Category: Uncategorized

This should be routine entertainment news. Tilly Norwood is an actress promoting her starring role in the upcoming comedy-drama movie Misaligned.

Except for the unusual detail that Tilly Norwood isn’t human. She’s an AI generated persona- who will be performing alongside fellow human actors in the film. 

AI-focused studio Particle 6 announced that it was currently in production on their film Misaligned. Eline van Der Velden, founder and CEO of the London company, clarified that the intention behind the feature is to “demonstrate where AI is at — and upskill and bring as many people as possible from the industry with us into the future.” She urged entertainment creatives to work in AI as a way to future-proof their roles in the industry. 

Future-Proofing Jobs or Protecting Rights?  

Tilly Norwood’s debut in Misaligned is prompting fresh debate about AI in entertainment- the future for performers, writers, musicians, effects artists and directors, and how AI protections for creatives will be secured or enforced. Many entertainment workers fear being replaced by AI- and that their work will be used without adequate permission or compensation.

The UK performers’ union Equity noted that performer rights are crucial, especially now in the face of Disney’s recent $1 billion OpenAI investment. As of 2026, the new three-year licensing agreement with Disney means users of Sora (the start-up which owns OpenAI) can make content with more than 200 characters across Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars. Equity says that when using AI avatars, there are specific concerns about how a digital replica or avatar was created. Cathy Sweet, Equity’s head of film and TV, said in a statement:

“While data scraping and untraceable training data sources continue, the questions of theft and misuse will persist. Actors, voice artists and performers of all kinds are left vulnerable to their work being stolen and used without their consent or even knowledge. This isn’t OK and it has to stop.”

Hollywood performers’ union, SAG-AFTRA, representing approximately 160,000 actors, announcers, broadcast journalists, singers, etc. also has definite viewpoints about any synthetic construct that is generated by software being used in the industry. Regarding actor Tilly, SAG-AFTRA says:

“SAG-AFTRA believes creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. The union is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics. 

“To be clear, “Tilly Norwood” is not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers — without permission or compensation…Additionally, signatory producers should be aware that they may not use synthetic performers without complying with our contractual obligations, which require notice and bargaining whenever a synthetic performer is going to be used.”

From Movie Magic to Million-Dollar Fraud

Ethical questions surrounding AI extend far beyond the entertainment industry. From business and finance to nearly every aspect of the digital world, AI is reshaping how we work, communicate, and create- for better or worse. Beyond concerns about job displacement, AI has also been used to carry out sophisticated deepfake fraud that has cost businesses millions of dollars. 

One of the highest-profile cases of AI-powered fraud occurred with the British engineering company Arup in 2024. A finance employee in charge of wire transfers was tricked into authorizing 15 fraudulent transfers totaling $25.6 million- through an AI-generated scheme using phishing email and legitimate-looking video conference calls. Not only was the company’s CFO convincingly impersonated, but other colleagues were as well- all recreated by AI, simply by using publicly available source materials such as video and audio from company meetings and conferences. While businesses have since responded with stricter financial controls, identity verification protocols, and deepfake detection tools, the race between AI innovation and AI misuse is likely to continue.

Whether in Hollywood or the business world, AI can be either a creative tool or a disruptive force- it all depends on how people use the technology. Actress Tilly Norwood’s debut in Misaligned is more than a movie premiere- it’s a sign that the lines between human and artificial, reality and simulation, are becoming blurred. The technology is here. The challenge now is deciding where and how we want to draw the lines. 

Photo by Cottonbro Studio

Photo by Charles Criscuolo

If you wonder why some Native Americans have a complicated approach to celebrating the 250th birthday of America, you do not have to look any further than the Declaration of Independence. It is America’s founding document filled with revolutionary ideals- a political declaration and statement of principles.  Many might be shocked to find that the Declaration of Independence also contains very negative references to the Native American peoples that were America’s original inhabitants. 

