#perplexitypro — Public Fediverse posts

Telefónica to offer free ChatGPT Plus to Movistar customers for 6 months

There is no minimum contract period – but will the freemium model work and how long will AI…
#Spain #ES #Europe #Europa #EU #Telefónica #ChatGPTPlus #ll-you-can-eattariffs #Movistar #OpenAI #PerplexityPro
https://www.europesays.com/spain/21771/

Da ich gerade selbst nachgeguckt habe: Die kostenlose Perplexity-Pro-Aktion von Magenta Moment der Telekom läuft aus. Bei mir wäre es zu einer Abbuchung gekommen. Also habe ich das fix in einem Artikel aufgeschrieben. Schaut nach, wenn ihr ein Abo habt.

#KI #Perplexity #PerplexityPro #AI #MagentaMoments

https://www.notebookcheck.com/Magenta-Moments-Kostenlose-Perplexity-Pro-Phase-laeuft-aus-an-Kuendigung-denken.1217293.0.html

Does Perpexity Pro fail to generate images for anyone else too?
#Perplexity #PerplexityPro #AI #GenerativeAI #ImageGeneration #AIFail #TechIssues #question

A Dive into “Sanctuary,” Re: DOJ Grand Jury Subpoenas – A DWD Editorial, with Perplexity…

Editor’s Note: I prepared this, via my Perplexity AI, for my own information; and, I feel sharing may help others understand the complexities and legal and factual aspects on these actions by Trump’s DOJ/Noem.

I will include my comments below interlaced in green. Perplexity is a powerful tool, and has fact-checked the information herein. It can make mistakes, as we know. Let me know if you see any. I started with a simple prompt, and then it was extended several levels. So you can see my research process for this matter. Images herein are public domain creations, unless otherwise noted.–DrWeb

To address the core of the current tension between state and federal authorities, here are the fact-checked answers regarding the “sanctuary” designation:

1. Who designates a “Sanctuary”?

There is no single “official” arbiter of the term, as it is largely a political and administrative label rather than a fixed legal category. However, the term is currently used by three main groups:

• The Federal Government (DOJ/DHS): Under Executive Order 14287,
  the Department of Justice maintains a formal “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List.” As of late 2025 and early 2026, the DOJ designates jurisdictions based on whether their policies “materially impede” federal immigration enforcement.
• The Jurisdictions Themselves: Many states (like California and Illinois) and cities (like Chicago and San Francisco) have explicitly self-identified as “sanctuaries” through executive orders or public resolutions to signal a policy of welcoming immigrants.
• Third-Party Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (which tracks them to criticize the policy) or the American Immigration Council (which tracks them to support it) maintain their own tallies based on different criteria, such as
  the refusal to honor ICE detainers.

Currently listed “Sanctuary States” by the DOJ (2026):
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia.

Editor’s Note: As you can see a bit further below, we explored “why” these states are targeted.

2. Is “Sanctuary” written into Law?

The word “sanctuary” itself is rarely used in the text of the actual laws because it is legally imprecise. Instead, the “sanctuary” status is the result of specific legislative or administrative codes:

• State Statutes: Laws like the California Values Act (SB 54) or the Illinois TRUST Act do not necessarily name the state a “sanctuary” in the title but codify the policy by prohibiting state and local resources from being used to assist in federal immigration
  enforcement.
• City Ordinances: Many cities have “Welcoming City” ordinances. For example, San Francisco’s “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (Chapter 12H of the Administrative Code) prohibits city employees from using city funds or resources to assist ICE.
• Why the “Loaded” Word is Avoided: Legislators generally prefer functional language (e.g., “Non-cooperation with federal civil detainers”) to withstand legal challenges. Using the word “sanctuary” in a bill can make it harder to defend in court as it implies
  “nullification” of federal law, which is unconstitutional.

3. Official Legal Definition and Status

There is no legal definition of “sanctuary” in the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. * The Federal Conflict: While federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1373) prohibits local governments from
restricting the sharing of information about immigration status with federal authorities, the Supreme Court has limited how much the federal government can “commandeer” local resources.

• The Constitutional “Anti-Commandeering” Doctrine: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court (notably in Printz v. United States) has ruled that the federal government cannot force state or local officials to administer federal regulatory programs. This is the legal “shield” that sanctuary cities use: they argue that while
  they cannot stop ICE from doing its job, they cannot be forced to do ICE’s job for them.
• Legal Status: A jurisdiction’s status as a “sanctuary” is essentially a state of passive non-compliance. It is legal for a city to refuse to hold someone in jail for ICE without a judicial warrant, but it is illegal for a city to actively hide someone or physically block federal agents (which would be “obstruction of justice” or “harboring”).

This distinction is exactly what the current DOJ investigation in Minneapolis is testing: whether the actions of Minnesota officials crossed the line from “legal non-cooperation” (10th Amendment) into “active obstruction” of federal agents.

Perplexity Comment: “That is an astute observation for a blog post. If you look at the
political map, there is a near-perfect correlation between the jurisdictions on the U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List and “Blue” (Democratic-led) areas.”

