Month: December 2025

TIME mgazine on Thursday named the ‘Architects of Artificial Intelligence” as the 2025 Person of the Year, with the magazine citing 2025 as when the potential of artificial intelligence “roared into view” with no turning back.

Time is highlighting the people whose work propelled artificial intelligence from a cutting-edge experiment into a defining force of modern life. The decision marks a moment the magazine describes as the year when AI’s potential “roared into view” and firmly embedded itself in everyday society.

The publication emphasized that the recognition is directed at the innovators behind the technology rather than the systems they built. The group includes the “individuals who imagined, designed, and built AI,” a choice that editor-in-chief Sam Jacobs said reflects the scale of their impact on global culture, politics, and industry. “This was the year when artificial intelligence’s full potential roared into view, and when it became clear that there will be no turning back or opting out,” Jacobs wrote, calling AI “the most consequential tool in great-power competition since the advent of nuclear weapons.”

The Person of the Year issue features two separate covers: one showing workers assembling the towering letters “AI,” and another paying homage to the 1932 “Lunch atop a Skyscraper” photograph, with tech leaders perched on a steel beam above a city skyline. The artwork includes figures such as Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Lisa Su, Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, Dario Amodei and Fei-Fei Li. A second cover story explores the perspectives of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Baidu CEO Robin Li.

Analysts noted that 2025 marked a turning point: AI moved from an early-adopter technology to one embraced by a broad consumer base. According to research firm Forrester, a “critical mass of consumers” now sees AI as part of routine life. Prediction markets had also listed AI, along with prominent tech CEOs, Pope Leo XIV, President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, as leading contenders for the title.

Time’s long-running Person of the Year tradition dates back to 1927. The honor has sometimes gone to groups or concepts—not only individuals—such as “the endangered earth” in 1988, the personal computer in 1982, and “You” in 2006. In 2024, the magazine chose President Donald Trump after his return to the White House, following Taylor Swift’s selection in 2023.

Alongside its main announcement, Time also revealed several other annual honors: YouTube’s Neal Mohan was named CEO of the Year, Leonardo DiCaprio received Entertainer of the Year, A’ja Wilson was named Athlete of the Year, and KPop Demon Hunters earned Breakthrough of the Year.

The 2025 Person of the Year issue goes on sale Dec. 19.

Editorial credit: oasisamuel / Shutterstock.com

A federal judge has ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was mistakenly deported earlier this year and has since been held in immigration detention, finding that the Trump administration has held him for months without the legal authority required to continue his detention or remove him from the United States.

The ruling, issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, granted Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition, concluding that federal authorities lacked the legal basis to continue holding him.  In her decision, Xinis determined that the government had no valid final order of removal allowing Abrego Garcia’s deportation, despite repeated attempts by the Trump administration to expel him: “Because respondents have no statutory authority to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country absent a removal order, his removal cannot be considered reasonably foreseeable, imminent, or consistent with due process,” Xinis wrote, adding, “Although respondents may eventually get it right, they have not as of today. Thus, Abrego Garcia’s detention for the stated purpose of third country removal cannot continue. Respondents’ conduct over the past months belie that his detention has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal, lending further support that Abrego Garcia should be held no longer.”

The judge directed federal officials to release Abrego “immediately,” notify him in advance of the precise time and location of that release, and update the court by 5 p.m. Eastern. She also noted that the government’s conduct “belie[s] that his detention has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal.” DHS spokespersons sharply attacked the decision after Thursday’s ruling, calling it “naked judicial activism by an Obama-appointed judge” and asserting that the order “lacks any valid legal basis.”

Abrego, a Salvadoran national, first entered the U.S. in 2012 and has long maintained that he fled “gang violence targeting his family.” Although an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal” in 2019—barring his return to El Salvador due to credible threats—he was nevertheless deported in March to the CECOT megaprison after officials later claimed he was linked to MS-13, an accusation he denies and has never been convicted of. Government lawyers later conceded the deportation was an “administrative error,” prompting the Supreme Court in April to require his return.

Following months of resistance, the administration brought Abrego back in June, immediately charging him with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop. He has pleaded not guilty. After briefly living with family in Maryland under pretrial conditions, he was taken into ICE custody again—despite the absence of a removal order—and held for third-country deportation.

Throughout the case, the administration has explored sending him to a series of countries with which he has no ties, including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. Xinis criticized those efforts, noting that officials ignored Costa Rica, which publicly confirmed it would accept Abrego as a refugee. “Respondents’ calculated effort to take Costa Rica ‘off the table’ backfired,” she wrote, citing repeated notifications to him of expulsion to African nations “that never agreed to take him.” The administration has continued to insist that Abrego is a gang member, though judges have questioned the evidence. Senior officials, including President Donald Trump and top homeland security leaders, have vowed that Abrego would “never walk America’s streets again.”

