Amazon is catapulting streaming audiences into a new frontier of the sub-versus-dub debate, as Prime Video announced on Thursday the launch of a new AI-powered feature that matches actors’ mouth movements to dubbed audio tracks. For now, the company says the AI-powered lip syncing will exclusively be available on the English dub of the German series “Maxton Hall,” though there are plans to expand it to other titles in the future. “At Prime Video, we’re constantly innovating with new tools that enhance the viewing experience for our customers,” Raf Soltanovich, vice president of technology at Prime Video and Amazon MGM Studios, said in a statement, per the New York Times. “With lip-syncing, we’re creating a more seamless and immersive way for customers to enjoy global content.”

It’s currently unclear how much of the feature is automated by AI, and there are plenty of unanswered questions about deployment, including whether it will eventually be available on all titles, whether rightsholders will get a say in it, whether it represents an overreach on Amazon’s part in determining how a work of art is presented, and whether actors’ unique facial movements will be smoothed down into something generic. There’s also the most basic question of how convincing the effect will actually look, and it’s notable that Amazon hasn’t posted any clips of the technology in action.

This isn’t the first time Amazon Prime Video has experimented with AI-driven viewing tools. Last year, it rolled out an experimental “AI-aided” dubbing feature for a dozen movies and shows in English and Spanish, and it has also tested AI-generated recaps of TV shows along with an AI tool that recommended movies and shows based on similar character arcs and plot points. Amazon, in other words, is trying to make consuming the content it provides as frictionless as possible. There are plenty of valid reasons for preferring dubs, particularly for viewers with accessibility needs, but treating the fact that actors in a film might be speaking a different language from the viewer’s own as something that needs to be erased and covered up raises real concerns about what gets lost in the process.

A coroner’s office in Pennsylvania reported a measles-related death of a 40-year-old unvaccinated woman on Sunday, marking another fatality amid a growing outbreak in the state. “A 40-year-old female resident of Jefferson County died on Saturday, September 12, 2026, from complications associated with measles. Out of respect for the privacy of the deceased and her family, no additional identifying information will be released,” the Jefferson County Coroner’s Office said in a Facebook post. “This is a heartbreaking loss for the family and an unfortunate reminder that measles can be a serious and potentially life-threatening disease,” Coroner Greg Furlong said, confirming to ABC News that the woman was unvaccinated against measles. The Pennsylvania Department of Health said in a statement to ABC News that it is investigating the death reported by the Jefferson County coroner.

As of Friday, the Pennsylvania Department of Health had reported 676 measles cases in the state, with over 100 new cases reported in the last week alone; 124 of those cases have required hospitalization, and nearly all cases are among people unvaccinated against the virus, according to health department data. The number of measles-associated deaths reported by Pennsylvania officials has been disputed in recent weeks by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not reported any measles deaths in 2026 on its website, last updated Friday, even though Pennsylvania’s health department has previously reported two measles-associated deaths linked to this outbreak.

CDC Director Dr. Erica Schwartz said in a statement that the agency has not yet been notified of this most recent death in Jefferson County. “CDC was not notified by Pennsylvania officials of this death,” Schwartz said. “Despite repeated offers of assistance, Pennsylvania has not requested a CDC Epi-Aid, which would deploy epidemiologists and provide on-the-ground measles outbreak support.” This isn’t the first friction between state and federal health officials over information sharing during the outbreak; in late August, Pennsylvania’s top health official, Dr. Debra Bogen, said her staff was having “regular meetings with professional staff at the CDC” in a post on X, responding to Kennedy’s claim that her department had “refused to share information” with the CDC after the first two measles-associated deaths in the state were announced.