When listing the reasons why America was instituting a new government, Thomas Jefferson, principle writer of the Declaration, focused on Britain’s King George III.  Among the list of grievances the King committed against the colonists, Jefferson lists:

He [King George III] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

This description of Native Americans in the Declaration of Independence sadly reflects the attitudes and wartime rhetoric of the time- reducing diverse Native nations to a hostile stereotype. Thomas Jefferson accuses King George of encouraging attacks on frontier settlements by those Native Americans that allied with the British during the American Revolutionary War. Some say Jefferson was only referring to those Natives that sided with the British against the colonists. Nevertheless his statement about merciless Indian savages still ran directly against the Declaration’s core ideal that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Ironically the Declaration’s statement about merciless Indian Savages reveals that many in colonial America failed to recognize Native nations as complex societies that had flourished in North America for thousands of years before Europeans arrived. Colonists simply saw North America as land available for European settlement, with indigenous peoples as inherently barbaric peoples to be displaced. Native sovereignty was usually dismissed, and of the hundreds of treaties formed between colonists and Native Americans, few were respected over the long term. 

As the new nation grew, conflicts over land intensified. Decades of warfare, broken treaties, and forced removals followed- and vast ancestral lands were eventually lost by many Native nations. This history helps explain why America’s 250th founding celebration evokes mixed emotions for many Native people today.

Company leaders often refuse to recognize it- much less deal with its effects.

It results in company employees experiencing anger, anxiety and grief. 

Employees say their productivity plummets because of it.

Customers experience its negative impacts. 

What is it? 

It’s a very real effect called Layoff Survivor Syndrome.

Researched in the 80s by Joel Bruckner and others at Columbia Business School, and first named in 1993 by organizational psychologist David Noer, layoff survivor syndrome has become even more relevant today as business layoffs have increased. Layoff survivor syndrome is the psychological and behavioral toll that employees experience after corporate downsizing, mass layoffs or AI reallocation. 

Colleagues that remain employed cope with: 

• Emotional fallout– anger, anxiety, guilt, and grief for departed co-workers
• Physical reactions triggered by a “Flight or Fight” response (such as headaches, elevated blood pressure, heart issues, acid reflux, severe insomnia, chronic fatigue)
• Heavier workloads 
• Reduced productivity (due to low morale and less job coverage from staffing cuts)
• Eroded company loyalty and mistrust in company management (e.g. Oracle laid off 20,000-30,000 employees via a 6am email in April 2026. This action violated organizational trust, bypassed direct manager involvement/standard best practices, and damaged its brand and worker retention)  

Joe Hildebrand, founder of leadership and culture consultancy humari summarizes the effects of Layoff Survivor Syndrome on businesses:

“Everything slows down. Institutional knowledge is lost, teams lose critical members and are unable to perform well, and people start to question whether they want to be working in a business that cuts its people.”

A good example of internal morale crisis can currently be seen at Meta. Meta recently laid off 10% of its workforce, and reassigned another 10% to train its AI models. Employees fought against a company initiative to track their mouse and keystroke movements to improve Meta’s AI models. After these mass layoffs and AI shifts, employee morale predictably has fallen to a near 20-year low. 

Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth concedes that leadership did an “atrocious job explaining the vision” behind the cuts to fund AI infrastructure. Meta now is addressing the problem- with pledges of transparency by leadership, employee career development proposals, and increased budgets for travel, events, and even snacks.  

So what are 8 best ways that management can diminish the impacts of layoff survivor syndrome on staff morale, trust and company productivity?