Xinis summarized the situation bluntly: “The history of Abrego Garcia’s case is as well known as it is extraordinary.” Now with the judge’s order in effect, Abrego will resume complying with pretrial conditions in his criminal case under the supervision of U.S. Pretrial Services.

Editorial credit: Christopher Penler / Shutterstock.com

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to relinquish control of California National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles, ruling that the federalization of the state’s Guard units violated longstanding limits on presidential power.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued the  35-page ruling on Wednesday in San Francisco, granting California’s request for an injunction but delaying its effect until Monday to allow the Justice Department time to appeal. The ruling marks the second time Breyer has sided with state officials who challenged President Donald Trump’s move to deploy Guard members without the governor’s approval.

The Trump administration originally sent more than 2,000 troops to Los Angeles in June, citing unrest surrounding protests against Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda. Although the number dropped to roughly 100 by late fall, the White House extended the deployment into February and attempted to reassign additional California Guard personnel to Portland, Oregon, over objections from local leaders.

State officials argued that conditions had changed dramatically since the initial activation, and that the president was effectively using Guard members as a federal police force. They said such actions ran afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act and exceeded the circumstances in which a president may seize control of state units. Breyer agreed, writing, “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”

The Justice Department maintained that troops were still needed to safeguard federal personnel and facilities. In court filings, administration lawyers argued that protests and sporadic violence made it impossible to carry out federal law with ordinary resources. But Breyer rejected the claim that such assertions placed the president beyond judicial review, concluding the legal threshold for federalization had not been met. “Without a demonstration that the President’s ability to execute the law is currently being impeded at the time of deployment, he lacks adequate grounds for federalization,” he wrote.

Breyer’s latest decision halts an extension that would have kept about 300 California Guard members under federal control, with many stationed in Oregon and the remainder still in Southern California. California Governor Gavin Newsom—who sued along with Attorney General Rob Bonta—welcomed the outcome, while Los Angeles leaders reiterated there was never a legitimate emergency requiring military intervention. Newsom said, “Trump is unlawfully using the military to terrorize Americans,” and Mayor Karen Bass added that “Los Angeles will not buckle and we will not break.”  Unless an appellate court intervenes, command of the Guard will revert to Gov. Newsom early next week,

The dispute is part of a broader legal battle over Trump’s efforts to send military forces into Democratic-led cities. Courts have already blocked similar deployments to Portland and Chicago, and the Supreme Court is currently weighing an emergency appeal related to troops sent to Illinois.

Editorial credit: Phil Pasquini / Shutterstock.com

A federal judge in New York has ordered the DOJ to unseal grand jury materials and investigative records from Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 sex-trafficking case.

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman issued the four-page ruling Wednesday, becoming the third federal judge in a week to grant similar DOJ requests following passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act last month. The law requires the department to publicly release materials related to past federal investigations of Epstein and his longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Berman said the statute’s language leaves little room for interpretation, calling it “clear” and emphasizing that Congress intended to override traditional grand jury secrecy. “The Court hereby grants the Government’s motion in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and with the unequivocal right of Epstein victims to have their identity and privacy protected,” he wrote. He also noted that attorneys for survivors stressed that disclosure “CANNOT come at the expense of the privacy, safety, and protection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking victims.”

The ruling follows similar decisions issued Tuesday by Judge Paul Engelmayer, who approved the release of a “voluminous” set of Maxwell grand jury materials in New York, and last week by Judge Rodney Smith in Florida, who authorized unsealing records from the mid-2000s federal probes into Epstein. All three judges required the redaction of victims’ identifying information and sensitive personal details.

Berman had previously rejected the DOJ’s request in August—before the law existed—arguing that the department had not met the legal threshold for unsealing grand jury testimony and already possessed a substantial investigative record. At the time, he pointed out that “the Government’s 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials,” and cited possible risks to victims’ privacy.

But he said Wednesday that the new statute resolves those concerns, referencing a 2004 precedent holding that when a law’s text is unambiguous, courts must follow it. The act requires that records be made public “not later than 30 days” after its Nov. 19 enactment, setting a Dec. 19 deadline for disclosure.

The renewed push to release the files gained bipartisan momentum in Congress after years of controversy over how federal authorities handled Epstein’s earlier cases. The political debate intensified this summer as the administration faced internal divisions over the issue. In July, the president criticized supporters pressing for release of the documents, calling them “weaklings,” before later urging Republicans to back the bill once its passage became certain.