The Case of Nevada…

However, there is one significant and very recent exception—Nevada—which provides a fascinating case study in how a “Purple” or “Red-led” state navigates this list.

The Political Alignment

Perplexity Comment: “You are essentially correct: the DOJ list is composed almost exclusively of Democratic-led states.”

• The “Blue” Block: States like California, New York, Illinois, and Washington have institutionalized non-cooperation through state law.
• The “Red” Absence: Conversely, many “Red” states (such as Florida, Texas, and Iowa) have passed “Anti-Sanctuary” laws that mandate cooperation with ICE, making it legally impossible for their cities to be designated as sanctuaries by the DOJ.

The Case of Nevada (The Exception)

Nevada’s story is particularly relevant to current events. Nevada was initially placed on the DOJ’s Sanctuary Jurisdiction List in August 2025 due to “Model Immigration Policies” passed by its legislature in 2021.

• The Removal: On September 29, 2025, Nevada became the first and only state to be removed from the list after Republican
  Republican Governor Joe Lombardo struck a deal with the DOJ.
• The Deal: To get off the list, the Governor committed the state to:

1. Rejoining the federal 287(g) program (which allows local police to act as immigration agents).
2. Using the National Guard for administrative support in immigration enforcement.
3. Agreeing to “counter-balance” any sanctuary policies passed by the (Democratic-controlled) state legislature.

Why this matters…

The DOJ list isn’t just a list of “who is a sanctuary”—it has become a list of “who is in conflict with the current administration.”

The fact that the list is almost entirely “Blue” while a Republican Governor in a “Purple” state (Nevada) successfully negotiated his way off it suggests that the designation is being used as a tool for federal leverage. The DOJ uses the list to justify cutting federal funding, which jurisdictions then challenge in court—creating the legal “war” we are seeing play out in Minneapolis today.

The primary mechanism used by the federal government to exert financial pressure on “sanctuary” jurisdictions is the withholding of federal law enforcement grants. The legal theory is that these funds are conditional on a jurisdiction’s cooperation with federal
immigration authorities.

The Mechanism: The Byrne JAG Program

The most significant grant at the center of this conflict is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program. Named after a fallen NYPD officer, this is the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. It supports everything from body-worn cameras and mental health programs to drug task forces and court technology.

Under the current administration’s policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has moved to withhold these funds from jurisdictions that refuse to:

1. Allow federal agents access to local correctional facilities.
2. Provide 48 hours’ notice to ICE before releasing an individual of interest.
3. Comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits local governments from restricting the sharing of information about immigration status.

Summary of Targeted Jurisdictions

As of early 2026, the following jurisdictions have had Byrne JAG and
other public safety grants restricted or placed in “hold” status by
the DOJ:

• California: The state and several major cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco) are currently in litigation over the withholding of approximately $29 million in annual law enforcement funds.
• Illinois: Chicago and the state government have seen holds on funds specifically designated for community violence intervention programs.
• New York: New York City faces the potential loss of over $4 million in direct JAG funding, along with restrictions on “Stonegarden” grants used for border and port security.
• Minnesota: Following the events in Minneapolis, the DOJ recently announced a “review and freeze” of over $6 million in law enforcement assistance grants for the Twin Cities area, citing the active grand jury investigation into state obstruction.
• Washington State: Seattle and King County are currently challenging the DOJ’s denial of grant applications for local police training and equipment.

The Status of Nevada

In contrast to the states above, Nevada is not currently facing these grant withholdings. Following the September 2025 agreement between the Governor and the federal government, the DOJ released approximately $2.1 million in previously stalled public safety funds. This makes Nevada the primary example of a state that successfully avoided “sanctuary” financial penalties by formalizing a cooperation agreement.

Sourcing & Legal Context

The authority for these withholdings stems from Executive Order 14287 (2025), which directs the Attorney General to ensure that “federal law enforcement grants are not provided to jurisdictions that willfully violate federal law or impede federal law enforcement.”

However, this remains a volatile legal area. The 10th Amendment and the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” established by the Supreme Court (e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius) suggest the federal government cannot use “gun to the head” tactics to force states into new
programs. Most of these cases are currently winding through federal appellate courts, with jurisdictions arguing that the DOJ cannot add “extra-statutory” conditions to money already appropriated by Congress.

MLA Bibliography (Top Sources)

On the Minneapolis Case and Renée Good:

“Killing of Renée Good.” Wikipedia, 20 Jan. 2026,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Renée_Good. Accessed 20 Jan. 2026.

Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota. “Attorney General Ellison and Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sue to Halt ICE Surge into Minnesota.” State of Minnesota, 12 Jan. 2026, http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/01/12_ICE.asp.