1. Provide as many ways as possible to give employees more control. The original studies of layoff survivor syndrome indicated that higher perceived control on the part of remaining employees may serve as an antidote to some negative effects of layoffs.
2. Be aware that remaining staff view how their terminated colleagues are handled as a preview of their own possible future. Structured offboarding of departing employees with respect, support, and options like voluntary severance increases retention of remaining staff (71% retention vs 57% for companies that handle departures badly). 
3. Get input from remaining staff on how newly distributed responsibilities will be handled.
4. Empower remaining employees to collaborate with managers to identify which projects can be delayed or deprioritized due to reduced manpower (ie. stop/pause lists).
5. Establish concrete steps to prevent employee burnout– e.g. capture tacit knowledge and enable knowledge transfer with scheduled time for departing employees to pass on files, passwords, and data, and to explain workflows/client preferences to the remaining team. These steps allow the team to possess tools to actually manage a new increased workload.
6. Utilize transparent all-hands meetings with staff to explain reasons behind the layoffs, with ongoing open discussions of what’s next. It is vital that companies present their downsizing process to their employees in ways that are seen as fair, respectful and understanding.
7. Be transparent and accurate when implementing company strategies with employees. Some companies have justified job cuts by deceptively blaming them on AI. Employees may perceive cuts being due to the company’s financial over-extension or poor planning instead- especially when AI-powered efficiencies are not truly forthcoming. The end result is a low-trust culture among executives and employees. 
8. Structure incentives over AI changes as “Time Saved” not “Headcount Reduced.” Communicate employee retraining in AI as a tool to handle the most tedious low value tasks (sorting data, drafting basic summaries)- not to downsize workers. Proactively work to prevent workers resorting to sabotage of AI because they feel they are “training their replacement.” Rather communicate the automation tasks AI will do- that AI will help them do their job better. Then follow through to ensure that workers are able to subsequently work on high-value strategic projects needing human judgment and input.  

Company layoffs may reduce payroll expenses, but they don’t eliminate the need for collaboration, trust and institutional knowledge. The company story- and its future- does not end with the employees who leave. It continues with the employees that stay. 

When management recognizes Layoff Survivor Syndrome and takes meaningful steps to address it, they acknowledge that remaining employees are an asset to be retained, not a problem to be managed. 

Photo by Ron Lach

The proposed $250 bill featuring President Donald Trump has been presented as part of the national observances for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. But the typical years-long process to approve new currency- done with security, legal, and practical concerns in mind- is being accelerated for this project. At the center of the tension is the now-former director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Patricia Solimene who reportedly resisted efforts to fast-track the project. According to reports, her concerns involved the established requirements for U.S. currency design, including that:

1. Current federal law prohibits living people from appearing on U.S. currency.

2. A $250 denomination has not been authorized.

3. The design of a new banknote requires testing, security features and coordination with stakeholders (e.g. all federal bureaus involved, Secret Service and others that combat counterfeiting, banks, credit unions, ATM, vending, currency counting, cash register, and ticket machine manufacturers).

Solimene was the first woman BEP director in its 162-year history, coming from the U.S. Government Publishing Office. Previous to this she had spent 24 years in the military as an Army Colonel and in a highly classified Joint Special Operations Command, deploying to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. 

Of her abrupt April 27 job reassignment by senior Treasury Department officials, Solimene said in a farewell email to colleagues obtained by the Washington Post that she did not choose to leave her role as Bureau of Engraving and Printing director. Solimene asserted that she “never sacrificed the values or character of myself or the organization and always prioritized the U.S. Currency Program and the value each employee brings to the mission…The buck stopped here.”

There is an irony in this situation.  A career civil servant’s role is to remain apolitical and to ensure that established protocols and procedures are followed. Yet Patricia Solimene was reportedly reassigned from her position as BEP director while upholding the very standards she was entrusted to maintain. 

Photo by Blue Arauz

Gone are the days when a customer with a product issue could easily phone a company to get some resolution. Now businesses have phone systems that frequently involve complicated phone menus, long wait times, or continuous transferring. If customers somehow reach a live customer service agent to help them, various scenarios can play out. 

Many customers needing help have discovered that the customer care agents: 

Cannot answer any questions

Don’t have the knowledge or power to actually solve a problem

Offer insanely complicated return processes

Transfer the caller to multiple other departments, usually with disconnections

All of the above 

Press-1-for-Frustration

Recently one customer embroiled in an ongoing overcharging situation called the company (again) with the phone number she’d been using, only to discover it was now in another language, possibly Italian- with no way to switch it out, and no other phone number that worked. 

Another person found that the case number he’d been given by a previous agent could not be found- so he needed to start his problem-solving process over. Such repeated situations make it seem that company resolution processes are actually designed to make “problematic” customers become discouraged and give up.