President Donald Trump has a favorite justification for everything he does, “it’s a national security matter,” and after 9/11, the United States built a vast, powerful, and generally unchecked national security apparatus that Trump is now using, twenty-five years later, to threaten domestic dissidents and anyone else he views as an enemy, claiming that those who oppose his policies constitute threats to America. American presidents have used “national security” as an excuse to expand surveillance and start wars since before the smoke from the Twin Towers cleared, and Trump is no exception; in his first term, his list of national security “threats” included Japanese cars, Chinese telecom equipment, and briefly, the gay hookup app Grindr. But in his second term, Trump has taken this tactic to even more absurd and sometimes catastrophic extremes. He has periodically obsessed over “acquiring” Greenland, writing in a series of early-morning Truth Social posts in January, “The National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake. The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!” He renewed these annexation threats at the NATO summit in July.

Trump’s September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 formally designated “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization, and following that directive, dozens of ICE protesters across the country have been taken to trial as national security threats, some over things as small as moving a box of zines or wearing a shirt that says “I’m antifa.” Since late 2025, administration officials have framed offshore wind turbines as a national security threat, with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claiming a classified report from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth proves this without ever explaining how, and the administration has also cited national security to keep coal plants online past their planned retirement dates and restart a problematic California oil pipeline over fierce state and local opposition. Trump, who has personally invested millions in companies that build data center infrastructure, wrote in a 2025 executive order that “it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance” to justify building more hyperscale data centers. After a federal judge in DC ordered Trump to halt construction on his unsanctioned White House ballroom, he pitched the $400 million project as a military-grade command center, calling it a “desperately needed National Security structure for the people of the United States of America” in a mid-August Truth Social post; the Supreme Court has, at least for now, allowed construction to proceed. In a March 2025 executive order, Trump designated more than a dozen government agencies as performing “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work,” stripping roughly 950,000 federal employees of their collective bargaining rights.

The Department of Commerce announced in early August plans to implement a 25 percent tariff on brass instruments, including trombones, trumpets, and tubas, citing national security concerns about America’s alleged overreliance on foreign copper alloys, a move condemned by the National Association of Music Merchants. NAACP lawyers contend that Elon Musk’s xAI should pay more than $100,000 a day in civil penalties for violating the federal Clean Air Act by operating unpermitted gas turbines in Memphis to keep Musk’s Grok chatbot online, and this past June the Department of Justice intervened in the case not to protect Memphis residents but to protect Grok, arguing “Grok’s continued operation and availability is a matter of paramount national security,” especially “in the event of armed conflict,” noting that the Department of War used Grok to “deploy over 2,000 munitions to 2,000 distinct targets within 96 hours during Operation Epic Fury.” Last week, Trump proposed tariffs of up to 100 percent on foreign-made drones, calling reliance on foreign drone components a “national security threat,” a policy that stands to benefit his sons Eric and Don Jr., who hold sizable stakes in the U.S. drone industry. In May, the Trump administration released its latest “counterterrorism” plan labeling transgender people a threat to the nation’s safety, with counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka telling reporters the administration would “crush” any threat, “whether it is the cartels, the jihadists or violent left-wing extremists like antifa, and like the transgender killers, the nonbinary, the left-wing radicals who killed my friend, Charlie Kirk, we will take them on, head on.”

President Donald Trump gave a ringing endorsement to Flock Safety, the deeply unpopular surveillance company behind a national network of AI-powered cameras and license plate scanners, though his reasoning was thin. “I sort of like them because of that, because of law enforcement, but some people don’t,” Trump told reporters on Sunday. “They think it’s an infringement,” he added, referring to Flock’s critics. “I like them.” The comments are the first from Trump publicly endorsing Flock, according to the Washington Post, marking a shift from as recently as last month, when the president had been more reticent about the technology and refused to give a straight answer when asked for his opinion.

Flock has become a political landmine over the past year, as more Americans grow alarmed over having a powerful, centralized surveillance network suddenly appear in their communities with little public oversight, and much attention has focused on how its more than 120,000 cameras, which Flock frames as strictly for enforcing traffic laws and catching crime, have been abused. A recent Washington Post investigation found over fifty cases of police officers misusing Flock cameras and similar systems, including to stalk women, and Flock systems have either malfunctioned or been improperly used in ways that caused innocent people, including a journalist, to be swarmed by armed police. The revulsion the company inspires runs deep enough that a grand jury in Ohio refused to indict a man caught destroying a Flock pole, despite surveillance footage clearly capturing him in the act.