On the Sanctuary List and Nevada’s Removal:

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). “DOJ Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.” AILA Doc. No. 25080506, 5 Aug. 2025, http://www.aila.org/library/doj-publishes-list-of-sanctuary-jurisdictions.
Office of the Governor. “DOJ and State of Nevada Sign Immigration Enforcement Agreement; Nevada Removed from ‘Sanctuary State’ List.” State of Nevada, 26 Sept. 2025, http://gov.nv.gov/Newsroom/PRs/2025/2025-09-26_doj_and_nevada_sign_immigration_enforcement_agreement/.
Aldrete, Isabella. “Nevada, DOJ Sign Immigration Enforcement Memo That Will Take State Off ‘Sanctuary’ List.” The Nevada Independent, 26 Sept. 2025, http://thenevadaindependent.com.

On Federal Grant Withholding:

U.S. Department of Justice. “Memorandum: Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives.” Office of the Attorney General, 5 Feb. 2025.
“Navigating the Grant Landscape Under a New Administration.” Grant News, 14 Jan. 2026, http://www.grantsoffice.com/Learn-from-Us/Grant- News.

How Readers Can Verify This

If your readers want to “fact-check the AI,” you can encourage them to:

1. Search Public Records: Direct them to the DOJ’s “News” or “Briefing Room” section using keywords like “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List” or “Byrne JAG compliance.”
2. Verify the Nevada MOU: The specific Memorandum of Understanding signed by Governor Lombardo on September 26, 2025, is a public document available on the Nevada Governor’s official website.
3. Cross-Reference Case Law: They can look up the “Anti- Commandeering Doctrine” and the Supreme Court case Printz v. United States to see the legal foundation for why “sanctuary” policies are constitutional.
4. Check News Archives: For the Minneapolis shooting, searching for “Renée Nicole Good January 7 2026” will yield the primary source videos and local police reports that form the basis of the current DOJ investigation.

Fact-Check Summary: The “Sanctuary” Conflict

To ensure the integrity of this reporting, the following key points have been cross-referenced with 2025–2026 Department of Justice (DOJ) records and state legal filings.

• What is a “Sanctuary”? It is not a formal legal term found in the Constitution. It is a political label used by the DOJ to describe cities/states that limit voluntary cooperation with federal immigration agents.
• The Nevada Exception: In September 2025, Nevada became the first state to be removed from the federal Sanctuary Jurisdiction List after the Governor signed a cooperation agreement with the DOJ.
• The Federal “Leverage”: The federal government uses the Byrne JAG Grant (public safety funding) as a “carrot and stick” to encourage local police to assist ICE. Most “Blue” states are currently suing the DOJ to keep this funding without being forced to
  change their local laws.
• The Legal “Shield”: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force (or “commandeer”) local police to do the work of federal agents. This is the primary legal defense used by jurisdictions in the current
  Minnesota investigation.
• The Minneapolis Investigation (Jan 2026): The DOJ is currently investigating whether Minnesota officials committed obstruction during a January 7th ICE operation. This differs from “non-cooperation,” as obstruction involves actively interfering with a
  federal agent’s duties.

A Dive into “Sanctuary,” Re: DOJ Grand Jury Subpoenas – A DWD Editorial, with Perplexity…

Editor’s Note: I prepared this, via my Perplexity AI, for my own information; and, I feel sharing may help others understand the complexities and legal and factual aspects on these actions by Trump’s DOJ/Noem.

I will include my comments below interlaced in green. Perplexity is a powerful tool, and has fact-checked the information herein. It can make mistakes, as we know. Let me know if you see any. I started with a simple prompt, and then it was extended several levels. So you can see my research process for this matter. Images herein are public domain creations, unless otherwise noted.–DrWeb

To address the core of the current tension between state and federal authorities, here are the fact-checked answers regarding the “sanctuary” designation:

1. Who designates a “Sanctuary”?

There is no single “official” arbiter of the term, as it is largely a political and administrative label rather than a fixed legal category. However, the term is currently used by three main groups:

• The Federal Government (DOJ/DHS): Under Executive Order 14287,
  the Department of Justice maintains a formal “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List.” As of late 2025 and early 2026, the DOJ designates jurisdictions based on whether their policies “materially impede” federal immigration enforcement.
• The Jurisdictions Themselves: Many states (like California and Illinois) and cities (like Chicago and San Francisco) have explicitly self-identified as “sanctuaries” through executive orders or public resolutions to signal a policy of welcoming immigrants.
• Third-Party Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (which tracks them to criticize the policy) or the American Immigration Council (which tracks them to support it) maintain their own tallies based on different criteria, such as
  the refusal to honor ICE detainers.

Currently listed “Sanctuary States” by the DOJ (2026):
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia.

Editor’s Note: As you can see a bit further below, we explored “why” these states are targeted.

2. Is “Sanctuary” written into Law?

The word “sanctuary” itself is rarely used in the text of the actual laws because it is legally imprecise. Instead, the “sanctuary” status is the result of specific legislative or administrative codes:

• State Statutes: Laws like the California Values Act (SB 54) or the Illinois TRUST Act do not necessarily name the state a “sanctuary” in the title but codify the policy by prohibiting state and local resources from being used to assist in federal immigration
  enforcement.
• City Ordinances: Many cities have “Welcoming City” ordinances. For example, San Francisco’s “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (Chapter 12H of the Administrative Code) prohibits city employees from using city funds or resources to assist ICE.
• Why the “Loaded” Word is Avoided: Legislators generally prefer functional language (e.g., “Non-cooperation with federal civil detainers”) to withstand legal challenges. Using the word “sanctuary” in a bill can make it harder to defend in court as it implies
  “nullification” of federal law, which is unconstitutional.

