Jessica McGuire

Currently, U.S. food travels an average of 1,500 miles from farm to plate, leaving the country vulnerable to trucking shortages, extreme weather in single regions like California's Central Valley, and fuel price spikes. Even when food is grown locally, it often has to be shipped hundreds of miles away to be processed, packaged, and inspected before returning to local stores. Current U.S. farm policy heavily favors massive, single-crop farms (monocultures) growing corn and soybeans for animal feed and biofuels rather than human food. Indoor farming would allow cities—especially in cold northern states or arid western deserts—to grow fresh food year-round without relying on distant imports. Vacant warehouses, old industrial buildings, and commercial rooftops can be converted into productive hydroponic or aeroponic farms right inside major population centers. Despite the economic hurdles, why aren't we doing more of this? Small local farms and high-tech indoor facilities cannot match the low unit costs of giant factory farms. Bringing down the price of fresh, high-quality food requires redirecting federal farm subsidies toward produce and slashing energy and labor costs through automation. • Requiring public schools, hospitals, and military bases to buy regional produce create massive, predictable orders. High-volume local contracts help smaller farms achieve economies of scale. • Governments can shift taxpayer funding away from commodity corn and soybeans toward fresh fruits, vegetables, and regional farms. Lowering financial risk for produce growers directly reduces retail prices. • Connecting vertical farms and greenhouses directly to dedicated solar microgrids, geothermal wells, or next-generation nuclear power slashes electricity bills. Cheap power would make year-round local growing competitive with outdoor farms. @RepThomasMassie @RepTimBurchett @RobertKennedyJr @NIHDirector_Jay

Tired of the politics. Putin famously (and accurately) stated that "the one who becomes the leader in [artificial intelligence] will be the ruler of the world." U.S. export controls were explicitly structured to maintain a lagging gap of at least several years (not months) to prevent advanced AI hardware from being deployed at scale in Chinese data centers. But gray-market networks routed through Malaysia, Singapore, etc. continue to funnel restricted chips into China. Cut off from Western suppliers, Chinese tech giants have turned inward, accelerating development of a fully domestic tech stack and narrowing the software advantage previously held by Nvidia’s CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) ecosystem. Proponents of controlled sales argue that keeping global developers dependent on American hardware and software ecosystems (like CUDA) gives the U.S. far more long-term leverage than surrendering those markets to Chinese alternatives. Combining leading-edge algorithmic efficiency with hardware parity would allow the PLA to field fully indigenous, AI-directed military hardware at industrial production volumes the U.S. industrial base would struggle to match. If Chinese developers buy older Nvidia chips, their code remains tied to CUDA. If they cannot buy any NVIDIA hardware, they must rewrite their code for Huawei's Ascend/CANN platform, creating an independent rival ecosystem. Selling older chips brings in billions of dollars from Chinese tech giants and helps U.S. firms reinvest that money into developing next-generation architectures, helping preserve America's technological edge. Forcing competitors to rely on less efficient hardware imposes a steep economic and infrastructure penalty on their AI programs. But Chinese startups like DeepSeek shocked the global market by training models (such as V3 and R1) that matched top-tier American systems from OpenAI and Google using significantly smaller, older clusters of Hopper-era chips. They still spend drastically more time, energy, and engineering talent writing low-level code to match what U.S. labs can achieve through raw computing scale. Congress and think tanks are pushing to build chip tracking directly into the hardware. If a chip's response time shows it is inside China instead of an approved data center in Malaysia, it can flag a smuggling alert. Proposed legislation like the bipartisan Chip Security Act would require chipmakers to embed tamper-proof cryptographic IDs into advanced processors. Researchers at Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) note this could be rolled out via hardware on new chips and firmware updates on existing ones. Major industry players—led by Nvidia, the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), and the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)—heavily lobbied against the bill, fearing it would make foreign buyers suspicious of American hardware. Earlier in 2026, President Donald Trump favored a more industry-friendly export approach and defended Nvidia against stricter unilateral restrictions. That resistance began softening in late October and early November 2026. White House officials started engaging with congressional staff and the controversy surrounding Jensen Huang have made it much harder politically for the administration or industry lobbyists to block the legislation. For state-of-the-art frontier model training, Chinese labs still strongly prefer smuggled Nvidia chips over domestic hardware due to the software stability and speed. But both the Chip Security Act and Nvidia explicitly prohibit remote disablement or "kill switches". Even if a chip's location is verified as unauthorized, a firmware update only reports the diversion; it does not brick the hardware. If a chip includes a hardware or firmware command capable of permanently disabling the processor, a software bug, misconfigured policy update, or rogue employee at a chipmaker or government agency could brick thousands of servers in friendly nations, causing global economic disruption. Even with GPU chips, training state-of-the-art military and foundation models requires coordinated clusters of 10,000 to 50,000 GPUs linked by high-speed networking switches (such as Nvidia InfiniBand). U.S. intelligence agencies monitor industrial construction and power-grid spikes in restricted regions to detect unauthorized supercomputing facilities. Regulators can require unannounced on-site audits or live video verification of serial numbers inside foreign data centers to confirm the hardware has not been moved. What separates Jensen Huang from nearly everyone else is his 30-year tenure as a founder-CEO combined with full-stack control. While TSMC understands fabrication and hyperscalers understand software demand, Huang sits at the intersection of chip design, networking, system architecture, and developer software (CUDA)—allowing him to see shifts in AI computing demand years before competitors. Transitioning away from his hands-on, founder-led decision-making would require restructuring how the entire company operates. While Nvidia's dominance is no longer dependent on one person, hardware export decision-making was not either. Huang has repeatedly lobbied Trump to loosen export controls, contending that strict restrictions hurt U.S. businesses without stopping Chinese AI development. Huang is an American patriot. His actions have put his personal judgment of his business partner's intentions and motives into question, but it wasn't his job to be a counterintelligence expert. It seems to me the people who wanted to see to it that U.S. chips were tracked abroad still got their way - just in a different way than using hardware or software. By monitoring Megaspeed CEO Alice Huang's communications and business dealings rather than alerting her or Jensen Huang, investigators could observe how hardware was being acquired and routed in real time. Agencies were also able to monitor her efforts to gather intelligence from Jensen Huang and potentially influence Nvidia's lobbying stance on U.S. export controls, giving them strategic visibility into Beijing's playbook. It was a calculated decision. People may disagree with it and criticize the ethical conflicts of interests, but if Trump cannot trust the experts then who can he trust? Jensen Huang is no Anthony Fauci.