Worse yet, many customers with issues to resolve discover that the reputable company they used in good faith outsources their customer service to third party vendors– not direct employees. 50% of companies worldwide report that they outsource customer service, supposedly to “cut costs and improve efficiency.” The Philippines, India, Latin America, Poland and Romania are popular outsourcing regions, with companies wanting strong English speakers and service oriented cultures.

Businesses that outsource their customer services also proudly report that outsourcing provides high-quality customer support- touting as proof their improved customer satisfaction increases of 62% when businesses outsourced their service. Their not-so-satisfied clients might wonder how companies reached that 62% statistic increase in customer satisfaction scores. It could be the result of the common tactic of “If you don’t take our company satisfaction survey, we’re coming after you with so many texts and emails, you’ll finally respond.” With any resulting data, the company then uses vanity metric surveys designed to produce good-looking scores rather than useful insight. Voila- a 62% increase in customer satisfaction! 

The Website FAQs That Answer Everything But YOUR Question

Beyond providing a help desk reachable by phone, businesses increasingly reduce support costs by funneling their needy consumers digitally. 

Companies euphemistically call it:

self-service support online support portal customer support ticketing system automated customer service digital-first customer support

Exasperated customers call it:

ticket purgatory the help-center maze chatbot circular process support black hole digital runaround

No customer argues that AI can adeptly check billing, share invoice status, give company hours, answer common questions, and provide certain 24/7 support. People object when companies embrace AI support technology to provide ALL their customer support. Customers are savvy enough to realize that such companies rely on support deflection- a deliberate strategy that  directs customers online so as to never reach a live representative. While these tactics can save companies money, they regularly fail to resolve actual customer service issues- and also cause companies to lose customers.

What are some BEST WAYS to actually resolve your customer service issue?

Be ready and organized with necessary information like account numbers, receipts, timeline.

Clearly and calmly state your problem and the desired resolution- as many times as necessary. 

Call during off-hours, since most people call after work or during lunch. Try early morning, which can have shorter hold times and fewer callers ahead of you. 

Repeatedly use key words such as “agent” or “representative” in chats. Trigger escalation by using phrases such as “file a complaint” or “cancel service” as well. 

Keep track of who you spoke to, when, and what you were told. Ask representatives questions to clarify what they tell you.

Nicely ask for a supervisor if the initial representative cannot help. If the supervisor doesn’t help, ask to connect to the team that has authority to resolve this issue fully. 

Tactfully utilize social media like Twitter, X, Facebook, Meta, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, LinkedIn or Reddit to escalate your service issues when traditional channels fail. Companies monitor mentions, DMs, or comments on their official pages, and can be sensitive to public complaints.

Politely refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer- persistence is key.  

So while it may feel like you’re fighting with company bots or the help desk from hell, navigate with patience, persistence, and well-planned tactics. These are the ways you are most likely to get your problem solved. 

Photo by Moose Photos

I confess I feel conflicted about wholeheartedly celebrating America’s upcoming 250th anniversary- and I suspect I’m not alone. American history is a complex mix of realized ideals and those still unfulfilled.

I am very proud that the founding of my nation was based on far-seeing and revolutionary ideals from its very inception. The American government’s legitimacy was based on “We the People..” -not kings, not aristocratic bloodlines, not supposed “God-ordained” rulers that had been the norm of power for centuries. This new revolutionary American order established a Constitution and Bill of Rights that guaranteed freedoms for ordinary citizens that were unprecedented in their scope- freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, petition, and due process. The constitutional framework of checks and balances among executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government were put in place to prevent tyranny.  

America has often fallen short of her original ideals. Those inspiring freedoms proclaimed in 1776 were largely applied to white male property owners. Slavery in particular was woven into our foundation from the very beginning. The unpaid labor of millions of enslaved people helped build America’s economic success up to the Civil War in 1861. Though slavery ended, racial discrimination continued to shape US economy and society long afterward through segregation and discriminatory laws. While the United States has made much progress in expanding civil and voting rights, some argue that recent changes to voting laws are evidence that the struggle for equal political representation still continues. 