3. Official Legal Definition and Status

There is no legal definition of “sanctuary” in the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. * The Federal Conflict: While federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1373) prohibits local governments from
restricting the sharing of information about immigration status with federal authorities, the Supreme Court has limited how much the federal government can “commandeer” local resources.

• The Constitutional “Anti-Commandeering” Doctrine: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court (notably in Printz v. United States) has ruled that the federal government cannot force state or local officials to administer federal regulatory programs. This is the legal “shield” that sanctuary cities use: they argue that while
  they cannot stop ICE from doing its job, they cannot be forced to do ICE’s job for them.
• Legal Status: A jurisdiction’s status as a “sanctuary” is essentially a state of passive non-compliance. It is legal for a city to refuse to hold someone in jail for ICE without a judicial warrant, but it is illegal for a city to actively hide someone or physically block federal agents (which would be “obstruction of justice” or “harboring”).

This distinction is exactly what the current DOJ investigation in Minneapolis is testing: whether the actions of Minnesota officials crossed the line from “legal non-cooperation” (10th Amendment) into “active obstruction” of federal agents.

Perplexity Comment: “That is an astute observation for a blog post. If you look at the
political map, there is a near-perfect correlation between the jurisdictions on the U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List and “Blue” (Democratic-led) areas.”

The Case of Nevada…

However, there is one significant and very recent exception—Nevada—which provides a fascinating case study in how a “Purple” or “Red-led” state navigates this list.

The Political Alignment

Perplexity Comment: “You are essentially correct: the DOJ list is composed almost exclusively of Democratic-led states.”

• The “Blue” Block: States like California, New York, Illinois, and Washington have institutionalized non-cooperation through state law.
• The “Red” Absence: Conversely, many “Red” states (such as Florida, Texas, and Iowa) have passed “Anti-Sanctuary” laws that mandate cooperation with ICE, making it legally impossible for their cities to be designated as sanctuaries by the DOJ.

The Case of Nevada (The Exception)

Nevada’s story is particularly relevant to current events. Nevada was initially placed on the DOJ’s Sanctuary Jurisdiction List in August 2025 due to “Model Immigration Policies” passed by its legislature in 2021.

• The Removal: On September 29, 2025, Nevada became the first and only state to be removed from the list after Republican
  Republican Governor Joe Lombardo struck a deal with the DOJ.
• The Deal: To get off the list, the Governor committed the state to:

1. Rejoining the federal 287(g) program (which allows local police to act as immigration agents).
2. Using the National Guard for administrative support in immigration enforcement.
3. Agreeing to “counter-balance” any sanctuary policies passed by the (Democratic-controlled) state legislature.

Why this matters…

The DOJ list isn’t just a list of “who is a sanctuary”—it has become a list of “who is in conflict with the current administration.”

The fact that the list is almost entirely “Blue” while a Republican Governor in a “Purple” state (Nevada) successfully negotiated his way off it suggests that the designation is being used as a tool for federal leverage. The DOJ uses the list to justify cutting federal funding, which jurisdictions then challenge in court—creating the legal “war” we are seeing play out in Minneapolis today.

The primary mechanism used by the federal government to exert financial pressure on “sanctuary” jurisdictions is the withholding of federal law enforcement grants. The legal theory is that these funds are conditional on a jurisdiction’s cooperation with federal
immigration authorities.

The Mechanism: The Byrne JAG Program

The most significant grant at the center of this conflict is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program. Named after a fallen NYPD officer, this is the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. It supports everything from body-worn cameras and mental health programs to drug task forces and court technology.

Under the current administration’s policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has moved to withhold these funds from jurisdictions that refuse to:

1. Allow federal agents access to local correctional facilities.
2. Provide 48 hours’ notice to ICE before releasing an individual of interest.
3. Comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits local governments from restricting the sharing of information about immigration status.

Summary of Targeted Jurisdictions

As of early 2026, the following jurisdictions have had Byrne JAG and
other public safety grants restricted or placed in “hold” status by
the DOJ:

• California: The state and several major cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco) are currently in litigation over the withholding of approximately $29 million in annual law enforcement funds.
• Illinois: Chicago and the state government have seen holds on funds specifically designated for community violence intervention programs.
• New York: New York City faces the potential loss of over $4 million in direct JAG funding, along with restrictions on “Stonegarden” grants used for border and port security.
• Minnesota: Following the events in Minneapolis, the DOJ recently announced a “review and freeze” of over $6 million in law enforcement assistance grants for the Twin Cities area, citing the active grand jury investigation into state obstruction.
• Washington State: Seattle and King County are currently challenging the DOJ’s denial of grant applications for local police training and equipment.