The relationship between behavioral economist Dan Ariely and DARPA spans two primary areas: federal research funding for behavioral tracking and subsequent scrutiny via DARPA's massive scientific replication initiative. Ariely’s research lab at Duke University, the Center for Advanced Hindsight, focused extensively on decision-making under stress, deception, and behavioral nudges. Because understanding insider threats, deception, and cognitive security is highly valuable to military and intelligence agencies, Ariely secured multiple multimillion-dollar research contracts funded by DARPA and other federal entities throughout his career. DARPA heavily funded the SCORE program (Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence). Coordinated by the Center for Open Science, this massive initiative utilized hundreds of researchers and advanced AI tools to test the repeatability, robustness, and replication of thousands of prominent academic claims in the social and behavioral sciences. While granular project details for specific Navy or Air Force grants are largely absent from public press summaries, Ariely’s frameworks have been actively examined and applied within Department of Defense (DoD) circles: • Ethics and Insider Threat Prevention • Personnel Retention and Financial Health • Human-Machine Interaction and Cognitive Load In early 2026, Duke University announced it was shuttering the Center for Advanced Hindsight—shortly after Department of Justice document releases revealed past correspondence between Ariely and Jeffrey Epstein—ending the primary organizational vehicle through which his team executed large-scale institutional contracts.

Dan Ariely has an academic background in cognitive psychology and has published notable research in neuroscience. He used brain science in a 2016 neuroimaging study on how the brain adapts to dishonesty. In January 2018, here mentioned some people he was interested in meeting.

If only Gen Beta were older than toddlers, they could complain about women being swapped for robots. 🙈

