reporting

For months before carrying out Canada’s deadliest school shooting in almost four decades, Jesse Van Rootselaar was consulting an unlikely adviser on how to perpetrate mass murder.

“In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal … Close quarters is its playground,” OpenAI’s ChatGPT guided the 18-year-old, according to reports.

On February 10, 2026, Van Rootselaar shot his mother and half-brother at home before going to a school in the small British Columbia town of Tumbler Ridge, where he killed another six people – including five students – before taking his own life.

Earlier this week, on October 14, US authorities charged a Washington State man with allegedly conspiring with Van Rootselaar to plan the attack. But the mass shooting incident has raised questions that go beyond the traditional legal understanding of culpability.

The British Columbia government in September filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, accusing them of failing to prevent the incident and claiming they were aware of the conversations that turned deadly. Families of the victims also filed separate lawsuits. OpenAI’s leadership issued a public apology for their failure to notify authorities.

The company has not responded to requests from Al Jazeera for its comments on the lawsuits.

But as the case against OpenAI progresses, it has spurred a familiar debate: Where should a line be drawn between reporting potentially dangerous behaviour and protecting an individual’s privacy?

“The question of whether companies should be required to turn such information over to law enforcement is extraordinarily difficult, particularly if they don’t already screen chats for indications of such types of threats,” United States-based civil liberties lawyer Jenin Younes told Al Jazeera.

“Forcing companies to implement a surveillance system implicates very serious civil liberties concerns, and that’s probably a bridge too far for me,” Younes added.

“On the other hand, AI gives individuals access to types and quantities of information they didn’t have previously that may facilitate the commission of mass casualty events, a concern it’s not easy to dismiss.”

AI’s ability to distinguish thoughts from threats

One of the biggest challenges facing AI companies is determining whether a user expressing violent thoughts actually intends to act on them.

In August, Anthropic, the company behind AI chatbot Claude, flagged a user to San Francisco police after discovering conversations allegedly threatening its CEO, Dario Amodei.

According to the San Francisco Standard, citing a police report, the user had claimed to possess an AR-15 gun and suggested he had Amodei “in his sights”.

However, when contacted by the newspaper, the man said he was joking and had no intention of carrying out any form of violence. The person was neither charged nor detained, the Standard said.

Fazl Barez, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford specialising in AI safety and governance, said current AI models cannot “reliably” determine whether an interaction with an AI chatbot “is purely hypothetical or is likely to lead to harmful behaviour”.

“Suppose you are a creative writer working on a fictional story and want to explore how a murder plot might unfold. From the context, it may be clear that this is simply a fictional narrative. If the threshold for flagging potentially harmful content is too low, such a writer could be wrongly flagged,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Similarly, consider a graduate student in biology or chemistry studying pathogens that, if misused, could have serious consequences. They might be trying to understand the risks associated with these pathogens and how to mitigate them. Such discussions may be necessary for legitimate research and education. Even when the subject matter is sensitive, they should not automatically be flagged without considering the broader context.”

The researcher said identifying a credible threat may require examining a user’s interactions across multiple conversations, rather than relying on isolated statements.

Barez said someone experiencing intrusive violent thoughts might turn to a chatbot for support, while another person planning an attack may reveal their intentions gradually across several conversations.

“Distinguishing between the two requires careful consideration of context, intent and patterns of behaviour, rather than relying on individual statements alone,” he added.

Chinmayi Sharma, a law professor at Fordham University, said the debate has parallels with the duty imposed on mental health professionals to warn identifiable third parties about credible threats.

However, she said there was a key difference – therapists have professional training, knowledge of their patients and enforceable standards governing their conduct. AI companies do not necessarily have comparable safeguards.

“My concern with AI companies is that right now there’s not a concerted effort to hire mental health professionals, sociologists, individuals that would have the unique expertise on what the indicators of threat are here,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

“Secondly, licensed professionals are accountable to concrete, legally enforceable standards in their discipline. We don’t have something like that for AI companies.”

The privacy dilemma

The privacy implications extend beyond whether AI companies can accurately identify threats. Millions of people use chatbots to discuss relationships, emotional distress, mental health concerns and deeply personal experiences.

Civil liberties lawyer Younes said many users may not realise how vulnerable those conversations could be to disclosure.

“They often reflect a person’s innermost thoughts, questions, and desires. The majority of people assume that these dialogues will never be viewed by another person,” Younes, president and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said.

Younes warned that the consequences of greater monitoring could extend well beyond those planning violence.

“If people fear their chats can be turned over to law enforcement simply because they express disturbing thoughts/violent fantasies etc, many will be dissuaded from using them,” she told Al Jazeera.

Younes argued that forcing companies to establish systems for monitoring users and reporting conversations could raise serious constitutional concerns in the US, including protections against unreasonable searches.

