Streisand effect, phenomenon in which an attempt to censor, hide, or otherwise draw attention away from something only serves to attract more attention to it. The name derives from American singer and actress Barbra Streisand’s lawsuit against a photographer in 2003, which drew attention to the photo she was suing to have taken off the Internet.

The Streisand Effect describes a situation in which a person or organization’s attempts to suppress information leads to greater attention to the information than it would have received otherwise. Not surprisingly, the term was named after singer Barbra Streisand. Before it was known as the “Streisand Effect,” however, there was a long and fascinating history of failed cover-ups that provide an interesting glimpse into the human psyche and our need to get to the bottom of things.

Origins of the Streisand Effect

Mike Masnick, founder of the website Techdirt, coined the term “Streisand Effect” in 2005, after the singer and actress sued the photographer Kenneth Adelman in 2003 for $50 million. Adelman had taken thousands of photos for his online database for the California Coastal Records Project, a resource that provided pictures of California’s coastal erosion to scientists and researchers, and one of these photos happened to show her mansion in Malibu.

Before Streisand sued, the image in question had been downloaded only six times; afterward, it received over a million views and was reprinted countless times. Streisand ultimately lost the lawsuit and had to pay Adelman’s legal fees.2 Streisand’s concern for her privacy was not unreasonable—she had been stalked before. But in this case, she would have been better off just leaving things alone. So, what causes this effect to play out as it does? We’ll explore the causes, provide some real-life examples, and even provide some guidance on how to avoid it in your own life.

Streisand’s lawsuit was filed against photographer Kenneth Adelman, the founder of the California Coastal Records Project, for which he photographed the coastline of the state from a helicopter and posted the photos to the Internet. Adelman indicated that the images were free for nonprofit use and had been used by government entities for scientific research. Among more than 12,000 photographs of California’s coast was one photograph in which Streisand’s mansion appeared. Streisand, who had in the past been harassed and stalked by fans, sued for $50 million, claiming that the photo violated her privacy and showed how to access her residence.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, the photograph had been downloaded only six times, including twice by Streisand’s lawyers. The lawsuit was highly publicized, and a flurry of interest and activity followed. In the month after the filing, the photo was viewed more than 400,000 times and reposted on news sites and elsewhere on the Internet. Thus, Streisand’s attempts to have the photo suppressed made it exceptionally more visible than it would otherwise have been. Streisand lost the suit and was ordered to pay Adelman’s legal fees for the case. The photo remains widely published on the Internet.

Understanding the Streisand Effect

With the Streisand Effect, if someone tries to hide, remove, or censor information, it can backfire. In fact, it can have the unintended consequence of drawing more attention to the thing they are trying to suppress.

As Cara R. Stewart, founder and CEO of Altalunas International, says, “It’s a classic example of having a legitimate concern but choosing an ineffective or counterproductive way to address it. Barbra Streisand’s concern about her privacy was understandable… However, the tool she chose to manage this—filing a lawsuit—was not only ineffective but actually worsened the situation.”

Moreover, the effects can be even more insidious. “There is also the risk of the erosion of trust in institutions or authorities responsible for the censorship,” says Carly Dober, psychologist and founder of Enriching Lives Psychology. “When people discover that information is being withheld or manipulated, they may become skeptical of the motives and credibility of the censors. This can foster a culture of distrust and encourage individuals to seek alternative sources of information, which may not always be reliable or accurate.”

Factors Contributing to the Streisand Effect

There are several factors that contribute to the Streisand Effect. First, psychologically, when people discover that someone—especially someone famous or well-known—is trying to hide or censor information, people become curious and rebellious. “This is driven by a fundamental human instinct to seek out forbidden or restricted knowledge, amplifying interest and dissemination,” explains Dober. Second, people are also motivated by psychological reactance, where one asserts their autonomy over the suppression of information by seeking out the restricted information.

“When people perceive that they are being denied access to information, their desire to obtain that information intensifies,” says Dober, “driven by a sense of defiance and a need to restore their freedom of choice.”

While the Streisand Effect existed prior to Barbra Streisand’s lawsuit in 2003, the internet, and more specifically, social media, has exacerbated the effect even more. Online communities and social media platforms encourage the rapid spread of content and enable information to go viral.