Taking a step back here to look at what the Nvidia scandal really means. There are several possibilities. First, we know it was a strategic decision to allow the data centers in Southeast Asia, and the U.S. knew the tradeoffs. Did the intelligence community mitigate all the risks as well as they expected they could? The only real way to have an AI "kill switch" is to bake it into the hardware, so owning the chips is real leverage. As for @JensenHuang and Alice? 1. The CCP & the U.S. IC are both maxing profits. 2. They were both in on it and China was fooled. 3. Maybe Jensen was briefed, but not the public. 4. If Jensen was NOT briefed, did they just watch him f' over his life? If the latter option is true, just think about what that means. Ignorance would show a real lack of compassion for a CEO that has done so much to bolster America's AI security. Was the IC really that desperate? Was there really no better option than to let him take the fall? Or was he in love and willing to bear the consequences? At minimum, it would seem that he lost her, hurt his wife and family, and hurt his public reputation. What would cause such a kind, smart man to end up in this predicament? Jensen is hardly alone. *Just* another affair. No one usually cares if the mistress gets hurt. But you are supposed to care, @DeptofWar, if your own officers are the ones who keep initiating it. I believed @FBIWFO sat back because they knew I was falling in love. And that didn't just happen in my mind. Maybe Jensen didn't think he was alone in his feelings either, and his kids are grown and on their own. Did he give up love to protect U.S. national security - or was this affair a remarkable, short-sighted mistake? It's really none of our business but it really makes you think. Although Alice Huang and her firm, Megaspeed, were based in Singapore, approximately 74% of Singapore's population is of ethnic Chinese descent. While the physical Nvidia processors remained in Southeast Asia, Chinese companies leased access to the servers to run and train AI models without physically importing the banned chips into China. But that's not all. U.S. officials suspect the hardware was either being smuggled directly into mainland China or used to build data centers. While this strategy makes sense from a commercial and long-term leverage standpoint, U.S. defense officials and policymakers generally reject it because of immediate military risks. Whether it is "better" for U.S. national security to have China use Nvidia chips instead of Huawei’s chips is one of the sharpest disagreements in Washington. Huawei Is Rapidly Catching Up but while Huawei can link hundreds of chips together to match Nvidia's raw computing power, those systems require roughly three to four times more electricity and cost millions more to run. From a military perspective, the U.S. is buying time. Taiwan is at risk NOW. Slowing down China’s AI training capacity gives the U.S. and its allies a decisive edge in developing next-generation defense systems. Jensen Huang was born in Tainan, Taiwan, on February 17, 1963, and emigrated to the United States when he was nine years old. He co-founded Nvidia Corporation in 1993. He is proud and grateful to be an American. He also frequently expresses deep affection, pride, and gratitude for Taiwan, the island where he was born. Both culturally and professionally, he treats Taiwan as an irreplaceable partner in Nvidia's success and is celebrated there like a hometown hero. Taiwan is closely aligned with the United States in practice, though their relationship remains strictly unofficial under Washington's "One China" policy. Singapore has no formal diplomatic ties with Taipei and consistently states its opposition to Taiwanese independence to preserve stable relations with mainland China. Publicly, it has zero interest in diplomatic or political alignment. However Singapore uses Nvidia chips across its data centers and AI infrastructure, not Huawei AI chips. Almost all major AI models and enterprise software worldwide are built to run on Nvidia's proprietary CUDA software platform. But because Singapore is not subject to the strict U.S. export bans placed on mainland China, Megaspeed—was able to legally purchase billions of dollars worth of Nvidia chips in Singapore. Speaking at the Milken Institute Asia Summit in October 2026, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan stated that Singapore "will refuse to choose" and will not act as a bargaining chip for either superpower, according to South China Morning Post. Although Singapore allows U.S. naval and air forces to use its facilities for logistics and transit, it does not have a mutual defense treaty with Washington. Even though Singapore sits roughly 1,800 miles (2,900 km) southwest of the Taiwan Strait, a conflict or blockade there would directly impact Singapore's economic survival and national security. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have repeatedly stated that a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would force Southeast Asian nations into an impossible choice, fracturing ASEAN and permanently damaging Singapore's prosperity and neutrality. Many analysts point toward late 2028 or early 2029 as a critical window. Beijing is closely watching both Taiwan's 2028 presidential election and the U.S. presidential transition to judge whether peaceful unification remains viable. Security experts now estimate a 5% to 10% chance that a cryptographically relevant quantum computer could arrive before 2030, prompting the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to set a 2030 target for securing high-impact federal systems.

