aim

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., speaks during a hearing with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya at the Dirksen Senate Office Building near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on February 3. He lost the Republican primary on Saturday. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

May 17 (UPI) — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a 15-year veteran of the U.S. Congress, lost Louisiana’s Republican primary this weekend and appeared to take aim at President Donald Trump in his concession speech.

Cassidy, who has represented Louisiana in the U.S. Senate since 2015, said that though the election didn’t turn out the way he wanted, “you don’t pout, you don’t whine, you don’t claim the election was stolen.”

“Let me just set the record straight: Our country is not about one individual,” he said, NBC reported. “It is about the welfare of all Americans, and it is about our Constitution. And it is the welfare of my people and my state and my country and our Constitution, to which I am loyal.

“And if someone doesn’t understand that, and attempts to control others through using the levers of power, they are about serving themselves. They’re not about serving us. And that person is not qualified to be a leader.”

Saturday’s election results showed that U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow received the most votes in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat, with 44.84% of the vote. Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming narrowly took second place with 28.28% of the vote and Cassidy came in third with 24.8%. The results mean Letlow, who has Trump’s backing, will face Fleming in a runoff on June 27, NOLA.com reported.

Trump was less veiled in his attacks on Cassidy in a post on Truth Social on Saturday night. He described the senator’s loss as “unprecedented.”

“That’s what you get by voting to Impeach an innocent man, especially one who made it possible for Cassidy’s Senate win,” Trump wrote.

Cassidy was one of six Republicans in the Senate to vote in favor of proceeding with an impeachment trial for Trump. He ultimately voted to acquit Trump in the president’s second impeachment trial in 2021.

Cassidy represented Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District from 2009 to 2015, when he was first elected to the U.S. Senate.

One member calls for a Presidential Medal of Freedom for a baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Another calls for court interventions by the Department of Justice on behalf of Amish parents fighting New York vaccine requirements and Catholic nuns challenging that state’s requirement that they accommodate hospice patients’ gender identities.

And the chair of the Religious Liberty Commission is calling for a federal hotline with this automated recording: “There is no separation of church and state.”

These are just some of the recommendations that members of the advisory panel formed by President Trump last year want to see included in the commission’s final report.

That report is still in the works, but commissioners had an opportunity to describe their wish lists during their most recent meeting in April. There was little dissent as the commissioners, most drawn from Trump’s base of conservative Christian supporters, covered the items they want in the report.

Their ideas reflect the prevailing perspectives on the definition of religious liberty among many conservative Catholic and evangelical activists: increasing avenues for religious expression in public schools, expanding opportunities for faith-based organizations to receive public money, and allowing for religious-based exemptions in areas ranging from labor law to classroom lessons to healthcare mandates.

Such views have also been reflected in Supreme Court decisions issued in recent years by its conservative majority.

Commission’s views criticized

Critics of the commission say it embodies a one-sided perspective of Trump’s supporters and is threatening a well-established constitutional separation of church and state.

A lawsuit by a progressive interreligious coalition argues that the commission fails to comply with federal law requiring advisory panels to feature diverse members and viewpoints.

The lawsuit echoes criticism that most commissioners are conservative Christian clerics and commentators; one is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. The coalition says members have asserted that America is specifically a Judeo-Christian or Christian nation and notes that most commission meetings took place at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, an institution with Christian leadership.

The Republican administration is asking a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The government is citing legal technicalities and contending that the law does not define how a commission should be fairly balanced or whose viewpoints should be represented.

Another entity created by Trump — the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias — issued a report saying Christians faced discrimination under the administration of President Biden in areas such as education, tax law and prosecution of antiabortion protesters. Progressive groups said that report failed to document systemic discrimination, focused on causes favored by conservative Christians and amounted to advocacy rather than an investigation.

In a further interlocking of Trump-related initiatives, several members of the Religious Liberty Commission are scheduled to take part in a May 17 prayer event marking the country’s upcoming 250th birthday. Several also participated in a recent Bible-reading marathon staged largely at the Museum of the Bible.