The Status of Nevada

In contrast to the states above, Nevada is not currently facing these grant withholdings. Following the September 2025 agreement between the Governor and the federal government, the DOJ released approximately $2.1 million in previously stalled public safety funds. This makes Nevada the primary example of a state that successfully avoided “sanctuary” financial penalties by formalizing a cooperation agreement.

Sourcing & Legal Context

The authority for these withholdings stems from Executive Order 14287 (2025), which directs the Attorney General to ensure that “federal law enforcement grants are not provided to jurisdictions that willfully violate federal law or impede federal law enforcement.”

However, this remains a volatile legal area. The 10th Amendment and the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” established by the Supreme Court (e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius) suggest the federal government cannot use “gun to the head” tactics to force states into new
programs. Most of these cases are currently winding through federal appellate courts, with jurisdictions arguing that the DOJ cannot add “extra-statutory” conditions to money already appropriated by Congress.

MLA Bibliography (Top Sources)

On the Minneapolis Case and Renée Good:

“Killing of Renée Good.” Wikipedia, 20 Jan. 2026,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Renée_Good. Accessed 20 Jan. 2026.

Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota. “Attorney General Ellison and Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sue to Halt ICE Surge into Minnesota.” State of Minnesota, 12 Jan. 2026, http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/01/12_ICE.asp.

On the Sanctuary List and Nevada’s Removal:

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). “DOJ Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.” AILA Doc. No. 25080506, 5 Aug. 2025, http://www.aila.org/library/doj-publishes-list-of-sanctuary-jurisdictions.
Office of the Governor. “DOJ and State of Nevada Sign Immigration Enforcement Agreement; Nevada Removed from ‘Sanctuary State’ List.” State of Nevada, 26 Sept. 2025, http://gov.nv.gov/Newsroom/PRs/2025/2025-09-26_doj_and_nevada_sign_immigration_enforcement_agreement/.
Aldrete, Isabella. “Nevada, DOJ Sign Immigration Enforcement Memo That Will Take State Off ‘Sanctuary’ List.” The Nevada Independent, 26 Sept. 2025, http://thenevadaindependent.com.

On Federal Grant Withholding:

U.S. Department of Justice. “Memorandum: Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives.” Office of the Attorney General, 5 Feb. 2025.
“Navigating the Grant Landscape Under a New Administration.” Grant News, 14 Jan. 2026, http://www.grantsoffice.com/Learn-from-Us/Grant- News.

How Readers Can Verify This

If your readers want to “fact-check the AI,” you can encourage them to:

1. Search Public Records: Direct them to the DOJ’s “News” or “Briefing Room” section using keywords like “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List” or “Byrne JAG compliance.”
2. Verify the Nevada MOU: The specific Memorandum of Understanding signed by Governor Lombardo on September 26, 2025, is a public document available on the Nevada Governor’s official website.
3. Cross-Reference Case Law: They can look up the “Anti- Commandeering Doctrine” and the Supreme Court case Printz v. United States to see the legal foundation for why “sanctuary” policies are constitutional.
4. Check News Archives: For the Minneapolis shooting, searching for “Renée Nicole Good January 7 2026” will yield the primary source videos and local police reports that form the basis of the current DOJ investigation.

Fact-Check Summary: The “Sanctuary” Conflict

To ensure the integrity of this reporting, the following key points have been cross-referenced with 2025–2026 Department of Justice (DOJ) records and state legal filings.

• What is a “Sanctuary”? It is not a formal legal term found in the Constitution. It is a political label used by the DOJ to describe cities/states that limit voluntary cooperation with federal immigration agents.
• The Nevada Exception: In September 2025, Nevada became the first state to be removed from the federal Sanctuary Jurisdiction List after the Governor signed a cooperation agreement with the DOJ.
• The Federal “Leverage”: The federal government uses the Byrne JAG Grant (public safety funding) as a “carrot and stick” to encourage local police to assist ICE. Most “Blue” states are currently suing the DOJ to keep this funding without being forced to
  change their local laws.
• The Legal “Shield”: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force (or “commandeer”) local police to do the work of federal agents. This is the primary legal defense used by jurisdictions in the current
  Minnesota investigation.
• The Minneapolis Investigation (Jan 2026): The DOJ is currently investigating whether Minnesota officials committed obstruction during a January 7th ICE operation. This differs from “non-cooperation,” as obstruction involves actively interfering with a
  federal agent’s duties.

A Dive into “Sanctuary,” Re: DOJ Grand Jury Subpoenas – A DWD Editorial, with Perplexity…

Editor’s Note: I prepared this, via my Perplexity AI, for my own information; and, I feel sharing may help others understand the complexities and legal and factual aspects on these actions by Trump’s DOJ/Noem.