“When users encounter attempts to suppress information, they are likely to share it widely as an act of resistance, bolstered by a collective sense of injustice,” says Dober. “The social validation and reinforcement from peers further encourage individuals to participate in spreading the censored content. Additionally, the internet culture of digital activism fosters an environment where combating censorship is seen as a moral or ethical duty.”

This all combines to create a powerful set of factors that contribute to people’s responses, and makes the Streisand Effect a reality.

Real-Life Examples of the Streisand Effect

While the Streisand Effect existed before it was named, it has become increasingly likely to happen as more and more people have taken to social media. Here are some examples:

In addition to the above, similar attempts at censorship have been failing long before the existence of social media. Just ask any teenager if they are more interested in a particular band, movie, or TV show that adults claim is inappropriate for them.

Impact and Implications of the Streisand Effect

The Streisand Effect can have long-lasting consequences for individuals and organizations that attempt to suppress information. For individuals, the attention can lead to increased scrutiny.

“This phenomenon can significantly damage reputations meticulously built over the years,” observes Stewart. Dober concurs, adding, “This damage is not easily undone, as the initial act of suppression can create a lasting impression of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. For individuals, this can affect personal and professional relationships, career prospects, and public perception.”

For organizations, the losses can be great as well. “The Streisand Effect can severely damage brand reputation and erode trust with consumers and stakeholders,” says Dober. “This can lead to a loss of customer loyalty, decreased sales, and a tarnished public image. Additionally, efforts to suppress information can result in increased media scrutiny and regulatory attention.” Dober adds that it can take a long time to recover one’s reputation from this sort of error.

“However, the widespread sharing of censored information can also lead to the dissemination of misinformation if [the censored information is] not properly contextualized,” she says.

Strategies to Mitigate the Streisand Effect

There are many strategies to mitigate or avoid the Streisand Effect. These include:

• Respond quickly: As Stewart says, “A rapid response can prevent the issue from escalating, but it’s equally important to ensure your reactions are thoughtful and well-considered.”
• Practice transparency: Stewart explains that you should be transparent about acknowledging the problem and the steps you will take to address it. “This approach shows that you are not only aware of the issue,” says Stewart, “but are also actively working towards a solution…. This approach doesn’t just mitigate damage; it can enhance a reputation, demonstrating a commitment to ethical practices and responsiveness….”
• Be polite and professional: “It’s easy to become defensive when under fire,” claims Stewart, “but the goal is to acknowledge concerns and focus on resolving the issue constructively.”
• Refrain from litigiousness: Suppressing information via a lawsuit can attract media attention, and by extension, curiosity from the public. “Instead of resorting to lawsuits,” Dober says, “individuals should consider alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation or negotiation, to resolve issues privately. By avoiding high-profile legal battles, individuals can prevent drawing additional attention to the information they wish to remain private.”
• Practice emotional regulation: Developing coping mechanisms, like emotional regulation, can prevent people from reacting impulsively when information they’d like suppressed comes out. “Therapy can help individuals develop coping mechanisms for dealing with stress and anxiety related to potential public exposure,” says Dober.
• Develop a strong support network: Your support network should include friends, family, and even professional advisors who can offer emotional support, advice, and practical assistance if a crisis strikes. “This network can help individuals navigate complex situations without resorting to actions that might trigger the Streisand Effect,” Dober observes.

Getty Images

Jesse Louis Jackson Sr. (1941-2026)

Spies, drones and blowtorches: How the US captured Maduro

Key Facts

Getty Images

crucial Quote

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said Saturday afternoon, in response to a question of whether U.S. troops will have a presence in Venezuela after Maduro’s capture. In a subsequent question about troop presence, Trump said “there would be a presence in Venezuela as it pertains to oil.” He said “we’re going to make sure that country is run properly” and “we’re designating people, we’re talking to people” to run Venezuela. He said Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spoken to Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who was sworn in to take over for Maduro, and “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.” Rodríguez contradicted Trump in an address later Saturday, insisting the Venezuelan government stands firmly behind Maduro, repeatedly calling him Venezuela’s “only president” and calling the attacks “an unprecedented military aggression.”

