets drunk, the whole hive doesn’t?"

Natasha Lyonne says AI has an ethics problem because right now it’s ‘super kosher copacetic to rob freely under the auspices of acceleration’; Fortune, December 20, 2025

Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez , Fortune; Natasha Lyonne says AI has an ethics problem because right now it’s ‘super kosher copacetic to rob freely under the auspices of acceleration’

"Asteria partnered with Moonvalley AI, which makes AI tools for filmmakers, to create Marey, named after cinematographer Étienne-Jules Marey. The tool helps generate AI video that can be used for movies and TV, but only draws on open-license content or material it has explicit permission to use. 

Being careful about the inputs for Asteria’s AI video generation is important, Lyonne said at the Fortune Brainstorm AI conference in San Francisco last week. As AI use increases, both tech and Hollywood need to respect the work of the cast, as well as the crew and the writers behind the scenes. 

“I don’t think it’s super kosher copacetic to just kind of rob freely under the auspices of acceleration or China,” she said. 

While she hasn’t yet used AI to help make a TV show or movie, Lyonne said Asteria has used it in other small ways to develop renderings and other details.

“It’s a pretty revolutionary act that we actually do have that model and that’s you know the basis for everything that we work on,” said Lyonne.

Marey is available to the public for a credits-based subscription starting at $14.99 per month."

A hidden life in the era of social media can still change history, as the story of Jesus shows; The Guardian, December 14, 2025

Justine Toh, The Guardian ; A hidden life in the era of social media can still change history, as the story of Jesus shows

[Kip Currier: Resonant brief piece by Justine Toh, sharing the insights of 19th century Victorian writer George Eliot (nee Mary Ann Evans). As Toh observes:

...the spotlight needn’t be on you for you to live an influential life. A life might be “hidden” – a heresy in the social media era, where everything exists to be shared – yet still well lived. You can shape the course of history, even if you leave little trace on it.

So relevant -- and a welcome antidote -- to this social media era that demands and amplifies "attention", "likes", "notice", and "influence".]

[Excerpt]

"Do you want to be influential?

So do 57% of gen Zs in the US who aspire to be influencers, presumably lured by money and fame. But say you also want to make the world a better place. In that case, maybe the spiritual instruction you need emerges in the famous final lines of George Eliot’s 1871 novel Middlemarch:

“… the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

Eliot offers a bracing reality check: the spotlight needn’t be on you for you to live an influential life. A life might be “hidden” – a heresy in the social media era, where everything exists to be shared – yet still well lived. You can shape the course of history, even if you leave little trace on it.

This strange idea takes on added significance for me at Christmas. The story of Jesus’s birth is nothing if not “unhistoric” – in the sense of being ignored – even if today we live in the wake of his influence...

Eliot gives us a place to start renewing our attention – by recognising that “the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts”.

If nothing else, the line doubles as a fitting description of Christianity’s lasting effect. That it was penned by a woman who shed her Christian faith, but largely retained its ethics, is even more ironic. Whatever you believe, Eliot’s is excellent advice: keep adding to the world’s growing good by small acts. Unhistoric on their own, perhaps, but that still prove generative, spawning possibilities long after."

The Ethics Of Animal Testing; NPR, December 11, 2025

NPR; The Ethics Of Animal Testing

"What would you sacrifice to push efforts forward on eliminating diseases? What about to make sure our products and medicines are safe, especially for our most vulnerable?

These questions lead us to ethical quagmire and, oftentimes, to the use of animals for research, testing, and experimentation. We’ve long heard the term “lab rat.” Its popularity in conversation belies an understanding that these creatures are popular subjects for experimentation. But they’re far from the only ones.

Around 40,000 dogs were used as test subjects in labs last year, according to a leading advocacy group. The most common breed used are beagles.

Journalist Melanie Kaplan adopted Hammie in 2013, a lab beagle who had been used for research for nearly four years. It led her down a years-long rabbit hole to find out more about her companion’s past. It took her to a sanctuary farm for former research animals in Wyoming, a naked mole rat lab at Boston University, and the homes of former researchers.

We discuss her book, “Lab Dog: A Beagle and His Human Investigate the Surprising World of Animal Research.”"

AI Has Its Place in Law, But Lawyers Who Treat It as a Replacement Can Risk Trust, Ethics, and Their Clients' Futures; International Business Times, December 11, 2025

 Lisa Parlagreco, International Business Times; AI Has Its Place in Law, But Lawyers Who Treat It as a Replacement Can Risk Trust, Ethics, and Their Clients' Futures

"When segments of our profession begin treating AI outputs as inherently reliable, we normalize a lower threshold of scrutiny, and the law cannot function on lowered standards. The justice system depends on precision, on careful reading, on the willingness to challenge assumptions rather than accept the quickest answer. If lawyers become comfortable skipping that intellectual step, even once, we begin to erode the habits that make rigorous advocacy possible. The harm is not just procedural; it's generational. New lawyers watch what experienced lawyers do, not what they say, and if they see shortcuts rewarded rather than corrected, that becomes the new baseline.

This is not to suggest that AI has no place in law. When used responsibly, with human oversight, it can be a powerful tool. Legal teams are successfully incorporating AI into tasks like document review, contract analysis, and litigation preparation. In complex cases with tens of thousands of documents, AI has helped accelerate discovery and flag issues that humans might overlook. In academia as well, AI has shown promise in grading essays and providing feedback that can help educate the next generation of lawyers, but again, under human supervision.