Harmony and tension

The commission has mostly featured agreement among members, with one dramatic exception. One commissioner, Carrie Prejean Boller, was ousted in February after a contentious hearing on antisemitism.

Commission Chair Dan Patrick said Prejean Boller sought to “hijack” the hearing, in which she had sharp exchanges with witnesses about the definition of antisemitism and defended commentator Candace Owens, denying her record of antisemitic statements. Prejean Boller, a Catholic, contended that she was wrongly ousted for expressing her beliefs.

In other hearings, witnesses described how they defied workplace regulations that they said conflicted with their conservative religious values on gender, abortion, COVID-19 vaccines and more. Some said they were prevented, at least temporarily, from displaying a religious symbol at work or trying to sing a Christian song at a school talent show.

At the hearing devoted to antisemitism, Jewish witnesses spoke of being harassed and threatened at campus pro-Palestinian protests against Israel. The commission has also heard from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other witnesses.

Even so, critics said the commission mostly focused on conservative Christian and right-leaning political grievances.

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, one of the groups suing over the commission’s composition, said the panel’s omissions are as significant as what it focuses on.

He said the commission has failed adequately to address such issues as anti-Muslim efforts in Texas and elsewhere, and also the rise of antisemitism on the right, not just the left.

Separation of church and state

Raushenbush said he is especially worried about the commission chair’s challenging the very notion of church-state separation.

Patrick, a Republican who is the Texas lieutenant governor, repeatedly denounced a concept that is embedded in Supreme Court precedent.

“We need to say there is no separation of church and state,” Patrick said at the April meeting. “That’s a lie.” He suggested printing “a million bumper stickers” to that effect.

No one at the commission meeting disagreed.

Trump made similar comments at a prayer event at the White House in 2025. “They say separation between church and state,” he said. “I said, all right, let’s forget about that for one time.”

While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, 20th century decisions by the Supreme Court cited Thomas Jefferson’s description of the 1st Amendment as creating “a wall of separation between church and state.” The court applied the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any church “establishment” to the states in addition to the federal government, citing the 14th Amendment’s ban on states denying citizens’ rights.

Courts have since wrestled with how to balance freedom of religion and freedom from government-sponsored religion.

Schools, vaccines and workplaces

Patrick has advocated for prayer and Ten Commandments postings in public schools.

“I don’t have any malice towards anyone that doesn’t believe in any type of faith,” Patrick told fellow commissioners. “That’s fine. That’s what America is about. But these organizations that are pushed by some ideology and pushed by someone’s bank account who wants to remove God from our country? We need to push back.”

On other issues, various commissioners called for requiring schools and workplaces to post notices of the rights of religious expression and exemptions.

Some called for restoring full pay and pension benefits for military service members who were discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccines.

Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minn., called for allowing religious groups such as Catholic Charities to receive federal money without compromising on traditional church teachings about the family.

He also said Catholic immigrants in detention should have humane treatment and access to sacraments and that immigration agents should not disrupt worship services in enforcement actions. The administration last year eliminated a policy against immigration enforcement in sanctuaries, which other religious leaders said should not occur at any time.

Kelly Shackelford, president and chief executive officer of the legal organization First Liberty Institute, called for new requirements that governments pay all legal bills if they lose a religious liberty case. He said many individuals lack the money to challenge the government in court.

“That would be a huge shifting of power in favor of citizens,” he said.

Smith writes for the Associated Press.

Tiatia has been the architect of the upturn.

Normally his public persona is somebody who does not give much away but during the quarter-final win against Zebre in Italy, you saw a rare public image of him leading the celebrations.

“The huddle is a personal thing and it was great it was captured on screen, I was so proud of the players,” said Tiatia.

Former Wales fly-half James Hook played with Tiatia at Ospreys. Hook described him as “an animal on the field and your nan’s favourite off it”.

“You don’t see everything of me, maybe you see some of the little bits,” said Tiatia.

“What I give you is what I give you. When I’m watching the game I’m not overly emotional but people who know me, know the true me.”

Tiatia is in his first full season as head coach and believes getting to know the players has been a key component of any turnaround.

“One of the biggest things is around care for one another,” said Tiatia.

