We spent a few years pointing out the ridiculousness of the whole “TikTok ban” moral panic, and the fact that all of the “concerns” magically melted away after Trump became president and then effectively gifted a controlling stake to some of his friends should raise some pretty big questions. However, most people seem to have accepted the new arrangement without much fuss — even though ByteDance still retains a 19.9% stake in the company, and users at no point needed to switch to a brand new app, continuing instead to use the very app we were told was a security nightmare. All of which suggests the entire moral panic was absolute bullshit.

Either way, prior to the full “ban” that forced further ownership into the hands of Trump’s friends, there was a separate law from Senator Josh Hawley which simply banned TikTok on government devices. That law is still in effect. It’s pretty clear that it applies to “the social networking service TikTok or any successor application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Limited or an entity owned by ByteDance Limited.” It’s also clear that such an application is not allowed on any government devices, with exceptions only “for law enforcement activities, national security interests and activities, and security researchers.”

Now, a plain reading of the law would suggest that the current app is still banned. The law is still in place. ByteDance still owns a significant stake in the new “US joint venture” and the app is absolutely a “successor app” since users never needed to download a new app after the joint venture was established.

But, the Trump administration apparently would like to use TikTok on their devices. So, they’ve had the Office of Legal Counsel put out a decision claiming that, you know, ownership doesn’t really mean ownership and that the Trump administration can ignore the law and start using TikTok on their devices again. First things first, we discover that because Josh Hawley wrote a stupidly drafted law that directly called out “TikTok,” the OLC has to first tap dance around the fact that the law’s clearly named “TikTok” apparently doesn’t mean this TikTok, even though that’s exactly what the statute says:

Blackletter statutory-interpretation principles illuminate which particular “TikTok” Congress sought to prohibit. It is old wisdom that “a general phrase can be given a more focused meaning by the terms linked to it.” Fischer v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2176, 2184 (2024). Namely, “the canon of noscitur a sociis teaches that a word is ‘given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.’” Id. at 2183 (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 294 (2008)). We apply this rule to “avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving ‘unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.’” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995) (quoting Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961)). And precisely that kind of unexpected breadth would ensue here, were the Government Ban understood to apply to any future social networking platform based on its name alone.

[….]

We have considered the counterargument that, under the Dictionary Act, “words importing the singular include and apply to several . . . things,” 1 U.S.C. § 1—thus indicating that the Government Ban’s use of the phrase “the social networking service TikTok” could denote multiple unrelated variations or iterations of social media companies named TikTok. But the Dictionary Act itself provides that its general prescriptions do not apply when “context indicates otherwise,” id., and context does so in this case. “In context[,] the phrase ‘[the social networking service TikTok]’ should not be interpreted to mean literally ‘any [social networking service called TikTok],’ but must be understood against the background of what Congress was attempting to accomplish in enacting the [Government Ban].” Gustafson, 513 U.S. at 575 (cleaned up) (quoting Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 63 (1990)). Here, the plain text of the Government Ban indicates Congress was attempting to address a particular national security threat posed by the presence on federal government devices of software “developed or provided by ByteDance Limited or an entity owned by ByteDance Limited.” Government Ban § 102(a)(1), 136 Stat. at 5258. TikTok USDS thus is covered by the ban only if it, like the version of TikTok operative when the ban was passed, falls into that category of software.

Call me pedantic, but if Congress didn’t want to ban an app “based on its name alone” maybe they shouldn’t have drafted and then passed a law that banned an app based on its name alone. And if Congress thinks that the new TikTok is somehow safer, they should repeal the original, poorly drafted law. Instead, the OLC has to start asking “what is ownership, really, other than a concept”?

For three reasons, we conclude that “ownership” in the context of the Government Ban is best understood as referring to a controlling stake, such that TikTok USDS falls outside the prohibition’s scope.