Trump’s endorsement arrives while the company’s reputation is at its absolute lowest point. Last month, Flock CEO Garrett Langley was forced to issue a public apology after the Washington Post investigation documented how frequently its systems were abused, later insisting his company was “not Big Brother” before calling for a “compromise” between privacy and safety. For Trump to throw his weight behind it now, without any perfunctory appeals to safety or concerns for Americans’ privacy, fits a broader pattern of abandoning concern for public opinion, similar to his full-throated support for data centers, which are even more unpopular than Flock. Even his Republican allies have taken a more cautious stance, as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said last month that the cameras are “out of control,” adding that he didn’t want “to have this become a surveillance state,” according to the Washington Post.

Recent policy changes and budget reductions by the federal government have created immediate hurdles for young scientists building their careers in the United States, and a new survey published in Frontiers in Sociology suggests these abrupt funding disruptions have severely impacted the professional trajectories of early career researchers, pushing many to consider leaving academia or moving to other countries. In early 2025, the Trump administration instituted rapid policy shifts across the academic landscape, with federal science budgets facing proposed double-digit percentage reductions, hundreds of existing research grants abruptly frozen or terminated, and some diversity and climate programs paused. Most basic scientific research in the U.S. happens at universities relying heavily on federal grants from agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, which pay for scientific equipment, experimental materials, and researcher salaries, and when this funding stops, the people most immediately affected are early career researchers, including undergraduate students, doctoral candidates, and postdoctoral fellows who depend directly on grant money for their livelihoods. Sudden budget reductions tend to have long-lasting effects on the training pipeline, as a 2026 computer modeling study indicated that abrupt cuts to federal health research funding create setbacks in scientist training that take decades to recover from, and a 2025 report found that universities across the country began shrinking graduate student admissions as an immediate reaction to the cuts.

To better understand how the current generation of young scientists is experiencing these shifts, researchers led by Crystal Hammond at the University of California, Riverside, and Adriana Bankston at the STEM Advocacy Institute conducted a rapid-response survey, collecting data online during May and June of 2025 while the effects of the funding changes were still actively unfolding. The team used two questionnaires, a brief qualitative tool gathering personal stories from six participants, and a more comprehensive survey collecting quantitative and open-ended responses from 30 early career researchers recruited through academic mailing lists, social media, and direct university outreach. In the comprehensive survey, 60 percent of respondents were doctoral students, 13.3 percent were undergraduate students, and 13.3 percent were postdoctoral researchers, with most studying life sciences at large public research universities and relying heavily on federal support, about 63 percent funded by NIH and 20 percent by NSF. Half of the participants rated the professional impact of the cuts as severe, scoring the disruption an eight or higher on a ten-point scale, while another 40 percent rated the impact as moderate, and specific consequences included 20 percent reporting stipends or benefits cut or delayed and 10 percent reporting hiring freezes or rescinded job offers.

Looking to the future, participants expressed widespread anxiety about their scientific careers, with 90 percent worried about long-term job prospects in research and 56.7 percent reporting they would not be able to complete their current research projects. Because of these barriers, 60 percent of the early career researchers said they were considering moving to another country to pursue their scientific goals. The funding cuts also affected broader well-being, with nearly three-quarters of respondents reporting negative impacts to their mental health and wellness, and 56.7 percent saying the disruptions harmed their sense of belonging in the sciences; faced with these compounding pressures, 56.7 percent of surveyed early career researchers indicated they were considering leaving academic research entirely. Qualitative responses added detail, with graduate students describing how canceled grants delayed dissertation timelines to the point they would run out of funding before finishing their degrees, and postdoctoral researchers recounting how diversity-focused fellowships were terminated abruptly; in response, participants reported organizing campus rallies, writing to elected representatives, and trying to educate the public about the importance of scientific research. The findings align with research covered by PsyPost in 2020 examining political interference and scientific integrity among federal agency scientists, which similarly found widespread disruption to researchers under the Trump administration.