“Players and staff understanding each other on a deeper level, not just surface level, actually bone-deep.

“Understanding it’s people first and then understanding the player. That’s been a big shift, not just trying to get the best out of them but also having players take responsibility.”

Tiatia was asked what he meant by bone-deep. His answer was illuminating.

“Surface level is knowing people by face and respectfully saying hello,” said Tiatia.

“On a deeper level, I will introduce myself to you and tell you where I’m from.

“I’m from Wellington. I’m Samoan. My first language is English, it was Samoan, I speak Japanese. I speak a little Italian.

“I’m a learner, I’m an introvert, I’m a trained extrovert. When I’m stressed I’ll be quiet.

“When I will be quiet, I’m thinking about my family first and foremost.

“I was taught from my parents very early on that gratitude is one of the biggest strengths. You understand what you have and you’re grateful for it.

“Those are things I would share at a bone-deep level. We then have a deeper understanding about each other, about our morals and values.

“Also the mistakes I’ve made as a young person is something I can now relate to with the group.

“I don’t want the players to make the same mistakes and they’re becoming the best version of themselves. So it’s not just coaching. It’s holistic growth.”

Taylor Swift is entering her trademark era.

The global pop star’s company, TAS Rights Management, filed three new trademark applications last week, per the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Two of the applications relate to soundbites of her voice, saying the phrases “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor.” The other is a well-known image of Swift, often representative of her recent Eras tour, featuring the 36-year-old onstage, holding her pink guitar and dressed in a shimmering bodysuit.

The push to lock down her public image comes at a time when many high-profile celebrities have called for regulations against unauthorized AI-generated content. Matthew McConaughey was one of the first Hollywood A-listers to leverage trademark law as an extra layer of protection.

In January, the “Interstellar” actor secured eight trademarks for his likeness, including images of him smiling and the iconic recording of him saying, “Alright, alright, alright,” from the 1993 movie “Dazed and Confused.”

“My team and I want to know that when my voice or likeness is ever used, it’s because I approved and signed off on it,” the actor told the Wall Street Journal in January. “We want to create a clear perimeter around ownership with consent and attribution the norm in an AI world.”

Registering a trademark for a celebrity’s speaking voice to defend against the prospect of AI-voice generation is a novel legal approach that has not yet been tested in court. Representatives for Swift did not respond to a request for comment on the intent of the recently filed trademarks. But Josh Gerben, one of the first attorneys to report Swift’s latest legal moves, said this is one of the growing gaps in intellectual property protection that AI can exploit.

Before AI infiltrated the internet, musicians, like Swift, would typically rely on copyright law to help prevent the unauthorized use and distribution of their music, while right to publicity laws would protect them from unlawful commercial use of their likeness. But with AI, users can manipulate people’s voices and images to sing or say practically anything.

So if McConaughey has a trademark on his voice saying a phrase, then theoretically any AI-generated voice that sounds similar to it could be considered a violation of that trademark, according to Gerben.

“If they have this trademark protection in place, then the [AI] platforms can’t use that same voice to create new content,” Gerben said. “Every celebrity would essentially have to go and do the same thing, but it’s trying to cut this off at the source as much as possible.”

Variety first reported news of Swift’s trademark filing.

As one of the most popular musicians, Swift has dealt with her share of unauthorized AI-generated content. She was previously one of the many female celebrities whose likeness was among several of Meta’s AI chatbot virtual celebrities. The illicit chatbots allegedly produced pornographic images. Before the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump also shared AI-generated images of Swift falsely suggesting that she had endorsed him, including one of her dressed as Uncle Sam with the words, “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.”

Because Swift is such a recognizable public figure, Luke Arrigoni, the chief executive of Loti AI, a tech company that focuses on likeness protection, said trademark filings like these aren’t merely defensive but rather a setup for a long-term protective infrastructure.

“By locking down these trademarks now, she’s ensuring that if a brand wants to use a ‘Swift-like’ AI voice in 2027, they’ll have to go through her authorized gates or face federal trademark infringement,” Arrigoni said in a statement. “She’s essentially putting a price tag on her digital self, and that’s exactly where the entire talent industry needs to go to survive.”