First, the “control” sense of the word “own” is most “consistent with the way that an appropriately informed speaker of the language would understand [that term’s] meaning” in the specific context of corporate structure. Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648, 1657 (2021) (quotation marks omitted). The United States is home to “large numbers of firms with widely dispersed share ownership.” Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, 89 Geo. L.J. 439, 443 (2001). But it would be unusual for someone to say that a person or even an institutional investor “owns,” for example, Meta, simply because the investor holds some of its stock. Cf., e.g., Van Buren, 141 S. Ct. at 1657 (“In the computing context, ‘access’ references the act of entering a computer ‘system itself[.]’”). Instead, in the corporate context, we generally recognize Mark Zuckerburg as the “owner” of Meta because he retains control of the company through so-called “super-voting” shares. See Nathan Reiff, Top Facebook (Meta) Shareholders, Investopedia (Mar. 21, 2026), https://perma.cc/XQ6V-ZNTT; Gregory H. Shill, The Social Costs (and Benefits) of Dual-Class Stock, 75 Ala. L. Rev. 221, 224 & n.6 (2023).

So, hear me out, if Josh Hawley and Congress meant for the law to only apply if ByteDance “controlled” the company, then it could have (and arguably should have) written that into the law. But they did not. They said ownership. And that mattered because, technically before the “divestiture” and new US “joint venture” Western investors already owned about 60% of ByteDance, with employees and ByteDance’s founder holding most of the rest. The goal of the various laws to ban TikTok was to get ByteDance out of owning any of the company.

And that didn’t work. But we all have to pretend this “fixed” things, so the OLC just says “eh, because US entities now control it, we can ignore the law and pretend it said “control” rather than “own.”

Our textual interpretation is confirmed by the facts on the ground, which indicate that the TikTok USDS joint venture is wholly controlled by American interests as a functional as well as a formal matter—and thus exhibits none of the concerning security features that initially motivated the Government Ban. As our prior advice to you highlighted, if facts did not bear out that conclusion, then our understanding of “ownership” as used in the Government Ban could be called into question. But where, as here, the facts demonstrate that ByteDance Limited’s status as a minority shareholder in the joint venture has no impact on the exercise of control over the venture by United States investors, the inference runs the opposite way. Congress had no need to target minority ownership by ByteDance Limited in the Government Ban because that state of affairs is wholly compatible with the joint venture “operat[ing] [TikTok USDS] under defined safeguards that protect national security.”

Of course, all this really does is confirm Calvinball rules: the definitions change exactly as often as it takes to get the outcome someone in power wants. When “ownership” needed to mean any ByteDance stake to justify a ban, it meant that. Now that the administration wants TikTok back on its phones, “ownership” apparently means “controlling stake,” and 19.9% doesn’t count.

The real lesson here appears to be that the earlier concerns were exaggerated. Josh Hawley and Congress wanted to get headlines about how they were “taking on China” and “big tech” more than they wanted to write a clear law. They had a moral panic about one specific app, dressed up in national security language, and now that the political winds have shifted, the Office of Legal Counsel is left doing contortions to make the text say what the moment requires.

The Modern No-Code Creator Bundle is an extensive online curriculum specifically developed to enable individuals to construct professional websites, applications & automated workflows without the necessity of writing any code. It has five courses, covering leading no-code platforms and tools like ChatGPT, Mendix, and Tabnine. It is ideally suited for novices and non-technical professionals, empowering users to successfully launch digital products independently of developer assistance. It’s on sale for $20.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The Trump administration’s continual trend towards maximum awfulness means that every report seems to be “I’ve got bad news and I’ve got worse news.” What was already bad has become even worse now that more of the administration’s actions have been exposed during court proceedings.

Last July, the Trump administration unilaterally decided ICE should have access to Medicaid data for the sole purpose of locating migrants to arrest and deport. That much was made clear by the administration itself, which said the data would give ICE officials better tools to discover “the location of aliens.” An agreement was reached with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service by the DHS because of course that happened. The administration had already purged plenty of non-loyalists, which meant those remaining wouldn’t put up much of fight.