What We Don’t Know

It is unclear how long the U.S. will administer Venezuela, whether troops will end up being deployed to the country and exactly what the benchmark would be for the U.S. ending its direct oversight. Trump said Saturday that “a group” will run Venezuela, and though he did not state who would fully compose it, he motioned toward Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine and said it would “largely” be them “for a period of time.” It is not known who could lead after U.S. involvement ends, with Trump saying Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado—a Venezuelan opposition leader who voiced support for Maduro’s capture—lacks “the support or respect within the country” to be a successful leader. Trump also did not explicitly state which American oil companies could be involved in the Venezuela’s oil industry moving forward.

What To Watch For

Trump and Rubio suggested the actions in Venezuela should be considered a warning sign for other Latin American countries that have poor relations with the U.S., specifically Cuba and Colombia. “I think Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about because Cuba is a failing nation right now,” Trump said in response to a question about whether there’s a message for Cuba. “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned,” Rubio, who is the son of Cuban immigrants, said. Trump also reiterated his comments that Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump has accused of sending cocaine into the U.S., “has to watch his ass.” Trump also mentioned Mexico in his Fox News interview Saturday morning, claiming Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum “is not running Mexico” because “the cartels are running Mexico.” The president said the U.S. is “very friendly” with Sheinbaum, but “something’s going to have to be done with Mexico.”

Tangent

Trump warned Venezuelan officials in an interview with Fox News “if they stay loyal [to Maduro], the future is really bad, really bad for them,” but said “most of them have converted.” He also dismissed concerns being raised by some lawmakers that he did not seek proper congressional approval for the strikes, telling the network, “they should say ‘great job,’ they shouldn’t say ‘oh, gee, maybe it’s not constitutional.’ You know the same old stuff that we’ve been hearing for years and years and years.”

Key Background

Maduro and his wife were at their home in the Ft. Tiuna military base in Caracas when the U.S. “bombed” and “carried out what we would call a kidnapping of the president and the first lady of the country,” Venezuelan ruling party leader Nahum Fernández told the Associated Press. In addition to Caracas, the U.S. also conducted strikes in the states of Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira overnight, Venezuelan officials said. No U.S. military personnel were killed in the strikes, though Trump suggested several were injured when a helicopter was hit. The strikes follow a months-long U.S. military campaign against Venezuela the Trump administration has said is designed to target drug cartels. The U.S. has conducted dozens of strikes on vessels in the Caribbean it alleges were being used to smuggle narcotics into the U.S., killing more than 100 people. The U.S. military has also built up its presence in the Caribbean, intercepted Venezuelan oil tankers in recent weeks and conducted a drone strike on a dock in Venezuela last month, The New York Times previously reported. The U.S. views Maduro—whom the Trump administration has accused of being a “narco-terrorist”—as a fugitive and offered an award of up to $50 million for information leading to his arrest and/or conviction.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima after he was captured by the U.S. military overnight Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026.

The White House

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

success is the target unrelenting success! 

Analysis

In 1997, predictions for the future ranged from technological optimism for a “Long Boom” to concerns about increasing economic inequality and cyberwarfare. The internet was a dominant theme, though it was still in its early days, with most users on dial-up connections. 

• The continued acceleration of Moore’s law and its impact on technological progress.
• The growth of handheld computing devices and mobile internet access.
• The expansion of the World Wide Web past 1 million websites.
• The eventual obsolescence of traditional advertising due to adaptation and dominance of new digital media.
• A miscalculation on how long it would take for computers to beat humans at the game of Go; one expert predicted it would take a century. 

Key Predictions That Came True:

• Digital Currencies: The authors anticipated the rise of private, decentralized forms of money that would bypass governments — remarkably similar to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
• Decline of Nation-States: They predicted that as wealth and information moved online, traditional governments would lose control over money, taxation, and citizens who could operate globally through digital systems.
• Cybercrime & Cyber Warfare: They foresaw new forms of conflict in cyberspace, where power would shift from physical to digital battlegrounds.
• Remote Work & Digital Nomadism: The authors envisioned a future where highly skilled individuals could live and work anywhere, leveraging technology to achieve independence from centralized systems.
• Wealth Disparity & Political Polarization: They warned that technology would create new elites — “sovereign individuals” — while destabilizing traditional economic and political structures.
• Another 1997 warning came from Wired magazine’s July 1997 cover story, which predicted enormous technological progress but also flagged potential crises that could derail it — including pandemics, climate change, and soaring energy costs.
• Together, these 1997 insights painted a surprisingly accurate picture of the 21st century — an age of digital power, decentralization, and disruption that defines our world today.