Additionally from America’s founding, its very lands were wrested from the original indigenous inhabitants, often through broken treaties, and systemic displacements of peoples and environments. One stark symbol of the gap between America’s national ideals and reality is the near-eradication of tens of millions of bison herds across North America in the 1880s, until only 300-1000 bison remained. The bison’s decimation was cultural destruction on a mass scale for countless Native nations, never to be fully recovered.

Over its history, America has struggled with affording all its people the same rights that it fought for during the Revolutionary War. Here are just a few examples:

• Slavery was not abolished until 1865, and voting rights regardless of race were not established until 1870. 

• Though some states granted voting rights to women, it was not until 1920 that the Nineteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution allowed all American women to vote. 

• During  WW II, although some German and Italian nationals were interned as possible security risks, it was 120,000 Japanese people- two-thirds of whom were citizens- that were the ones targeted for mass incarceration in internment camps. Families lost farms, businesses, careers, savings, and properties. 

To America’s credit, there have been many official attempts to recognize wrongs done, and to acknowledge freedoms not rightly extended to Americans over our 250 year history:

• There was a formal U.S. government apology in 1988 to the Japanese community, along with compensation of $20,000 per surviving internment camp internee. Some saw this Japanese American Internment Apology & Reparations Law as too little, and too late for many. But at the very least, it was an official admission of injustice, and the government’s recognition that fear and prejudice had overridden constitutional principles.

• In 2009, Congress quietly included an official apology to Native peoples in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010. It was added as a rider- not debated as a standalone apology bill. It recognized ill-conceived policies, broken treaties, and mistreatment committed against indigenous people. However, tribes weren’t consulted beforehand, it came with no meaningful policy changes or reparations, and carefully stated it could not be used for legal claims or lawsuits. 

• That apology was seen as symbolic but insufficient- similar to the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Black Hills lands had been illegally taken from the Sioux nation, despite an 1868 Treaty. The government said the Sioux were entitled to financial compensation with interest. Many of the tribal governments view the land as sacred, never for sale, and require the land to be returned. (This would primarily involve western South Dakota’s land and a small portion of northeastern Wyoming). The unclaimed award settlement remains held in trust today by the federal government. The original $17.1 million has accrued interest to well over $1 billion.    

Our constitutional federal republic struggles with conscience, and has a capacity to acknowledge wrongdoings- and sometimes effect changes from the process. It is significant and heartening when honest confrontations take place over founding ideals not realized.

As America approaches its 250th birthday celebration, I can proudly celebrate with many fellow citizens- over many achievements attained. My nation has offered civil liberties to people arriving here seeking peace and opportunities for success and prosperity. U.S. citizens have always expected the peaceful transfer of leadership power that has been our democratic cornerstone. Our system allows for ways to change laws, to amend, to expand rights to formerly excluded groups. Freedoms of speech and religion are still protected. For now, Americans retain the right to criticize their government without fear of legal punishment- a freedom that remains rare in many other countries.

Our triumph and tragedy, progress and oppression are symbolized in this quote revealing our nation’s ongoing struggle to draw closer to our best ideals: 

“I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves, and I watch my daughters, two beautiful intelligent black young women playing with their dogs on the White House lawn.”

First Lady Michelle Obama, 2016

So perhaps the real 250th anniversary is not simply to celebrate the best of what America has been, but to celebrate what America is striving to become. Patriotism does not require the forgetting of historical injustices, and confronting them does not mean rejecting our nation. Representative government, equality before the law, individual rights, liberty- these are our founding principles. And I have no conflict with those principles- they are aspirations worth commemorating during this 250th anniversary. 

My America is an unfinished project.  

Photo by RDNE Stock Project

There are growing concerns from some of the 590,000 buyers that preordered Trump Mobile’s T1 phones. Customers recently received disappointing emails from Trump Mobile, telling them that the gold-colored Trump phones they preordered from June 2025 when the venture was first announced will not be shipping. Customers had previously been given promised delivery dates that changed several times, for various reasons, but no phones are ever reported to have been delivered. Trump Mobile is offering no updates on when the $499 phones might be shipped. 