There was no legal basis for this demand, which is why the headline says “illegally.” If this was a legal request, we wouldn’t be seeing lawsuits challenging the sharing of this sensitive medical data because the law would already be settled. Specifically, ICE wanted access to Medicaid data that exposed “home addresses and ethnicities.” Not exactly subtle, but nothing ever is with this grotesque shotgun of an administration.

But this sharing was challenged in court, and that converts that bad news to worse news. Not only did ICE have access to information it wasn’t legally entitled to have, but its private contractors did too, as NPR reports:

After Medicaid officials improperly shared data about millions of people in January with immigration officials, ICE then shared that data with the data analytics firm Palantir, according to new court filings. Palantir operates an app called ELITE that is used by ICE agents to show the addresses of noncitizens who may be subject to deportation.

That revelation was made public in a motion filed Thursday by more than 20 Democratic attorneys general who sued the Trump administration last year over its data-sharing agreement between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and ICE.

Palantir’s thirst for data is constant. And it will take anything its government customers choose to give it, including information that has been obtained illegally.

Palantir issued a couple of statements in response to this reporting based on courtroom revelations in ongoing lawsuits.

First, it said that the data in question had been “purged.” That’s great if true, but this seems like something that needs verification before trust because who knows where else this data set ended up before court orders blocked the government from using this data. If you think only ICE was peeking into this illicitly obtained data, you’re awarding the government the good faith it not only hasn’t earned, but has spent pretty much every minute since Trump’s election actively destroying.

ICE’s surveillance tech contractor also said this:

Palantir provided the following statement to NPR: “Our customers control their own data and manage access to that data. When Palantir employees are granted access to a customer’s dataset, it is solely to help integrate and analyze that data — which is what our software does — not to store it or use it for our own purposes. Palantir can confirm that the dataset in question was purged pursuant to government instruction.”

Well… I’d like to believe this much in the same way I’d like to believe a system of checks and balances is capable of constraining a rogue regime, much less its private contractors who are not subject to these particular restraints.

I believe Palantir to the extent that its employees aren’t just surfing waves of incoming data for their own personal reasons, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that a belated “purge” has actually scrubbed the data and removed any ancillary… well, let’s call them “infections.” Without turning over evidence of this purge to the courts, it’s easy to say it’s all been handled, even if the only thing that happened what Palantir deleting the source CSVs (or whatever) from its system, which isn’t the same thing as stripping it from Palantir’s databases.

Another reason for high levels of skepticism is this: ICE somehow couldn’t stop itself from passing this illegally obtained data to Palantir despite (apparently) trying to comply with a court order.

In a court filing last week, the Justice Department said that CMS again inadvertently reshared with ICE the dataset with millions of names that CMS had first improperly shared with ICE in January. The government said the error occurred during an effort to share data from states not involved in the lawsuit.

You see the problem, right? Because not every state sued over this illegal data collection, ICE continues to collect data that should — at this point — be considered off-limits. The only reason it doesn’t is because some states (you know the ones) have decided they’ll do whatever it takes to ensure the administration gets to keep being openly racist.

Consequently, the data sets aren’t being sorted between racist/non-racist (or whatever the SORT term is), which means ICE continues to retain data it’s been ordered to delete and Palantir keeps getting handed data the government isn’t allowed to collect, much less distribute.

Then there’s the ultimate problem. No matter what’s happening here in the lower courts, the administration will continue to push for a resolution from the US Supreme Court. And the odds are about 6-3 that SCOTUS will say the government can do whatever it wants with whatever data it collects, ignoring years of precedent and administrative firewalls that are meant to protect US citizens (and residents) from being abused and surveilled by their government.

Last month I wrote a feature for The Verge exploring how Republicans had hijacked the Biden-era infrastructure bill to redirect billions of dollars away from next-generation fiber, and instead funnel it into the pockets of billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos — in exchange for congested, expensive, satellite broadband service they’d already planned to deploy.

The piece explored in detail how some communities, like several low-income areas of Louisiana, were all set to receive next-generation affordable fiber, before Republicans hijacked the program, redirected those funds to their top donors, then proudly declared “mission accomplished.”

