This week, Lisa and David talk about cancelling of Colbert; Epstein files; Ghislaine Maxwell; Virginia Giuffre; Tim Tebow Foundation human trafficking initiatives; Corporation for Public Broadcasting shutting down; Windows Search Bar icon; High Noon cocktails go out mislabeled as Celsius energy drink; new Naked Gun movie; Sydney Sweeney controversy; anti-‘woke’ AI; and more.
Added Context Regarding The Tim Tebow Foundation Human Trafficking Initiatives
There is limited critical independent analysis from academic or secular human trafficking policy experts of the Tim Tebow Foundation’s (TTF) anti-human trafficking work.
Experts, industry observers, and watchdogs in the faith-based community generally see the Tim Tebow Foundation as a credible, transparent actor supporting effective anti-trafficking interventions—emphasizing long-term survivor care, professional partnerships, and prudent financial practices. Its transparency, faith-based approach, and scaling of aftercare are widely praised.
Secular specialists and researchers have identified several criticisms and limitations of faith-driven (faith-based) anti-human trafficking interventions. Experts widely agree that aiming to convert trafficking survivors to a specific faith is considered unethical and may harm recovery. While TTF may desire to avoid explicit proselytizing, donor expectations or internal organizational culture may encourage more overt religious messaging.
Policy scholars and some human trafficking specialists argue that faith-based interest groups have at times used their influence to shape national and international anti-trafficking law in ways that reflect moral or ideological agendas, particularly in the U.S. For example, efforts to conflate all sex work with sex trafficking have been partly driven by religious lobbying; this can result in policies that overlook important distinctions and fail to protect some victims.
When funding and support are tightly linked to donor narratives about faith and transformation, there can be a risk that storytelling supplants rigorous, independent evaluation of their program outcomes.
In general specialists recommend a careful focus on the ethical boundaries between support and conversion, as well as engagement with the root causes of trafficking.
Added Context on Trump's Order Against 'Woke AI'
Donald Trump's recent executive order and AI Action Plan instruct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to revise the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) to remove references to misinformation, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and climate change. The order labels DEI an "existential threat" to reliable AI, arguing it causes models to suppress factual information and embed ideas like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism. The policy mandates that federal agencies may only procure AI systems that meet "Unbiased AI Principles"—truth-seeking, historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, objectivity, and "ideological neutrality"—and prohibits AI that "manipulates responses in favor of ideological dogmas" such as DEI.
The order currently applies only to federal procurement: agencies can only purchase/use compliant models. For now, it does not restrict what private sector companies or individuals can use or sell outside government contracts. However, given the size and influence of federal purchasing and U.S. government market power, this will likely steer AI development among major providers toward compliance with these requirements for public sector contracts. There is a real risk, as pointed out by experts and critics, that if these procurement standards become the baseline for interoperability or security certification, "anti-woke" models could effectively become the primary or only models available for many sectors, including infrastructure, defense, and education.
There are legitimate concerns that the Trump administration's order to eliminate references to "woke" concepts from the NIST AI Risk Management Framework could result in anti-DEI, anti-bias-mitigation models becoming the norm. While the intent claimed is "neutrality," the practical effect is the removal of critical technical safeguards and scientific concepts from how models are evaluated for trustworthiness and social risk. This could directly lead to increased harm through unchecked bias, misinformation, and lack of accountability, as well as indirectly restrict the range of AI models available.
Links:
Bubba Wallace becomes first Black driver to win a major race on Indianapolis’ oval (CNN)
Trainwreck: Storm Area 51 (Netflix)
What has America learned from the Sydney Sweeney situation? We asked the experts (CNN)