Additionally some email recipients have reported that the emails said that their $100 deposit was non-refundable- though Trump Mobile maintains that all initial deposits remain fully refundable upon request. It states on the website that:

“If Trump Mobile cancels or discontinues the Device offering prior to sale, Trump Mobile will issue a full refund of the deposit amount paid.” 

Preorders: Yes. Shipping: Maybe.

The Trump Mobile website currently shows that people can still make $100 pre-orders for the phone- however rumors of the cancellation of the T1 program started with the email’s announcement of no phone shipments. There is no official statement about any T1 program cancellation, but a recent update on the website also raised questions about that possibility. A recent April 6, 2026 update was added to the website and  states:

“A preorder deposit provides only a conditional opportunity if Trump Mobile later elects, in its sole discretion, to offer the Device for sale. A deposit is not a purchase, does not constitute acceptance of an order, does not create a contract for sale, does not transfer ownership or title interest, does not allocate or reserve specific inventory, and does not guarantee that a Device will be produced or made available for purchase.” 

This update has led some to believe that the T1 phone project will eventually be cancelled. How any potential refund of preorder requests would proceed is unclear. 

Made in USA…?

There have been other questions raised about the T1 phone. Initial claims about the product said it was to be proudly designed and built in the United States, with all-American service through AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The product description online was later changed as being “American service by an American company” with “100% US-based support.”

In light of these customer complaints over Trump Mobile’s delayed product, 11 Democratic lawmakers- Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Representatives Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)- made a January 2026 request to the Federal Trade Commission. They asked FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson for investigation into the shifting delivery dates, claims that the phone is made in the USA, and conflict of interest presented by Trump Mobile’s relationship to the President.

“We write today regarding questions about false advertising and deceptive practices by Trump Mobile, and to seek information on how the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) intends to address any potential violations of consumer protection law given the inherent conflicts of interest presented by the company’s relationship to President Donald Trump.”   

In their letter, the 11 Congressional members pointed out that marketing claims that a product is “Made in USA” must follow a specific set of FTC standards, violations of which come with civil penalties. The letter referenced similar companies that the FTC acted against when their customers were misled with similar made-in-USA claims for products actually made overseas, bait-and-switch tactics involving deposits for products never delivered, and failure to honor by stated delivery dates. They also asked how the FTC would proceed “if the President were to intervene and seek to influence your agency’s decisions related to Trump Mobile.”

Independent Agency vs Executive Authority?

This request to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson is considered to be a critical test of FTC independence. The FTC has historically operated as an independent regulatory agency, but early in Trump’s second term Trump declared by executive order that agencies such as the FTC may no longer contradict his legal interpretations. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has supported Trump’s claim of presidential authority, breaking with the FTC’s long-standing precedent to remain independent. He defended Trump’s April 2025 firing of the agency’s Democratic commissioners, saying at a Y Combinator’s Little Tech Competition Summit that:  

“I’m firmly of the view that he had the authority, and that independent agencies [are] not good for a democracy. All powerful executive branch officials should be accountable to the people on whose behalf we are governing, and the only person in the executive branch that gets elected is the president.”  

His sentiment potentially runs counter to the historical foundation of independent regulatory agencies like the FTC.  Such bodies are established by Congress to operate without direct presidential control, so as to limit any president’s ability to interfere with Congressional enforcement of laws. Members are non-partisan, serve staggered terms and can only be fired “for-cause.” Executive agencies whose leader sits on a president’s Cabinet- e.g. the Department of Justice- differ in that they are partisan, expressly carry out specific presidential policies, and can be fired/replaced at his call.  

There has yet to be an FTC response to the Jan 2026 letter about any potentially deceptive practices taking place with the Trump Mobile program.  

Governance or Enterprise? The Ethics Question

Ethics experts continue to raise questions about the various Trump ventures. At the beginning of his second term, the Trump Organization stated that any business ventures would be distinctly run by the Trump children, not Trump. Whether it is the T1 phone, line of sneakers, Bible partnership, or gold card visa (attracting the wealthy and successful to America), these ventures appear to be based on politics and personal branding, blurring the line between business and presidency. 

Photo by Arun Thomas

With the May 5, 2026 announcement that Primm, Nevada’s last casino will close, many travelers are wondering if this once-bustling desert stop will slowly transform into a modern ghost town. 