The key distinction is between augmentation and automation. We must not be naive about what AI represents. It is not a lawyer. It doesn't hold professional responsibility. It doesn't understand nuance, ethics, or the weight of a client's freedom or financial well-being. It generates outputs based on patterns and statistical likelihoods. That's incredibly useful for ideation, summarization, and efficiency, but it is fundamentally unsuited to replace human reasoning.

To ignore this reality is to surrender the core values of our profession. Lawyers are trained not just to know the law but to apply it with judgment, integrity, and a commitment to truth. Practices that depend on AI without meaningful human oversight communicate a lack of diligence and care. They weaken public trust in our profession at a time when that trust matters more than ever.

We should also be thinking about how we prepare future lawyers. Law schools and firms must lead by example, teaching students not just how to use AI, but how to question it. They must emphasize that AI outputs require verification, context, and critical thinking. AI should supplement legal education, not substitute it. The work of a lawyer begins long before generating a draft; it begins with curiosity, skepticism, and the courage to ask the right questions.

And yes, regulation has its place. Many courts and bar associations are already developing guidelines for the responsible use of AI. These frameworks encourage transparency, require lawyers to verify any AI-assisted research, and emphasize the ethical obligations that cannot be delegated to a machine. That's progress, but it needs broader adoption and consistent enforcement.

At the end of the day, technology should push us forward, not backward. AI can make our work more efficient, but it cannot, and should not, replace our judgment. The lawyer who delegates their thinking to an algorithm risks their profession, their client's case, and the integrity of the justice system itself."

FIFA accused of breaking ethics rules after giving Peace Prize to Trump; USA TODAY, December 9, 2025

Scooby Axson, USA TODAY; FIFA accused of breaking ethics rules after giving Peace Prize to Trump

"An international human rights group filed a complaint with the ethics committee of world soccer's governing body to look into FIFA President Gianni Infantino, accusing him of a possible breach of political neutrality.

FairSquare, based in London, which says its company promotes "systemic change and stops human rights abuses," filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee over the organization's decision to give its inaugural Peace Prize to President Donald Trump, a decision that was met with swift condemnation.

“The award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality,” FairSquare said in its complaint."

The case of the fake references in an ethics journal; Retraction Watch, December 2, 2025

Retraction Watch ; The case of the fake references in an ethics journal

"Many would-be whistleblowers write to us about papers with nonexistent references, possibly hallucinated by artificial intelligence. One reader recently alerted us to fake references in … an ethics journal. In an article about whistleblowing.

The paper, published in April in the Journal of Academic Ethics, explored “the whistleblowing experiences of individuals with disabilities in Ethiopian public educational institutions.” 

Erja Moore, an independent researcher based in Finland, came across the article while looking into a whistleblowing case in that country. “I started reading this article and found some interesting references that I decided to read as well,” Moore told Retraction Watch. “To my surprise, those articles didn’t exist.”...

The Journal of Academic Ethics is published by Springer Nature. Eleven of the fabricated references cite papers in the Journal of Business Ethics — another Springer Nature title.

“On one hand this is hilarious that an ethics journal publishes this, but on the other hand it seems that this is a much bigger problem in publishing and we can’t really trust scientific articles any more,” Moore said."

AI, ethics, and the lawyer's duty after Noland v. Land of the Free; Daily Journal, November 24, 2025

Reza Torkzadeh, Daily Journal; AI, ethics, and the lawyer's duty after Noland v. Land of the Free

"Noland establishes a bright line for California lawyers. AI may assist with drafting or research, but it does not replace judgment, verification or ethical responsibility. Technology may change how legal work is produced -- it does not change who is accountable for it."

GEORGE C. YOUNG AMERICAN INNS OF COURT EXPLORES ETHICS AND PITFALLS OF AI IN THE COURTROOM; The Florida Bar, November 26, 2025

The Florida Bar; GEORGE C. YOUNG AMERICAN INNS OF COURT EXPLORES ETHICS AND PITFALLS OF AI IN THE COURTROOM

"The George C. Young American Inns of Court continued its ongoing focus on artificial intelligence with a recent program titled, “The Use of AI to Craft Openings, Closings, and Directing Cross-Examination: Ethical Imperatives and Practical Realities.”...

Demonstrations showed that many members could not distinguish AI-generated narratives from those written by humans, highlighting the technology’s increasingly high-quality output. However, presenters also noted recurring drawbacks. AI-generated direct and cross-examinations frequently included prohibited or incorrect elements such as hearsay, compound questioning, and fabricated details — jokingly referred to as “ghost people” — distinguishing factual hallucinations from the better-known “phantom citation” problem.

The program concluded with a reminder that while AI may streamline drafting and help lawyers think creatively, professional judgment cannot be outsourced. The ultimate responsibility for accuracy, ethics, and advocacy remains with the lawyer."

Trump Moves to Weaken the Endangered Species Act; The New York Times, November 19, 2025

Maxine Joselow and Catrin Einhorn, The New York Times; Trump Moves to Weaken the Endangered Species Act

"The Trump administration proposed on Wednesday to significantly limit protections under the Endangered Species Act, the bedrock environmental law intended to prevent animal and plant extinctions.

Taken together, four proposed new rules could clear the way for more oil drilling, logging and mining in critical habitats for endangered species across the country.

One of the most contentious proposals would allow the government to assess economic factors, such as lost revenue from a ban on oil drilling near critical habitat, before deciding whether to list a species as endangered. The Endangered Species Act requires the government to consider only the best available science when making these decisions.

Another change would make it harder to protect species from threats that could occur in the future, like effects of climate change that could materialize in the decades to come."