I will include my comments below interlaced in green. Perplexity is a powerful tool, and has fact-checked the information herein. It can make mistakes, as we know. Let me know if you see any. I started with a simple prompt, and then it was extended several levels. So you can see my research process for this matter. Images herein are public domain creations, unless otherwise noted.–DrWeb

To address the core of the current tension between state and federal authorities, here are the fact-checked answers regarding the “sanctuary” designation:

1. Who designates a “Sanctuary”?

There is no single “official” arbiter of the term, as it is largely a political and administrative label rather than a fixed legal category. However, the term is currently used by three main groups:

• The Federal Government (DOJ/DHS): Under Executive Order 14287,
  the Department of Justice maintains a formal “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List.” As of late 2025 and early 2026, the DOJ designates jurisdictions based on whether their policies “materially impede” federal immigration enforcement.
• The Jurisdictions Themselves: Many states (like California and Illinois) and cities (like Chicago and San Francisco) have explicitly self-identified as “sanctuaries” through executive orders or public resolutions to signal a policy of welcoming immigrants.
• Third-Party Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies (which tracks them to criticize the policy) or the American Immigration Council (which tracks them to support it) maintain their own tallies based on different criteria, such as
  the refusal to honor ICE detainers.

Currently listed “Sanctuary States” by the DOJ (2026):
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia.

Editor’s Note: As you can see a bit further below, we explored “why” these states are targeted.

2. Is “Sanctuary” written into Law?

The word “sanctuary” itself is rarely used in the text of the actual laws because it is legally imprecise. Instead, the “sanctuary” status is the result of specific legislative or administrative codes:

• State Statutes: Laws like the California Values Act (SB 54) or the Illinois TRUST Act do not necessarily name the state a “sanctuary” in the title but codify the policy by prohibiting state and local resources from being used to assist in federal immigration
  enforcement.
• City Ordinances: Many cities have “Welcoming City” ordinances. For example, San Francisco’s “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (Chapter 12H of the Administrative Code) prohibits city employees from using city funds or resources to assist ICE.
• Why the “Loaded” Word is Avoided: Legislators generally prefer functional language (e.g., “Non-cooperation with federal civil detainers”) to withstand legal challenges. Using the word “sanctuary” in a bill can make it harder to defend in court as it implies
  “nullification” of federal law, which is unconstitutional.

3. Official Legal Definition and Status

There is no legal definition of “sanctuary” in the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. * The Federal Conflict: While federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1373) prohibits local governments from
restricting the sharing of information about immigration status with federal authorities, the Supreme Court has limited how much the federal government can “commandeer” local resources.

• The Constitutional “Anti-Commandeering” Doctrine: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court (notably in Printz v. United States) has ruled that the federal government cannot force state or local officials to administer federal regulatory programs. This is the legal “shield” that sanctuary cities use: they argue that while
  they cannot stop ICE from doing its job, they cannot be forced to do ICE’s job for them.
• Legal Status: A jurisdiction’s status as a “sanctuary” is essentially a state of passive non-compliance. It is legal for a city to refuse to hold someone in jail for ICE without a judicial warrant, but it is illegal for a city to actively hide someone or physically block federal agents (which would be “obstruction of justice” or “harboring”).

This distinction is exactly what the current DOJ investigation in Minneapolis is testing: whether the actions of Minnesota officials crossed the line from “legal non-cooperation” (10th Amendment) into “active obstruction” of federal agents.

Perplexity Comment: “That is an astute observation for a blog post. If you look at the
political map, there is a near-perfect correlation between the jurisdictions on the U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List and “Blue” (Democratic-led) areas.”

The Case of Nevada…

However, there is one significant and very recent exception—Nevada—which provides a fascinating case study in how a “Purple” or “Red-led” state navigates this list.

The Political Alignment

Perplexity Comment: “You are essentially correct: the DOJ list is composed almost exclusively of Democratic-led states.”

• The “Blue” Block: States like California, New York, Illinois, and Washington have institutionalized non-cooperation through state law.
• The “Red” Absence: Conversely, many “Red” states (such as Florida, Texas, and Iowa) have passed “Anti-Sanctuary” laws that mandate cooperation with ICE, making it legally impossible for their cities to be designated as sanctuaries by the DOJ.

The Case of Nevada (The Exception)

Nevada’s story is particularly relevant to current events. Nevada was initially placed on the DOJ’s Sanctuary Jurisdiction List in August 2025 due to “Model Immigration Policies” passed by its legislature in 2021.

• The Removal: On September 29, 2025, Nevada became the first and only state to be removed from the list after Republican
  Republican Governor Joe Lombardo struck a deal with the DOJ.
• The Deal: To get off the list, the Governor committed the state to:

1. Rejoining the federal 287(g) program (which allows local police to act as immigration agents).
2. Using the National Guard for administrative support in immigration enforcement.
3. Agreeing to “counter-balance” any sanctuary policies passed by the (Democratic-controlled) state legislature.

Why this matters…

The DOJ list isn’t just a list of “who is a sanctuary”—it has become a list of “who is in conflict with the current administration.”