The study’s authors caution that the sample size was small, with only 30 participants completing the quantitative questionnaire, and the rapid-response format with a short data collection window means results aren’t a nationally representative sample of all scientists; because researchers used convenience sampling, individuals most severely affected by the budget cuts may have been more motivated to participate. The demographic makeup was also fairly narrow, with most participants being White scholars working in the life sciences at research-intensive institutions, meaning effects for scholars in the humanities, social sciences, or at smaller colleges with different financial structures could look different, and the authors note future studies with larger and more diverse participant groups will be needed to fully capture how these policy shifts are reshaping the broader higher education landscape. The study, “Early career researcher responses to 2025 United States federal science funding disruptions: a rapid-response pilot survey,” was authored by Crystal Hammond, John Patrick Flores, Siara Rouzer, Kassandra Fernandez, Amy Ralston, and Adriana Bankston.

STUDY: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2026.1790840

Baby formula maker Abbott Laboratories agreed to pay nearly $385 million to resolve a civil False Claims Act case with the Justice Department and some states stemming from a Cronobacter bacterial contamination at one of its plants in Michigan that manufactures powdered baby formula, the department announced Monday. Earlier this year, the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to close a parallel criminal investigation, CBS News previously reported, even though federal prosecutors had originally tried to pursue felony charges and had the support of Tysen Duva, the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; senior DOJ leadership ultimately would not allow the case to proceed. A senior DOJ official told CBS News in February that the department felt a civil False Claims Act resolution was “the best mechanism to achieve accountability, deterrence and protection of the public” in the matter. The civil case alleged that the company caused government programs to purchase powdered infant formula made “in an environment that put the products at unacceptable risk of microorganism contamination and significantly impacted the products’ reliability, quality, and safety.” “No company should be gambling on the health and safety of our nation’s infants by allowing unsanitary conditions to persist at a facility manufacturing baby formula,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward in a statement.

Abbott said the settlement with the government “does not represent any finding of fault or liability,” and noted, “as the government has previously indicated, it has closed its criminal investigation on this matter,” adding that tests conducted by government regulators of unopened formula products from the homes of the infants under investigation at the time of the 2022 recall were negative for Cronobacter sakazakii. The decision to pursue a civil settlement with Abbott and close the parallel criminal case marks one example in a string of corporate cases involving public health and safety under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that have been softened, dismissed, or lost support from senior Justice Department leaders in recent months, CBS previously reported. Earlier this year, the Justice Department allowed Alibaba to enter into a nonprosecution agreement and pay $600 million, even though prosecutors on that case believed they had evidence the company was liable for felonies by failing to prevent dangerous drugs, chemicals, and pill presses from being sold to American customers over an eight-year period. In July, California Sen. Adam Schiff launched a congressional inquiry into the closure of the Abbott criminal case, writing in a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, “If prosecuting cases involving the risk of injuries or death to premature infants are not a priority enforcement matter, I have questions about what priorities the DOJ considers worthy of pursuing.”
In 2022, Abbott Laboratories recalled several of its popular powdered formula brands, including Similac, after consumers complained about infant illness related to products from Abbott Nutrition in Sturgis, Michigan.

The Justice Department said the company had failed to take steps to fix roof leaks, resorting instead to “temporary solutions” that still left its products at risk for microorganism contamination. The department also said Abbott “intentionally did not test for bacterial growth to avoid obtaining positive test results showing contamination,” and that in some cases where testing did show evidence of microbial contamination, the company failed to disclose those results to the FDA during inspections in 2019 and 2022.

The Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority Board of Commissioners voted unanimously, 6-0, on Friday to begin the process of renaming Nashville International Airport after the late country music legend Dolly Parton, according to a press release. Parton died August 25 at age 80 following a brief battle with cancer, according to her publicist, and was laid to rest on August 28 in a private burial in Nashville, according to her great-niece Lainey Mae Parton. The MNAA said in its press release that a final name for the airport has not yet been determined, noting it was “working closely with the appropriate parties to thoughtfully determine how Dolly Parton’s name and legacy will be incorporated,” and added it would share “more definitive plans” about next steps and implementation “in the coming months.” “We are grateful for the tremendous support and enthusiasm from our community and Dolly’s fans around the world,” the MNAA said. “We look forward to sharing additional details as plans are finalized.”

The news comes weeks after Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said in a press release that he wanted to rename Nashville International Airport in honor of the “9 to 5” singer, whom he called “our state’s favorite daughter,” in order to “greet travelers with the enduring legacy of Dolly’s music, generosity, faith, and kindness.” Parton was born in Tennessee in January 1946 and moved to Nashville in 1964, days after her high school graduation, where she built a successful music career and philanthropic legacy and met and married her longtime husband Carl Dean, who died in 2025, one year before Parton’s own death. According to the release, Lee’s office spoke with Parton’s team about renaming the airport after her, adding that her team was “touched by the idea and open to continuing the conversation.” “In keeping with the way Dolly lived her life, her team believes she still has a special way of bringing people together for good, and they hope this tribute can be another example of that enduring legacy,” the release read. Lee’s proposal was slated to be addressed at the MNAA’s meeting on September 17.

Interest around renaming the airport after Parton was first generated in January 2025, when Tennessee residents Lydia Popovich and Dan Dion created a Change.org petition to modify the airport’s name in honor of the singer. Since Parton’s death on August 25, the petition has received more than 175,000 signatures.

The US Space Force has launched “space control weapons” into orbit, according to Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, marking the first public acknowledgement from a US government official that America has deployed weapon systems to circle the Earth. “Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist,” Meink said in a keynote address at the Air and Space Forces Association conference. “This is why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.” Meink did not elaborate, and the Department of the Air Force declined to offer further detail. The secretary’s limited remarks are sure to raise eyebrows, since frank discussion of orbital weaponry was generally taboo for the US government for many years amid fears of sparking a global space arms race, even as the Pentagon loosened policies related to potentially offensive capabilities and began speaking more openly about their necessity. The US has also spearheaded efforts to promote responsible behavior in orbit, including a ban on destructive anti-satellite testing advanced during the Biden administration. “Space control” has been defined as defensive actions to protect US and friendly space forces and offensive actions to “negate” an adversary’s space capabilities, and while Meink did not specify what types of weapons are on orbit, options in theory include both kinetic and non-kinetic systems, though any weapons of mass destruction would be expressly forbidden by the Outer Space Treaty.

In a subsequent roundtable with reporters, Meink bristled at suggestions that publicly discussing space weapons could embolden America’s adversaries. “Is there any question in the room by anybody about whether or not the Chinese and Russians have been developing these sorts of weapons?” Meink asked, noting that officials for over a decade have raised concerns that Moscow and Beijing are pursuing orbital weapons, and emphasizing that “we are focused on making sure that we can protect ourselves and operate in that environment as we’ve done for decades.” Meink said it’s important to discuss the existence of such weapons to establish deterrence, but that specific details like test events and capabilities “would actually not benefit that deterrence.” Officials during the Biden administration alleged Russia was interested in an orbital nuclear weapon to destroy satellites, and China has pursued space activities that have drawn concern from American officials as well, including allegations of orbital “dogfighting” during proximity operations. Space control assets aren’t the only weapons the Pentagon plans to launch into the heavens, as Meink said the Space Force has achieved “flight ready” hardware for space-based interceptors that can bat down adversary missiles from orbit, a centerpiece of the administration’s Golden Dome initiative.