While Republicans like NTIA boss Arielle Roth have tried to claim this hijacking has been a net improvement, the adjustments not only showered billionaire Trump allies with unneeded subsidies, it eliminated all the provisions in the program ensuring the resulting broadband was affordable or deployed equitably. Affordable fiber evenly deployed to everyone was, the public was informed, “woke.”

I’m going to be writing about the impact and reverberations for years.

Dems have, as per brand tradition, mostly flubbed the opportunity to highlight and message around this obvious corruption. There were a few good questions flung at Roth during a recent House telecom hearing (Rep. Troy Carter of Louisiana did a particularly good job pressing Roth), but by and large Dems haven’t capitalized on the opportunity to shame Republicans for their grift parade.

Enter aspiring Democratic Texas AG hopeful (and Dallas state senator) Nathan Johnson, who says he wants to take a closer look at Musk’s grants as part of his anti-corruption platform:

“I am not declaring that corruption was at work in this instance. I am saying that it sure looks like it,” Johnson said in an interview. “Public confidence in the bidding process has been undermined.”

His plan comes after Starlink received 99% of the state grants in a government program designed to improve rural broadband access. Johnson said the company received an estimated $110 million.

It’s not clear how far he’ll get, since the roots of the corruption extend federally to Howard Lutnick, Arielle Roth, and the NTIA. But state broadband offices also had to sign off on the grift and were tasked with doling out grant awards, so we’ll see what paper trails disclose.

Keep in mind: the money Musk and Bezos have received from this $42.5 billion grant program pales to what they could ultimately receive. As unnecessary wars, tariffs, inflation, and additional economic chaos unfolds, a lot of providers and states that planned to deploy multi-gigabit affordable fiber are expected to balk and default on their bids, opening the doors for billions more for Musk and Bezos to fill the gaps with “good enough” satellite service.

It’s worth noting that after redirecting billions to satellite, Republicans proclaimed that they’d “saved” $21 billion or so. There’s now an ongoing battle over what happens to these “non-deployment funds” Congress specifically earmarked for broadband access. There are some clear hints that Trump and friends are eager to pocket it for themselves if they think they can get away with it. Great stuff. Very populist.

As I’ve noted previously, while low-Earth orbit services like Starlink are great for folks completely off the grid (who can afford it), congestion and physics make it ill-suited to meaningfully address the lack of internet-access at scale in denser urban, suburban, or even some rural environments. It’s generally designed to be a niche gap-filling option you use after pushing fiber, cellular, and fixed wireless everywhere; Republicans are treating it like a magic bullet simply because Musk is involved.

As a flood of government-subsidized users jump on the Starlink network, existing congestion problems (see this recent study out of Penn State) are going to get worse, resulting in all sorts of annoying network management approaches (throttling of 4K video) you don’t see on higher-capacity fiber. The company has also been charging users fees of up to $1500 in high-capacity areas.

The problems with this approach will become more and more apparent to taxpayers over the next few years, at which point all the folks responsible will have moved on to other opportunistic grifts. It might be nice if Democrats aspiring for higher office kept corruption in the spotlight and remained laser-focused on accountability. It’s not like there’s a shortage of very clear targets of opportunity.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and Denmark, France and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

Developmentally beneficial activities such as education, socializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-being, autonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

The latest guidelines

In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

Rethinking screen time

Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

Using these guidelines at home

The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

Gabriel E. Hales is a Research Fellow in Media and Information at Michigan State University

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. To get extended episodes with additional coverage, support us on Patreon.

In this sponsored Spotlight episode of Ctrl-Alt-Speech, host Ben Whitelaw speaks to PwC’s Dan Hays at TrustCon about the firm’s recently published Trust & Safety Outlook report.

They discuss: 

• How AI is simultaneously creating new risks and reshaping the tools used to address them;
• What the rise of autonomous agents means for governance, accountability and the future of the internet; and
• How platforms should respond to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape.

The conversation also explores how Trust & Safety is becoming a more strategic function inside companies, how automation could change the role of practitioners and vendors, and which emerging risks remain most underestimated.