Meanwhile, Fordham’s Sharma also raised an issue about who could be disproportionately affected by heavy monitoring by AI chatbots.

“The concern is always there about either intentional or unintentional targeting, because if you have models trained on what we consider dangerous speech, they’re almost always going to reflect biases,” she said. “Certain minorities’ speech is over‑flagged as a threat, while other comparable speech is not.

“Even in a world in which everyone is benevolent, we should still be concerned about disparate outcomes,” she said, warning that machines could reproduce such disparities at scale.

‘Not a licensed therapist’ – When do AI companies become liable to report?

While AI companies may face moral pressure to prevent violence, their legal obligations are less clear, legal experts say.

Bryan Choi, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder, said US law recognises a duty to warn in certain circumstances, including when mental health professionals become aware of imminent threats or when a special relationship exists between parties.

But those principles do not necessarily apply to AI companies.

“Under present case law, it seems unlikely that a company such as OpenAI would be held to have such duties to warn,” Choi told Al Jazeera. “The chatbot is not a licensed therapist. There is no special relationship between the company and the victims.”

Choi said existing negligence and product liability laws could potentially be applied to AI companies, but proving responsibility would present significant challenges.

Finding a balance

Fordham’s Sharma suggested that independent institutions could help establish reporting standards rather than leaving decisions entirely to private companies or requiring immediate disclosure to police.

Such bodies she said could develop procedures for assessing threats and explore ways of sharing only relevant information while protecting users’ identities and other personal details.

Meanwhile, Younes argued that users should, at a minimum, be clearly informed about whether their conversations are monitored and what circumstances could lead to information being shared with law enforcement.

“This is almost certainly an issue that will be wrestled with over the coming years, and I’m not sure anyone knows the solution at this particular point in time,” she said.

“Events that have not yet occurred will likely influence how these policies are shaped.”

Even Fox News, one of President Trump’s preferred media outlets, isn’t exempt from his go-to term for any woman he dislikes.

“She can be so nasty,” was how Trump recently described the conservative-leaning network’s senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich.

Never one to hold back, the president has also had harsh words for her spouse, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican congressman. “Her husband votes against me all the time,” Trump once said. “Can you imagine?”

The double-barreled attacks don’t bother Heinrich, who as president of the White House Correspondents Assn. is leading the fight against Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. When Trump delivered his insult at the WHCA’s dinner in July, Heinrich just shrugged and smiled.

“You don’t get into journalism to be well liked by the subject that you’re covering,” Heinrich said in a recent phone interview. “As long as I’m doing my job, which is to get the story and tell it fairly and fully, the rest of it is not really my business to care about. It’s probably not the last time I’ll upset him. The president still takes my calls.”

Heinrich’s durability is being put to the test as she delivers the public and private messaging on the latest battle with the White House over press freedom. Trump banned the three outlets from the White House grounds due to what he believes is their constant negative coverage.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to block the move, calling it viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the outlets’ 1st Amendment rights. But the administration continues to prevent CNN from serving in
the press pool that follows the president at all times. More court hearings are ahead.

Over the last 10 days, Heinrich has issued public statements condemning the ban, monitored the legal proceedings and held back channel conversations with the White House in an effort to get Trump’s decision reversed. It’s a second job on top of covering the president and co-hosting a weekend program “The Sunday Briefing.”

Executives and journalists say privately that it’s helpful to have someone from a Trump-friendly outlet lead the organization to restore the press credentials of outlets the president views as hostile. The WHCA exists to maintain and facilitate access to the White House for its 900 members across 250 news organizations.

But for Heinrich, it’s logical that 1st Amendment arguments transcend any political leanings of any media outlet. If Trump’s ban stands, conservative news organizations could find themselves facing similar restrictions the next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office.

“When you empower the president to select who is allowed to ask them questions, it shrinks the room,” Heinrich said. “It shrinks the perspective and it hands over that same authority to the next administration, who will surround themselves with only voices that approve of or are supportive or friendly toward what they’re doing.”

Eugene Daniels, a co-host at the progressive-leaning MS NOW and a former White House Correspondents Assn. president, said the organization’s members from Fox News and the further right-leaning Newsmax were always supportive of 1st Amendment and press access issues during his tenure.

“A lot of our news organizations understand intrinsically that at some point the shoe could be on the other foot,” Daniels said. “The solidarity matters.”

Daniels has also known Heinrich since the two worked together years ago at a TV station in Colorado Springs, Colo., and believes she is well-equipped to push the WHCA’s cause.

“She’s clear eyed about the role of White House correspondents in covering any president,” he said. “She is very tough and always has been since we’ve met. She stands 10 toes down when it comes to what’s right.”

Heinrich’s respect for journalistic principles has even extended to her personal life. When Fitzpatrick first asked her out on a date five years ago, he had to wait several weeks for an answer. Heinrich checked with her Fox News bosses to see if dating an elected official was a conflict even though she was no longer assigned to covering congress.