Predictions from Wired magazine

• Widespread economic expansion for 25 years.
• Increased prosperity and unprecedented opportunity.
• An improved environment.
• Opportunities for social justice. 

• A new Cold War between the U.S. and China.
• Technological busts that fail to deliver on promises.
• Russia’s descent into a kleptocracy or threatening nationalism.
• The breakdown of European integration.
• A major ecological crisis leading to climate change and food supply disruptions.
• A major rise in crime and terrorism causing society to retract.
• The overwhelming of health systems by dramatic increases in cancer due to pollution.
• Soaring energy prices.
• An uncontrollable plague that kills millions.
• A cultural backlash that halts progress. 

In 1997, Wired Magazine Predicts 10 Things That Could Go Wrong in the 21st Century: “An Uncontrollable Plague,” Climate Crisis, Russia Becomes a Kleptocracy & More

in the same year A BOOK DID THE SAME!

The Sovereign Future: How a 1997 Book Accurately Predicted 2025

Predictions from The Sovereign Individual

• The decline of the nation-state: Governments were predicted to lose control as individuals and businesses adopted decentralized, digital systems.
• The rise of digital currencies: The authors foresaw private, decentralized money, an idea that aligns with modern cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
• The online economy and cybercrime: The book accurately predicted the growth of the online economy as well as the increase in cybercrime and cyber warfare.
• Social stratification: The authors predicted the internet would widen the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”.
• The emergence of remote work and a “digital nomad” lifestyle.
• Disruption of traditional jobs: The book predicted that automation, AI, and global competition would make many traditional jobs obsolete.
• Changes in education: Digital content and online education were predicted to transform how learning is delivered. 

source

By Good Shepherd News Media | GoodShepherdMedia.net

RIVERSIDE, CA — In a decisive move that has energized conservative voters across the state, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco officially announced his candidacy for Governor of California in the 2026 election. The announcement, made at a rally in Riverside, positions Bianco as a law-and-order Republican determined to address the state’s pressing issues.​San Francisco Chronicle        Los Angeles Times

“I am running for governor because our beautiful state—which I absolutely love—is heading down the wrong track and has been for years,” Bianco declared during his campaign kickoff event. “Everyone knows it, except those sitting in the Sacramento echo chamber.” ​ABC7 Los Angeles NBC Los Angeles

A Proven Leader with Deep Roots in Law Enforcement

Born in 1967 at Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, Bianco moved to California in 1989 and began his law enforcement career in 1993. He was elected as Riverside County Sheriff in 2018 and re-elected in 2022, overseeing a department with over 3,600 employees and five jails. ​Bianco for Governor 2026  Wikipedia

Bianco’s tenure as sheriff has been marked by his staunch opposition to state mandates he perceives as overreaching, including COVID-19 restrictions. His refusal to enforce certain pandemic-related orders garnered national attention and solidified his reputation as a defender of individual liberties. ​Wikipedia

A Platform Focused on Public Safety and Economic Revival

Bianco’s gubernatorial campaign centers on restoring public safety, reducing overregulation, and revitalizing California’s economy. He emphasizes the importance of “preemptive policing” to prevent crime and has been a vocal advocate for Proposition 36, which allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain theft and drug crimes. ABC7 Los Angeles​

“As governor, I will immediately get rid of regulations burdening our businesses,” Bianco stated. “I will immediately get rid of over-taxation and over-regulation.”​

He also highlighted his commitment to bringing businesses back to California, stating, “We’re working on ways to bring businesses back to California.”​

Addressing California’s Challenges Head-On

Bianco’s campaign addresses a range of issues plaguing the state, including homelessness, high living costs, and energy reliability. He criticized the current administration’s handling of these problems, asserting that “Californians want leadership that actually cares about the cost of living—and leaders who will do something about it.” ABC7 Los Angeles​

He also expressed concern over the state’s sanctuary policies, pledging to abolish SB 54, California’s “sanctuary” law that limits local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities. ​Politico

A Call to Action for Supporters

Bianco’s campaign has launched a website, biancoforgovernor.com, where supporters can learn more about his platform, volunteer, and contribute to his campaign. Donations can be made directly at secure.anedot.com/bianco-for-governor-2026/donate.​

As the 2026 gubernatorial race unfolds, Bianco positions himself as a candidate ready to confront California’s challenges with decisive action and a commitment to restoring the state’s former glory.​Los Angeles Times

For more information, visit biancoforgovernor.com.