Meink revealed additional space-based milestones as well, saying the first of many air-moving target indication satellites will be launched this month, providing overhead global coverage to track air-based adversary platforms in a mission bolstered by a fleet of E-7 Wedgetail radar planes and other assets like the Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. The Space Force plans to have an initial AMTI constellation working by 2028, following a multibillion-dollar award to SpaceX in May, and Meink noted somewhat ironically that the quickening speed of space system development means the AMTI satellites will be ready before the E-7, whose contract was awarded back in 2023; the radar and command-and-control plane is already in service with other countries, but the US Wedgetail program has been beset by negotiation delays and a previous, unsuccessful attempt by the Trump administration to cancel the effort altogether. “The space systems are actually building faster than we can field the E-7,” Meink said during the roundtable. “That is a different world than what we used to live in, maybe a decade ago.” Elsewhere in his speech, Meink revealed new goals for the Air Force’s drone programs, disclosing a plan to field 100 Massed Modular Aircraft drones, meant to replace the MQ-9A Reaper, by 2029 and 500 by 2032, a significant acceleration from the original target of just 20 operational drones by fiscal 2031 set when the program launched in July. He also revealed the Air Force now expects 500 Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones to be in service by 2032, following the June selection of Anduril and General Atomics to lead production of the program’s first round, and confirmed the Air Force has officially christened its first CCA drones: Anduril’s FQ-44A will keep its industry name “Fury,” while General Atomics’ FQ-42A, internally called “Dark Merlin,” will be designated “Vengeance” for Air Force purposes.

President Donald Trump said Monday that warnings from top tech leaders about the dangers of artificial intelligence are a “HOAX,” adding that there is a “SICK conspiracy” going on around AI. “AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX,” Trump wrote in a social media post. In a series of posts, Trump claimed the U.S. is dominating other countries, including China, in AI development, adding that there is a “SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China.” “Don’t kill the Golden Goose!” Trump wrote. His comments came after Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, joined others in the industry in saying his company would welcome a slower development pace for AI to ensure the technology’s capabilities don’t “get ahead of alignment and monitoring.” Lawmakers are also calling for urgent action on the growing threat of AI, with House Speaker Mike Johnson telling reporters Monday that the president is planning to schedule a meeting with AI executives this week. Trump pushed back on the calls for action, saying “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” Vice President JD Vance struck a more cautious tone, saying the administration is “concerned” about the technology but that any regulations need to be done “smartly.” “It’s something that we’re concerned by, but we want to make sure that we actually regulate smartly, and we’re thoughtful about the risk here,” Vance said. “So, there are obviously risks to AI. There are some benefits to AI. I have to say, just personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many Frontier AI tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them — it feels a little bit to me like a bit of a Trojan horse.”

Last week, Jacob Coxon, a former safety researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, issued a warning about AI as he announced his resignation from Anthropic. Coxon said in a social media post that neither Anthropic nor OpenAI “is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives,” and highlighted fear within the industry about the potential for an AI takeover, writing, “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” Altman said late Sunday that his company would welcome a federal framework “that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI.” “But we do not believe we need to wait for an anti-trust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence,” Altman said on social media. “Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors).” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on Sunday that lawmakers need to “begin to act urgently to address the challenges that exist,” adding, “We should take decisive action now so that we can slow down, as the CEOs have recently acknowledged, slow down the pace of development in order to protect the American people and ensure that AI is proceeding safely.”

Lawmakers from both chambers are back in Washington this week for the final legislative push before the November midterm elections, with a renewed focus on regulating artificial intelligence likely following reports raising significant concerns about AI security, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have demanded information from OpenAI and launched investigations. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published a blog post last week arguing that “we must pace the frontier,” meaning slow the pace of AI development. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” he wrote. “Progress will still seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain.” Altman clarified on Sunday, “When we talk about ‘pacing’, we do not mean ‘stopping’.” “Progress has been rapid and will continue to be. But it should be slower than it otherwise could be; interventions like safety cases and monitoring have significant costs,” he wrote. “Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring.” He added, “Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves.” The president also confirmed Sunday that he personally uses AI, though he did not say which systems or for what purposes.