The Ashley Madison (extramarital site) scandal was revealed in July and August 2015 after a hacking group calling itself The Impact Team breached the servers of parent company Avid Life Media and leaked the personal data of roughly 37 million users. @FBI we do not talk enough about how this timeline lined up with the start of the DNC hacks. Also, as you know, it was when I was recruited to PEW as an email system administrator. Because the site did not verify email addresses during sign-up, thousands of accounts were linked to .gov and .mil addresses alongside prominent public figures. Needless to say, Jeffrey Epstein would be interested. A Fort Lauderdale (Broward) Sheriff's Office employee, Debbie O'Flaherty-Lewis, was even found guilty of extorting a Boca Raton doctor that she met on the site. The officer was a Child Protective Investigator Supervisor! And yet she extorted a doctor for money. Security analysts and commentators noted at the time that Avid Media's sister site, Established Men— paired wealthy men with younger women seeking financial support—drawing criticism for blurring the lines around compensated dating and prostitution. But the criminal investigation into the 2015 Ashley Madison hack never resulted in any arrests or public identification of the perpetrators. The founder and CEO of Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media, stepped down in August 2015. Hackers leaked hundreds of his personal emails indicating he had multiple affairs, contradicting his public claims that he had never cheated on his wife. Noel Biderman (born 24 November 1971) is a Canadian former lawyer, sports agent and internet entrepreneur. Dr. Karyna Shuliak (often spelled Karina Shulyak) the Belarusian-born dentist who was Jeffrey Epstein's long-term girlfriend and the primary beneficiary of his estate, emailed Epstein about Biderman as early as April 2013. Dan Ariely (a professor who is in 600+ files) emailed Epstein about Biderman in November 2015 and Ms. Lesley Groff tried to set up a meeting in January 2016. Ariely was a physics and mathematics major at Tel Aviv University but transferred to philosophy and psychology. Ariely taught at MIT between 1998 and 2008, where he was the Alfred P. Sloan professor of behavioral economics. He then worked for Duke University, where he founded and led the Center for Advanced Hindsight until The Duke Chronicle reported its closure in early 2026. In 2006, when he was a professor at the MIT Media Lab, Ariely conducted experiments including administering electric shocks with a research assistant who had no human-subject training. "At the time of our meetings [with Epstein], I was deep into research on dishonesty and crime, and I spoke with many individuals who had broken the law..." and "our relationship wasn't a friendship, and he didn't financially support any of my projects." Ariely suggested that Epstein use learnings from his research to help rehabilitate his public image, stating via email, "If you want to talk about where to take this research or other questions... In 2015, Ariely gave a talk at Google about dating and relationships, discussing what women want from men. He also addressed human irrationality in decision-making, including how people justify habits, commitment hurdles, or infidelity within relationships. Multiple claims that Ariely held extensive DARPA contracts for studying deception and cognitive security have circulated on X (and other social platforms), often bundling his work on dishonesty with broader discussions of military behavioral science. However, these posts do not cite official Pentagon or federal grant databases. Behavioral economics concepts (such as "nudging," cognitive bias, and decision-making under stress) have been widely studied across the U.S. Department of Defense. Across the 2010s, U.S. defense and intelligence branches incorporated behavioral economics into their training, cybersecurity, and counter-influence programs. Ariely's book Predictably Irrational and his concepts were frequently cited in general academic and policy discussions without his direct involvement. The U.S. Army War College, the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and National Defense University—regularly publish thesis papers and strategy articles on cognitive bias, insider threats, and deception. In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence partnered with the Defense Personnel and Security Research Center (PERSEREC) to create a strategic plan using social and behavioral sciences to detect and deter insider threats, as detailed by the Office of People Analytics. The military counter-insider threat models focus on observable "behavioral indicators"—such as financial distress, substance abuse, and interpersonal conflicts - things that bad actors try to cause in whistleblowers. Several of Ariely’s most prominent studies on honesty and moral reminders—which formed the basis of his dishonesty research—were later retracted or flagged for data fabrication and manipulation. Because those findings failed replication and were discredited, they did not serve as a validated scientific foundation for federal personnel security programs. Pre-existing vulnerabilities that make a person more susceptible to poor judgment under pressure. Acute personal, financial, or professional events destabilize an individual, such as severe debt, divorce, bereavement, substance abuse, or workplace demotions. Observable actions that signal a shift from stress to active risk, such as expressing deep grievances, hostility toward coworkers, working unusual hours, or attempting unauthorized data access. Institutional failures that escalate risk rather than defusing it, such as ignoring warning signs, mishandling employee grievances, or failing to revoke access after disciplinary actions. Workplace and Personal Instability. Abrupt personality shifts, chronic rule-breaking, AWOL incidents, substance abuse, or fixation on personal grievances. [Our adversaries are ACTIVELY EXPLOITING THIS KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO HARM INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR CLEARANCE. Crime victims are not the equivalent of insider threats.] @MarkSZaidEsq @CIADirector Disgusting. Plz go after the criminals not the victims. @FBIDirectorKash