Published by Good Shepherd News Media | GoodShepherdMedia.net

VOTE FOR CHAD BIANCO FOR CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNOR 

JOIN THE TEAM GIVE SUPPORT! SUPPORT CALIFORNIA REFORM AND BRING CALIFORNIA BACK TO THE GREAT STATE IT ONCE WAS

DONATE HERE

Supporters across California are encouraged to actively participate in Bianco’s campaign efforts by contributing through financial donations and volunteer opportunities. His campaign portal, accessible via https://secure.anedot.com/bianco-for-governor-2026/donate, provides a convenient platform for supporters to join the movement for change and prosperity.

Stay tuned to Good Shepherd News Media for comprehensive coverage of the 2026 California Governor race and regular updates on Sheriff Chad Bianco’s promising campaign. Sheriff Bianco invites all Californians to join him in building a safer, more prosperous, and vibrant future for everyone who calls the Golden State home.

Sheriff Chad Bianco Launches Gubernatorial Bid with Vision to Restore California

Sheriff Chad Bianco Joins California Governor Race 2026: Promises Safety, Prosperity, and Change

Sheriff Chad Bianco, Joins California Governor’s Race

Sheriff Chad Bianco Vows to Fix a “Broken” California

Law-and-Order Leadership: Why Sheriff Bianco Should Be California’s Next Governor in 2026

Sheriff Chad Bianco’s Response to Southern California’s ICE-Related Protests

Sheriff Chad Bianco: A Proven Leader Ready to Restore California’s Greatness

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/sheriff-chad-bianco-vision-to-restore-california-as-his-duty-as-next-governor-of-california/

PLU (Price Look Up) codes are a standard system of numbers on small stickers used by grocery stores to identify bulk produce items, especially when different varieties have different prices. For consumers, these codes can indicate how an item was grown.

• Not mandatory: PLU codes are administered by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS) but are not required by government regulation.
• For shoppers, not cashiers: While PLU codes were originally developed for efficient checkout, they also provide consumers with information about how their food was grown.
• Organic vs. conventional: The most useful information for most consumers is the difference between conventional (4-digit code) and organic (5-digit code starting with 9) growing methods.
• GMO codes are uncommon: Because PLU codes are voluntary, you are unlikely to encounter a code starting with an 8 for genetically modified produce. The Non-GMO Project suggests looking for their butterfly label if you want to avoid GMOs. 

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the author of the original USA PATRIOT Act, disagrees.

In a amicus brief filed in support of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of U.S. phone records, Sensenbrenner argues that the government has gone far beyond what the legislation authorizes.

Section 215, known as the business records provision, authorizes intelligence agencies to apply for information if “the records are relevant to an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation.”

In practice, the NSA uses section 215 to collect data pertaining to every phone call to, from, and within the U.S. in the name of combating terrorism.

Sensenbrenner and the other members of Congress who enacted Section 215 “did not intend to authorize the program at issue in this lawsuit or any program of a comparable scope,” according to the brief.

The brief goes on to propose this question (emphasis ours):

The NSA is gathering on a daily basis the details of every call that every American makes, as well as every call made by foreigners to or from the United States. How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?“

Filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the brief notes that Sensenbrenner “was not aware of the full scope of the program when he voted to reauthorize Section 215” and would have voted against it if he had known.

In Sensenbrenner’s words: “The suggestion that the administration can violate the law because Congress failed to object is outrageous. But let them be on notice: I am objecting right now.”  source

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

CAUTINON THE VIDEO BELOW IS THE REAL VIDEO, ITS DISTURBING AND VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED. DO NOT LET YOUR CHILDREN SEE THIS VIDEO

Charlie Kirk, a well-known right-wing political activist, was reportedly shot in the neck at an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.

The university confirmed the shooting in a post on X, writing:

“Today at about 12:10 a shot was fired at the visiting speaker, Charlie Kirk. He was hit and taken from the location by his security. Campus police is investigating, a suspect is in custody.”

Bystanders told the Deseret News that Kirk was shot during a Q&A with students.

His condition was not immediately known.

Kirk is the CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA. The organization also confirmed he was shot, according to the Associated Press.