“He was very patient,” Heinrich said. The couple was married at New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral in June.

Heinrich is among the correspondents at Fox News — which this week will mark 30 years on the air — whose reporting doesn’t adhere to the leanings of its opinion hosts and commentators.

In 2020, Heinrich reported on Trump’s false claims of voter fraud in the election he lost to Joe Biden, while commentators, hosts and guests on the network continued to raise doubts about the results. Her reporting angered hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, who were concerned that her work was alienating viewers loyal to the president.

Carlson called on Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott to fire Heinrich in a text that came to light three years later when Dominion Voting System filed its defamation suit against the network. Dominion claimed Fox News deliberately aired false statements about the company’s role in the 2020 election, settling the suit for $787 million.

But Heinrich said she was unaware of the conversations before they were revealed in a legal brief in February 2023. (Carlson was fired from Fox News two months later.) She has been promoted twice since 2020.

“My bosses never interfered with my reporting,” she said.

Heinrich, 37, studied international affairs at George Washington University and wanted to pursue a career in the State Department before internships at MSNBC and WRC-TV in Washington led her to journalism. After working at several local TV stations she became a Fox News correspondent in New York in 2018. She covered Congress and the 2020 presidential campaign before moving to the White House beat in 2021.

Heinrich was raised in New England in what she describes as a politically diverse family. Her parents divorced when she was young, and she split her time between a conservative father in New Hampshire, a politically moderate mother in Maine and a Bernie Sanders-supporting stepfather from Vermont. She believes her upbringing was excellent training for her profession.

“It was ‘Live Free or Die’ and socialism all under two roofs but one family,” she said. “We have developed a really keen ability to listen. I think that’s one of the most important parts of journalism, is hearing and understanding someone’s perspective enough that you can describe it to someone else in a way that is fair and complete.”

Once Heinrich gets past the current conflict with the White House, she’ll have to plan the association’s annual dinner. (The event was cut short and rescheduled this year after a gunman attempted to enter the ballroom at the Washington Hilton.)

Heinrich said even with the president’s open hostility toward the press, he will be welcomed to the event in 2027.

“We have invited the president every single year for the last 115 years and that’s not going to change just because of President Trump,” Heinrich said. “We uphold laws, norms, and traditions around here and we intend to keep it that way.”

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is launching an office of religious affairs, the latest of his faith-related reforms at the Pentagon.

He announced in a speech Wednesday that the office will help offer “first-class religious support” and will report directly to him.

“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God, because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,” he said.

Hegseth has infused his evangelical Christianity into his leadership of the Pentagon, hosting Christian worship services for employees and often speaking of the United States as a Christian nation.

The Office of Religious Affairs, or ORA, will advocate for military chaplains and religious support “at the highest level of the Department,” according to a Pentagon statement. It will not “compel religious participation, favor one faith, or diminish the rights of personnel of any faith or lack thereof.”

Some criticism of the initiative surfaced quickly.

The Pentagon “owes it to the nation’s service members to defend religious freedom,” said Rachel Laser, head of Americans United for Separation of Church, which has sued the Pentagon over its worship services. “Hegseth’s latest announcement violates that promise by elevating Christianity to an even higher role in shaping U.S. military policy.”

Other federal agencies have had religious or faith-based offices, which were established under President George W. Bush and were continued in different forms under the Obama and Biden administrations. President Donald Trump established a White House Faith Office and had a similar effort during his first term.

Shaun Casey, a religion scholar, led the State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs during the Obama administration. The office did not promote religion or spiritual well-being, he said. “It was there to understand what were the political implications of lived religion in the various hot spots around the world.”

The leader of the new office has not been named. A Pentagon memo said the religious affairs director will coordinate spiritual resources, including “faith-based homeschool support for military families.” Hegseth has also pushed the military school system to introduce more coursework that draws from conservative and Christian influences.

The memo mentions “faith-based initiatives supporting Department-wide suicide reduction.” In recent years, the military has become increasingly dependent on chaplains to help address the growing numbers of troops in mental health distress. Hegseth has said he wants chaplains to focus more on God and less on therapeutic “self-help and self-care.”

The secretary has pushed other changes within the military’s chaplain corps, which provides spiritual care to troops. He ordered chaplains, who are commissioned officers, to no longer wear their rank on their uniform but instead be identified by religious insignia.

The Defense Department also slashed the number of religious affiliations it officially recognizes, down to 31 from more than 200 previously recognized traditions. The list no longer includes atheists, Unitarian Universalists, pagans and Wiccans.

Hegseth spoke directly to chaplains in his address Wednesday at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. Using Christian-inflected language, he said: “Live your calling. Stand firm. Preach truth. Minister to the flock.”

He then quoted from the Bible: “The Lord is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do unto me?”

Stanley writes for the Associated Press.