The fact that the list is almost entirely “Blue” while a Republican Governor in a “Purple” state (Nevada) successfully negotiated his way off it suggests that the designation is being used as a tool for federal leverage. The DOJ uses the list to justify cutting federal funding, which jurisdictions then challenge in court—creating the legal “war” we are seeing play out in Minneapolis today.

The primary mechanism used by the federal government to exert financial pressure on “sanctuary” jurisdictions is the withholding of federal law enforcement grants. The legal theory is that these funds are conditional on a jurisdiction’s cooperation with federal
immigration authorities.

The Mechanism: The Byrne JAG Program

The most significant grant at the center of this conflict is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program. Named after a fallen NYPD officer, this is the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. It supports everything from body-worn cameras and mental health programs to drug task forces and court technology.

Under the current administration’s policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has moved to withhold these funds from jurisdictions that refuse to:

1. Allow federal agents access to local correctional facilities.
2. Provide 48 hours’ notice to ICE before releasing an individual of interest.
3. Comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits local governments from restricting the sharing of information about immigration status.

Summary of Targeted Jurisdictions

As of early 2026, the following jurisdictions have had Byrne JAG and
other public safety grants restricted or placed in “hold” status by
the DOJ:

• California: The state and several major cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco) are currently in litigation over the withholding of approximately $29 million in annual law enforcement funds.
• Illinois: Chicago and the state government have seen holds on funds specifically designated for community violence intervention programs.
• New York: New York City faces the potential loss of over $4 million in direct JAG funding, along with restrictions on “Stonegarden” grants used for border and port security.
• Minnesota: Following the events in Minneapolis, the DOJ recently announced a “review and freeze” of over $6 million in law enforcement assistance grants for the Twin Cities area, citing the active grand jury investigation into state obstruction.
• Washington State: Seattle and King County are currently challenging the DOJ’s denial of grant applications for local police training and equipment.

The Status of Nevada

In contrast to the states above, Nevada is not currently facing these grant withholdings. Following the September 2025 agreement between the Governor and the federal government, the DOJ released approximately $2.1 million in previously stalled public safety funds. This makes Nevada the primary example of a state that successfully avoided “sanctuary” financial penalties by formalizing a cooperation agreement.

Sourcing & Legal Context

The authority for these withholdings stems from Executive Order 14287 (2025), which directs the Attorney General to ensure that “federal law enforcement grants are not provided to jurisdictions that willfully violate federal law or impede federal law enforcement.”

However, this remains a volatile legal area. The 10th Amendment and the “Anti-Commandeering Doctrine” established by the Supreme Court (e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius) suggest the federal government cannot use “gun to the head” tactics to force states into new
programs. Most of these cases are currently winding through federal appellate courts, with jurisdictions arguing that the DOJ cannot add “extra-statutory” conditions to money already appropriated by Congress.

MLA Bibliography (Top Sources)

On the Minneapolis Case and Renée Good:

“Killing of Renée Good.” Wikipedia, 20 Jan. 2026,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Renée_Good. Accessed 20 Jan. 2026.

Office of the Attorney General of Minnesota. “Attorney General Ellison and Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sue to Halt ICE Surge into Minnesota.” State of Minnesota, 12 Jan. 2026, http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/01/12_ICE.asp.

On the Sanctuary List and Nevada’s Removal:

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). “DOJ Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.” AILA Doc. No. 25080506, 5 Aug. 2025, http://www.aila.org/library/doj-publishes-list-of-sanctuary-jurisdictions.
Office of the Governor. “DOJ and State of Nevada Sign Immigration Enforcement Agreement; Nevada Removed from ‘Sanctuary State’ List.” State of Nevada, 26 Sept. 2025, http://gov.nv.gov/Newsroom/PRs/2025/2025-09-26_doj_and_nevada_sign_immigration_enforcement_agreement/.
Aldrete, Isabella. “Nevada, DOJ Sign Immigration Enforcement Memo That Will Take State Off ‘Sanctuary’ List.” The Nevada Independent, 26 Sept. 2025, http://thenevadaindependent.com.

On Federal Grant Withholding:

U.S. Department of Justice. “Memorandum: Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives.” Office of the Attorney General, 5 Feb. 2025.
“Navigating the Grant Landscape Under a New Administration.” Grant News, 14 Jan. 2026, http://www.grantsoffice.com/Learn-from-Us/Grant- News.

How Readers Can Verify This

If your readers want to “fact-check the AI,” you can encourage them to:

1. Search Public Records: Direct them to the DOJ’s “News” or “Briefing Room” section using keywords like “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List” or “Byrne JAG compliance.”
2. Verify the Nevada MOU: The specific Memorandum of Understanding signed by Governor Lombardo on September 26, 2025, is a public document available on the Nevada Governor’s official website.
3. Cross-Reference Case Law: They can look up the “Anti- Commandeering Doctrine” and the Supreme Court case Printz v. United States to see the legal foundation for why “sanctuary” policies are constitutional.
4. Check News Archives: For the Minneapolis shooting, searching for “Renée Nicole Good January 7 2026” will yield the primary source videos and local police reports that form the basis of the current DOJ investigation.