With a population at 774 residents in 2023- many tied to road-trip traffic and casino jobs- the population now faces an uncertain future. While some new owners may be interested in taking over certain businesses (such as the popular gas stations and EV charging locations), bigger questions remain. What will happen to the workers, empty hotel towers, the Star of the Desert Arena, Prizm Outlets, and quirky amusement park attractions that once made Primm, NV a memorable stop along this lonely stretch of the Mojave Desert?  

Major casinos such as Buffalo Bill’s, Whiskey Pete’s and Primm Valley Resort were once central to Primm’s bustling tourist town, located some 45 miles south of Las Vegas on Interstate 15. Primm was the last gambling opportunity in Nevada before crossing into California. Californians heading toVegas often stopped in Primm, NV for its outlet mall shopping, cheap buffets, casino gambling- and of course the towering Desperado roller coaster.

The Primmadonna Company LLC officially announced the shutdown of Primm Valley Resorts (the last fully operational casino), Buffalo Bills’s Resort & Casino (which had only been open for special events), and Whiskey Pete’s Hotel & Casino (closed for over a year). The Primm Center gas station, the Lotto Store, and the Flying J truck stop are also shuttering. Prizm Outlets (formerly called Primm Outlets), has been effectively closed- though Sanithrift was a sole remaining mall tenant- and still currently shows hours of operation on its website.  

Visitors have nostalgic memories of Whiskey Pete’s Hotel- named after the bootlegger that was allegedly buried standing up in the desert with a whiskey bottle in hand. There was a popular Bonnie and Clyde’s death car exhibit there. Cult-following gamers loved Whiskey Pete’s in particular because parts of the establishment were used as inspiration in the video game Fallout: Las Vegas (the game recreated a post-apocalyptic Primm).  

Buffalo Bill’s Resort and Casino with its “Old West” theme and buffalo-shaped pool was part of Primm’s neon-roadside atmosphere long before glitzy Las Vegas fully took over the desert. Buffalo Bill’s boasted the Desperado roller coaster and Adventure Canyon flume ride. But its “star” attraction was their 6,500-seat Star of the Desert Arena, which hosted rodeos, boxing matches, and touring acts for almost three decades. Performers included Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band, Kenny G, Isley Brothers, Patti LaBelle, Los Lobos, and many others. 

The upscale Primm Valley Resort was the flagship of the Primm properties, featuring a large casino and hotel tower, and the Primm Valley Golf Club. With two championship style courses, designed by renowned golf course architect Tom Fazio, the club attracted serious golfers from both Southern California and Las Vegas.  

Long-time Vegas drivers remember the huge “Terrible’s” signs along the interstate that advertised for tourists to visit Terrible’s Hotel & Casino in Primm. This rebranded casino property was best known for its low-cost gas, and budget gambling promotions, which made it a familiar stop for road-trippers over the years.   

So now, as all the Interstate 15 travelers who grew up stopping in Primm say their fond farewells, it marks the end of a peculiar era. Perhaps it is time for the ghosts of the desert to take one last ride in the Bonnie and Clyde death car, drifting away from this fading town. Or maybe what sounds like laughter and distant shouts by the amusement park rides are just the wind moving past empty buildings and abandoned parking lots. And perhaps, inside the darkened casino rooms, there are still a few imagined sounds of rolling dice- echoes from those unwilling to leave the last table behind. 

Rest in peace, Primm- you were part of an era.