Videos posted to social media from Utah Valley University show Kirk speaking into a handheld microphone while sitting under a white tent emblazoned with the slogans “The American Comeback” and “Prove Me Wrong.”

A single shot rings out, and Kirk can be seen reaching up with his right hand as a large volume of blood gushes from the left side of his neck. Stunned spectators are heard gasping and screaming before people start to run away.

A spokesperson for the university told the New York Times that Kirk was struck by a suspect who had fired from the Losee Center, a building about 200 yards away. The suspect had been taken into custody, she said, and was not a student.

President Donald Trump responded to the shooting, writing in a post on Truth Social:

“We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!”

At a Turning Point USA event in 2023, Kirk said gun deaths were “unfortunately” worth it to defend the Second Amendment.

According to Newsweek, he said:

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death … I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

Lawmakers quickly sounded off after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot during an event on his “American Comeback Tour” at Utah Valley University on Wednesday afternoon.

Prayers for Kirk’s recovery as well as condemnation of political violence poured in from both Democrats and Republicans minutes after the news broke.

“This is a good time to pray,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on X, adding that he was monitoring the situation.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., “Please join us in praying for our good friend, Charlie Kirk.”

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk speaks during the Turning Point Action’s The Believers Summit in West Palm Beach, Florida on July 26, 2024. (REUTERS/Marco Bello)

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., a first-term Democrat, wrote online, “Political violence has NO place in our society. I am closely monitoring the events in Utah.”

“The attack on Charlie Kirk today is a horrific act of political violence. Praying for his safety and for his family in this trying time. We must reject and condemn political violence in all its forms,” Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said in a statement.

The top Democrat in the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York similarly condemned the violence.

“Political violence is NEVER acceptable. My thoughts and prayers are with Charlie Kirk and his family,” Jeffries wrote in a statement.

The top Democrat and Republican in the Senate both sounded off with similar sentiments in the minutes after Kirk was shot.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks with reporters at the Capitol in Washington on June 2, 2025.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“There is no place in our country for political violence. Period, full stop. Please join me in praying for Charlie Kirk,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., wrote on X.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on the site, “Political violence has no place in America. This shooting is horrifying, and I’m praying for Charlie Kirk and his family.”

Kirk also got support from former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., who left Congress after she was shot and nearly killed in a political assassination attempt in 2011.

“I’m horrified to hear that Charlie Kirk was shot at an event in Utah. Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence,” Giffords wrote.

She added that she and her husband, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., are praying for Kirk’s recovery.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., condemned gun violence after the shooting on Wednesday.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also wished Kirk well after the shooting. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“The horrific shooting today at Utah Valley University is reprehensible. Political violence has absolutely no place in our nation. All Americans should pray for Charlie Kirk’s recovery and hold the entire UVU community in our hearts as they endure the trauma of this gun violence,” Pelosi wrote in a statement.

Ellen Treanor, Associate Vice President of Strategic Communications Management at Utah Valley University, told Fox News that a suspect was in custody after Kirk’s shooting.

A White House official, meanwhile, told Fox News that the tragic event was being monitored in the situation room and by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his role as National Security Advisor. source

OUR DEEPEST CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY, CHARLIE HAS PASSED
OF CHARLIE KIRK OUR PRAYERS AND THOUGHTS OUR WITH YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND HIM AND HIS CHILDREN

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

Further evidence supports controversial claim that SARS-CoV-2 genes can integrate with human DNA

After being challenged, research team provides more data to back its controversial hypothesis but the relevance to human health is unclear

Science‘s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation.

A team of prominent scientists has doubled down on its controversial hypothesis that genetic bits of the pandemic coronavirus can integrate into our chromosomes and stick around long after the infection is over. If they are right—skeptics have argued that their results are likely lab artifacts—the insertions could explain the rare finding that people can recover from COVID-19 but then test positive for SARS-CoV-2 again months later.

Stem cell biologist Rudolf Jaenisch and gene regulation specialist Richard Young of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who led the work, triggered a Twitter storm in December 2020, when their team first presented the idea in a preprint on bioRxiv. The researchers emphasized that viral integration did not mean people who recovered from COVID-19 remain infectious. But critics charged them with stoking unfounded fears that COVID-19 vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA) might somehow alter human DNA. (Janesich and Young stress that their results, both original and new, in no way imply that those vaccines integrate their sequences into our DNA.)