Under Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and BIS chief Alan Estevez (2022-20230, U.S. export controls were written to block physical chip shipments into mainland China while keeping commercial channels open to allied and neutral countries in Southeast Asia. Biden officials finally tried to close the global and cloud diffusion loopholes in January 2025, but it was days before leaving office. Just before the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule was set to take effect, Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, BIS Under Secretary Jeffrey Kessler, and White House AI Czar David Sacks formally rescinded it. Nvidia and Microsoft, they argued that capping chip sales to Southeast Asia and allied nations was overly bureaucratic and hurt U.S. competitiveness. They also wanted leverage over the hardware and software ecosystem, but the speed, scale, and methods of the model training surprised both U.S. officials and American tech companies. Chinese labs surprised Washington by engineering distributed training methods that made overseas clusters work at frontier scale. Chinese developers essentially turned foreign cloud rentals into a full-scale substitute for domestic supercomputers. Nvidia leadership also stated it was unaware of alleged Chinese intelligence recruitment inside Megaspeed's executive ranks. The FBI has domestic jurisdiction and independent legal authority to deliver "defensive briefings". In sensitive counterintelligence cases, however, it rarely acts alone without IC and White House and sign-off. Because revealing the threat risks exposing CIA or NSA sources and could immediately affect U.S.–China trade talks or financial markets, the FBI coordinates with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the National Security Council (NSC) at the White House before anyone can share that intelligence outside the government. Investigators used the ongoing wiretaps and intercepts on Alice Huang to trace Megaspeed's network, map illicit chip diversion corridors in Malaysia and Singapore, and identify other intermediaries. Delivering a defensive warning would have shut down that intelligence stream overnight. Administration officials were extremely hesitant to destabilize Nvidia, viewing the company as the primary engine powering American AI dominance and broader financial markets. The U.S. government had no legal authority to prevent or break up a private personal relationship, and officials chose not to intervene so they could keep watching the intelligence operation unfold. Unless a person holds a federal security clearance or commits a crime, intelligence agencies cannot dictate who a private citizen dates or associates with. [OH, but they have dictated it elsewhere. @FBIWFO] By silently observing Alice Huang's communications and travel rather than warning Jensen Huang to cut her off, investigators could see what specific information Beijing was asking for, who her handlers were, and how Megaspeed's chip-procurement network operated. Stepping in to confront the CEO of the world's most valuable chipmaker over a personal affair tied to Chinese espionage would have immediately triggered boardroom upheaval, SEC disclosure obligations, and massive stock-market volatility. When a classified U.S. intelligence memo circulated in early 2026 noted that the Jensen and Alice had a romantic relationship, Jensen told Bloomberg on October 30, 2026 that Alice Huang was "no longer with Megaspeed. While the affair itself is confirmed, the exact dates and full timeline have not been independently established. If domestic law enforcement or federal agents use sexual relationships to extract information or induce cooperation from a private citizen, courts treat it as a severe abuse of power. Legal scholarship in the Cleveland State Law Review highlights that using intimacy as an investigative tool can violate a citizen's Fifth Amendment due process rights. If the official their authority to pressure a citizen, they can face federal civil rights lawsuits and criminal charges for deprivation of rights under color of law. Foreign oligarchs, tech founders, and sovereign wealth executives are routine targets of the CIA, NSA, and Treasury intelligence units, but American billionaires are protected by the Fourth Amendment. To target an American billionaire with electronic surveillance, the FBI or DOJ would have to obtain a warrant from a federal judge or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) by showing probable cause of a federal crime or that the person is knowingly acting as an agent of a foreign power. When U.S. agencies legally surveil a foreign intelligence operative or foreign official abroad, any phone calls, texts, or emails that an American billionaire exchanges with that foreign target can be legally swept up in the intercepts as "incidental" collection. But if an American billionaire's business dealings trigger money laundering, tax, export-control, or foreign-lobbying (FARA) red flags, the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and Treasury Department can subpoena financial records and conduct standard law enforcement investigations.

Criminal trials can drag on for years, so a civil attorney must file the lawsuit promptly to preserve the plaintiff's legal right to sue. Even though the lawsuit is filed, the civil case often does not move forward at full speed until the criminal case concludes. Filing early allows lawyers to issue preservation notices so evidence isn't destroyed and helps prevent a defendant from hiding or transferring financial assets before a judgment is reached. If the defendant is convicted or pleads guilty in the criminal case, that conviction can often be used in the civil case as automatic proof of liability. Even though civil court has a lower burden of proof than criminal court, a lawyer still needs objective evidence—such as documents, video, or witness testimony - which is notoriously difficult, slow, and expensive to obtain from an intelligence agency.