Photo by Elizabeth Ferreira

Many Americans may not fully grasp the deeper implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Callais v. Louisiana, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The following excerpt from the dissent by Justice Kagan, joined with Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, helps clarify the implications of racial vote dilution:  

Consider the story of a hypothetical congressional district in a hypothetical State, subjected to a redistricting scheme. The example is admittedly stylized, but in its essence simulates the dispute before us and clarifies the immense issues at stake. The district, let’s say, is a single county, in the shape of a near-perfect circle, sitting in the middle of a rectangular State. The State is one with a long history of virulent racial discrimination, and its many effects, including in residential segregation and political division, remain significant even today. The population of the circle district is 90 percent Black; the rest of the State, divided into five surrounding districts, is 90 percent white. And voting throughout all those districts is racially polarized: Black residents vote heavily for Democratic candidates, while white residents vote heavily for Republicans. The circle district thus enables the State’s Black community to elect a representative of its choice, whom no neighboring community would put in office. But that arrangement, in this not-so-hypothetical, is not to last. The state legislature decides to eliminate the circle district, slicing it into six pie pieces and allocating one each to six new, still solidly white congressional districts. The State’s Black voters are now widely dispersed, and—unlike the State’s White voters—lack any ability to elect a representative of their choice. Election after election, Black citizens’ votes are, by every practical measure, wasted. That is racial vote dilution in its most classic form.  A minority community that is cohesive in its geography and politics alike, and that faces continued adversity from racial division, is split—“cracked” is the usual term—so that it loses all its electoral influence. Members of the racial minority can still go to the polls and cast a ballot. But given the State’s racially polarized voting, they cannot hope—in the way the State’s white citizens can—to elect a person whom they think will well represent their interests.

Electoral influence is the key– the political power of voters in Congress is based on the state delegates that are sent to it. Districts where black voters have opportunity to influence delegate outcome can affect close votes in the House, change the parties in power, or influence legislation with committee control and leadership roles.  Gerrymandered districts where black voter influence has little impact outside of 1 district ultimately have little effect on Congress. Racial vote dilution results in black voters being unable to elect representatives of their choice to Congress. These delegates do not reflect race alone, but the black community’s preferences and priorities for issues that disproportionately affect them (such as housing, healthcare access, or policing concerns).

Promoting unequal racial representation in government is not the direction for the Supreme Court of the United States to take. The Voting Rights Act was especially effective at expanding black access to the ballot- dramatically increasing black voter registration and gaining them increased political representation. That representation is vital in addressing ongoing issues facing black citizens. Here are a few data-driven examples of implicit bias and structural disparities that black communities continue to face in America today:

• Wealth gap–  White household median wealth is $285,000 compared with $44,900 for black households- white Americans (57% of the population) hold 83.5% of the country’s wealth vs blacks Americans (13.7% of the population) with 3.4% of the country’s wealth.
• Homeownership– Homeownership is at 75% for whites, and 45% for blacks.
• Infant mortality– Black infants die at a rate 2.53 higher than that of white infants. 
• Criminal justice disparity- Blacks are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated as whites, and black men make up 35% of those incarcerated, despite being only 13% of the US population.
• Higher unemployment– White unemployment is 3.4%, the black unemployment rate is 5.3%.

Despite gains in representation following changes brought about by the Voting Rights Act, inequalities affecting black voters continue to persist in broader economic or social systems. Policy changes remain frustratingly slow when addressing wealth, education and housing gaps that have developed over generations. 

In summary, the Court’s limitation of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act appears to rest on the view that it is problematic to remedy racism with race-conscious laws that treat one group differently. To be fair, shouldn’t voting rules be race-neutral? 

But theoretical neutrality does not necessarily produce fairness in practice. When past or current systems have created unequal starting conditions, race-neutral policies that ignore those differences do not level the playing field and achieve fairness. For example, rules like stricter voter ID requirements or closure of polling places appear neutral on the surface- yet they can impose greater burdens on some communities more than others. Or drawing electoral districts without any consideration of race in areas with historically polarized voting can dilute minority voting power, even if that was not the explicit intent. It’s like two runners that start a race from different distances from the finish line. Treating them the same with identical rules during the race doesn’t change the gap in their earlier starting points. Ignoring inequities does not achieve fairness- and ends up just preserving the inequities instead.

At its core, this Supreme Court decision regarding the Voting Rights Act raises difficult questions. If laws no longer take any account of racial disparities- if they treat unequal conditions as though they do not exist- how can they remedy anything at all? By emphasizing race-neutral voting rules that prioritize theoretical neutrality over practical fairness, the Supreme Court risks preserving the very conditions that perpetuate racial inequity in America. 

Photo by Sora Shimazaki