This episode is brought to you in conjunction with our sponsor, PwC. Download the report today.

We’ve written in the past that people online often get way too excited about theoretical pending “discovery” in frivolous lawsuits filed by bad actors. Because while there are certainly a few cases where (1) a frivolous case even reaches discovery and (2) some elements of that discovery are revealed to the public, in the vast majority of cases, that doesn’t happen. The legal strategy for most defendants is to get a case thrown out before it reaches discovery because discovery is incredibly expensive. And, even then, most often what is handed over in discovery never goes public.

But… hey, sometimes, “can’t wait for discovery” turns out to be an accurate sentiment.

Last year we noted that Donald Trump had filed an obviously frivolous lawsuit against the BBC, asking for $10 billion. At issue was an edit in the documentary he didn’t like which might be considered mildly misleading (though Donald Trump repeatedly falsely claimed that the BBC used AI to fabricate quotes, the reality was they edited two separate parts of the same speech to sound like they were said together, when they were really many minutes apart). That’s not defamation, though.

Either way, the case has not been going well for Trump. Because he argued that this documentary (which was only shown once in the UK and not in the US) harmed Trump’s business interests in Florida (where he sued), the BBC asked for Trump’s financial records as part of their discovery requests. Given that Donald Trump made more money last year (around $2 billion) than ever before, even as he remains the President of the United States, it seems like a reasonable request.

Trump and his (not very bright) lawyers tried to wriggle out of this by dropping some of the initial claims that were about how much harm the documentary did to his business, saying instead that it just harmed his reputation. The BBC said it still needed his financial records anyway. And now, Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett has agreed, noting in court that the financial records would be relevant to the claims of reputational harm as well.

“All of President Trump’s brand, properties and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned. Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case,” Lett said at the conclusion of a three-hour hearing.

Of course, Trump’s lawyers can (and almost certainly will) ask the Article III Judge (Roy Altman, who is a Trump appointee) to overrule the magistrate, but it might not work. After all, earlier in the case, Trump’s lawyers had sought to remove Lett from the case, claiming that she was biased against him, because before she became a Magistrate Judge, she had represented a client in a case against Trump. Judge Altman rejected that claim back in May, siding with his colleague, Magistrate Judge Lett:

The Plaintiff asks us to withdraw our referral of discovery matters from Magistrate Judge Lett and reassign them to a different Magistrate Judge. … He advances two arguments in support of this request: First, he cites our unrelated referral of discovery matters in Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust et al. v. Capital One…. Second, he argues that “Magistrate Judge Lett had appeared as counsel of record on behalf of a party directly adverse to President Trump in active federal litigation: Trump v. Clinton… The Plaintiff’s first argument is unavailing. “Effective April 19, 2026,” Magistrate Judge Hernandez replaced Magistrate Judge Lett as our “paired” Magistrate Judge for Miami-based cases…. We reassigned discovery in Capital One the next day based on case workload and the parties’ compressed discovery period…. Nothing about that decision mandates a withdrawal of the referral in the different circumstances of this case. The Plaintiff next argues that Magistrate Judge Lett previously “represent[ed] [a] defendant directly adverse to President Trump.” … Despite his claim to the contrary, the Plaintiff effectively seeks Magistrate Judge Lett’s recusal. … But 28 U.S.C. § 455 is clear that: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Accordingly, we’ll leave any decision regarding Magistrate Judge Lett’s recusal to her sound judgment. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 5/19/2026.

So, at this point, Judge Altman seems willing to trust Magistrate Judge Lett’s judgment on the recusal question — and that deference may well carry over to the financial-records dispute too.

Of course, even if discovery does move forward, Trump could still file for a protective order to keep most of the records secret, outside of whatever has to be used in court. Alternatively, he could try to dismiss the case to get out of having to provide discovery.

Either way, this was a stupid, vexatious, obvious SLAPP suit designed to punish the BBC and waste its time and money. So it’s quite nice to see that backfiring on the censorial bully that is the President of the United States.