The Justice Department has not announced when the newly unsealed materials will be made available. Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019 while awaiting trial, a death that has fueled persistent conspiracy theories and renewed scrutiny of the handling of his case.

Editorial credit: Matt Gush / Shutterstock.com

A federal judge in New York has authorized the Justice Department to release the grand jury transcripts and other sealed evidence from the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, ruling that Congress’ newly enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the material to be made public.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued the order Tuesday, concluding in a 24-page decision that the law passed last month “unambiguously applies” to the discovery prosecutors turned over to Maxwell’s defense before her 2021 trial. The measure, signed by President Donald Trump, directs the Justice Department to disclose all Epstein-related investigative files—subject to limited exemptions—within 30 days of its passage.

The decision allows the department to seek modifications to the longstanding protective order in Maxwell’s case so it can post previously sealed records, including grand jury testimony, search warrant files, financial records, travel logs, photos, and interview reports. However, Engelmayer emphasized that victim information must remain protected and that any identifying details must be removed before release. He added specific safeguards, including a requirement that the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York “personally certify in a sworn declaration” that the department has thoroughly reviewed the files and protected victims’ identities. The additional scrutiny, he wrote, is necessary because the Justice Department, while claiming to consider victims’ privacy, has “not treated them with the solicitude they deserve” and has provided “lip service” to their concerns—especially given its earlier efforts to unseal materials without notifying the victims.

While Engelmayer authorized the release, he also stressed that the grand jury evidence in the Maxwell matter is unlikely to reveal significant new details. The panels heard only “summary testimony from two law enforcement officials,” he wrote, and nearly all of the material was already introduced at Maxwell’s 2021 trial.

Epstein, a wealthy financier accused of running a years-long sex-trafficking operation, died in a Manhattan jail in 2019 while awaiting trial. Maxwell was convicted two years later on federal charges including conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor, and is serving a 20-year federal sentence. She told the court she would not formally oppose the Justice Department’s request. But her lawyers argued that releasing grand jury transcripts containing “untested and unproven allegations” could influence public opinion to the extent that a fair retrial—should she prevail on her forthcoming habeas petition—would be impossible. The Supreme Court rejected Maxwell’s earlier attempt to overturn her conviction, but her attorney has signaled she intends to file another petition challenging the verdict.

The Justice Department has not yet announced a timetable for releasing the files, though the law requires publication by mid-December.

Editorial credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

A bipartisan trio of former federal ethics officials and several major civil liberties groups are pressing for internal scrutiny—and public disclosure—of the Justice Department memo that authorized a series of lethal U.S. military strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have separately requested the Department’s legal analysis, writing that the killings raise significant questions about “adequate legal guidance” provided to military decision-makers.

U.S. forces have executed more than 20 such strikes since early September, killing over 80 people. President Trump has defended the campaign as lawful and necessary, saying drug shipments represent an “armed attack” on Americans. “We have legal authority. We’re allowed to do that”.

In a letter sent Tuesday, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter and Virginia Canter urged the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to launch an “immediate investigation” into whether attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) violated professional standards when drafting guidance that, according to a Washington Post report, concluded that “personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution.”

The officials argued that the opinion effectively granted “free rein for the government to murder and assassinate foreign civilians,” and questioned whether the OLC acted independently or simply ratified the administration’s position. They also challenged the Trump administration’s assertion that the U.S. is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels—an argument legal scholars have repeatedly disputed.

Eisen told CBS News that experts agree the legal foundation for the strikes “does not withstand basic scrutiny.” Painter added that the OLC appears to have provided little more than a political “fig leaf.” A Justice Department spokesperson, however, said the operations were conducted “consistent with the law of armed conflict.”

Also on Tuesday, the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal lawsuit seeking immediate access to the OLC opinion and related documents. The complaint argues that the public has a right to understand how the government justifies what the organizations describe as illegal killings outside any recognized armed conflict. Jeffrey Stein of the ACLU said the strikes represent “cold-blooded murder of civilians,” and that those responsible should not be handed a “‘Get Out of Jail Free card.’”

In their lawsuit, the civil liberties groups argue the government’s refusal to release the legal memo prevents meaningful public oversight, noting that previous administrations have disclosed legal rationales for sensitive military operations after redacting classified details. The ACLU emphasized that under both U.S. and international law, “non-lethal measures” must be attempted before force is used and that summarily killing individuals merely suspected of drug smuggling is unlawful.

Their suit asks a federal court to order the Justice, State, and Defense Departments—now renamed the Department of War—to conduct a full search for records and release them “immediately.”

Editorial credit: DCStockPhotography / Shutterstock.com