Researchers also presented a brace of scientific criticisms, some of which the team addresses in a paper released online today by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). “We now have unambiguous evidence that coronavirus sequences can integrate into the genome,” Jaenisch says.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has genes composed of RNA, and Jaenisch, Young, and co-authors contend that on rare occasions an enzyme in human cells may copy the viral sequences into DNA and slip them into our chromosomes. The enzyme, reverse transcriptase, is encoded by LINE-1 elements, sequences that litter 17% of the human genome and represent artifacts of ancient infections by retroviruses. In their original preprint, the researchers presented test tube evidence that when human cells spiked with extra LINE-1 elements were infected with the coronavirus, DNA versions of SARS-CoV-2’s sequences nestled into the cells’ chromosomes.

Many researchers who specialize in LINE-1 elements and other “retrotransposons” thought the data were too thin to support the claim. “If I would have had this data, I would have not submitted to any publication at that point,” says Cornell University’s Cedric Feschotte, who studies endogenous retrovirus chunks in the human genome. He and others also said they expected higher quality work coming from scientists of the caliber of Jaenisch and Young. In two subsequent studies, both posted on bioRxiv, critics presented evidence that the supposed chimeras of human and viral DNA traces are routinely created by the very technique the group used to scan for them in chromosomes. As one report concluded, the human-virus sequences “are more likely to be a methodological product, [sic] than the result of genuine reverse transcription, integration and expression.”

In their new paper, Jaenisch, Young, and colleagues acknowledge that the technique they used accidentally creates human-viral chimeras. “I think it’s a valid point,” Jaenisch says. He adds that when they first submitted the paper to a journal, they knew it needed stronger data, which they hoped to add during the review process. But the journal, like many, requires authors to immediately post all COVID-19 results to a preprint server. “I probably should have said screw you, I won’t put it on bioRxiv. It was a misjudgment,” Jaenisch says.

In the new PNAS paper, the team provides evidence that artifacts alone can’t explain the detected levels of virus-human chimeric DNA. The scientists also show that portions of LINE-1 elements flank the integrated viral genetic sequence, further supporting their hypothesis. And they have collaborated with one of the original skeptics, Stephen Hughes of the National Cancer Institute, who suggested an experiment to clarify whether the integration was real or noise, based on the orientation of the integrated viral sequences relative to the human ones. The results support the original hypothesis, says Hughes, a co-author of the new paper. “That analysis has turned out to be important,” he says.

“The integration data in cell culture is much more convincing than what was presented in the preprint, but it’s still not totally clean,” says Feschotte, who now calls Jaenisch’s and Young’s hypothesis “plausible.” (SARS-CoV-2, he notes, can also persist in a person for months without integrating its genes.)

The real question is whether the cell culture data have any relevance to human health or diagnostics. “In the absence of evidence of integration in patients, the most I can take away from these data is that it is possible to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA retroposition events in infected cell lines where L1 is overexpressed,” Feschotte says. “The clinical or biological significance of these observations, if any, is a matter of pure speculation at this point.”

Jaenisch’s and Young’s team do report hints of SARS-CoV-2 integration in tissue from living and autopsied COVID-19 patients. Specifically, the researchers found high levels of a type of RNA that is only produced by integrated viral DNA as the cell reads its sequence to make proteins. But, Young acknowledges, “We do not have direct evidence for that yet.”

Harmit Malik, a specialist in ancient viruses in the human genome at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, says it’s a “legitimate question” to ask why people who should have cleared the virus sometimes have positive polymerase chain Reaction tests for its sequences. But he also remains unconvinced that the explanation is integrated virus. “Under normal circumstances, there is so little reverse transcription machinery available” in human cells, Malik says.

The controversy has grown decidedly more civil since December. Both Young and Jaenisch say they received more intense criticism for their preprint than any studies in their careers, in part because some researchers worried it played into the hands of vaccine skeptics spreading false claims about the newly authorized mRNA vaccines. “If there ever was a preprint that should be deleted, it is this one! It was irresponsible to even put it up as a preprint, considering the complete lack of relevant evidence. This is now being used by some to spread doubts about the new vaccines,” Marie-Louise Hammarskjöld, a microbiologist at the University of Virginia, posted in a comment on bioRxiv at the time.

And what of the original journal submission? “They rejected it,” Jaenisch says. source