Fact-Check Summary: The “Sanctuary” Conflict

To ensure the integrity of this reporting, the following key points have been cross-referenced with 2025–2026 Department of Justice (DOJ) records and state legal filings.

• What is a “Sanctuary”? It is not a formal legal term found in the Constitution. It is a political label used by the DOJ to describe cities/states that limit voluntary cooperation with federal immigration agents.
• The Nevada Exception: In September 2025, Nevada became the first state to be removed from the federal Sanctuary Jurisdiction List after the Governor signed a cooperation agreement with the DOJ.
• The Federal “Leverage”: The federal government uses the Byrne JAG Grant (public safety funding) as a “carrot and stick” to encourage local police to assist ICE. Most “Blue” states are currently suing the DOJ to keep this funding without being forced to
  change their local laws.
• The Legal “Shield”: Under the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force (or “commandeer”) local police to do the work of federal agents. This is the primary legal defense used by jurisdictions in the current
  Minnesota investigation.
• The Minneapolis Investigation (Jan 2026): The DOJ is currently investigating whether Minnesota officials committed obstruction during a January 7th ICE operation. This differs from “non-cooperation,” as obstruction involves actively interfering with a
  federal agent’s duties.

Vous avez encore un mois pour obtenir un an de Perplexity Pro gratuitement si vous avec un abonnement chez Bouygues Telecom http://dlvr.it/TQDjCW #PerplexityPro #BouyguesTelecom

Anyone signed up for the free year of #PerplexityPro through #Paypal/#Venmo?
https://www.perplexity.ai/join/p/paypal-subscription

Get a full year of Pro completely #free when you connect your PayPal and choose a valid billing method. $0 for 12 months, then $20.00/mo. By redeeming, you agree to apply complimentary #Perplexity Pro subscription to your Perplexity account and after the complimentary subscription period, your subscription #AI will auto-renew at current monthly rate.

Worried about how hard it will be to cancel

Freedom of Speech Around the World: A Global Analysis and the Jimmy Kimmel Case – DrWeb’s Domain Report

Freedom of Speech Around the World: A Global Analysis and the Jimmy Kimmel Case

Published on September 19, 2025, Prepared by Perplexity Pro, edited by DrWeb.

Introduction and Defining Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech represents a fundamental human right that varies significantly in protection across different countries and legal systems. Legal definitions provide the foundation for understanding this concept across three authoritative sources:

Cornell Law School defines freedom of speech as “the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government.” This definition emphasizes the protection from government interference in expression.

The Law Dictionary characterizes it as “a guarantee of the 1st and 14th amendment giving people the right to speak without any restriction from the government.” This focuses specifically on constitutional protections within the American legal framework.

Merriam-Webster provides a broader definition: “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations.” This definition acknowledges that some restrictions may apply under specific circumstances.

Global Freedom of Speech Rankings

Question: Where does the United States rank in Freedom of Speech?

Based on the Global State of Democracy Indices 2023, countries receive scores from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating stronger freedom of expression protections. The analysis reveals significant variations in how democratic nations protect speech rights.

Top 25 Countries with Strongest Freedom of Speech Protections

Notably, the United States ranks 28th with a score of 0.75, indicating room for improvement despite constitutional protections.

This ranking suggests that while the U.S. has strong theoretical protections, practical implementation may lag behind other democracies.

International Legal Framework

Freedom of speech receives recognition in international law through multiple mechanisms and judicial bodies that have developed influential standards for global application.

International Courts and Freedom of Speech Recognition

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides legally binding protections for member states, creating enforceable obligations beyond mere aspirational statements.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has developed influential standards through Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR consistently holds that criticism of government and politicians receives strong protection, and that criminal penalties for political speech violate proportionality requirements. These European standards have become widely influential in international law and have been adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee.

International legal advocacy organizations like the International Senior Lawyers Project (ISLP) successfully use these international norms in domestic courts, arguing that restrictive national laws violate treaty obligations under the ICCPR. Recent cases in Algeria, Iraq, Tunisia, and Palestine have resulted in dismissed charges when courts recognized that criminal penalties for online expression violate international law.

Major U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment Decisions

The United States has developed extensive jurisprudence protecting freedom of speech through landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped modern understanding of expression rights.

Foundational Cases

Schenck v. United States (1919) established the “clear and present danger” test, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stating that speech could be restricted when “the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent.” The Court upheld convictions for distributing leaflets opposing military conscription during World War I.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) represents the most significant modern free speech precedent. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Clarence Brandenburg’s conviction under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism statute for advocating racial strife at a KKK rally. The Court established that government cannot prohibit speech unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” This decision created one of the most speech-protective legal tests worldwide.

Student Speech Rights

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) established that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court protected students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, creating the foundational principle for student expression rights in educational settings.

Symbolic Speech Protection

Texas v. Johnson (1989) held that flag burning constitutes protected symbolic political speech. The Court concluded that “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Wooley v. Maynard (1977) protected a Jehovah’s Witness who covered New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” motto on his license plate. The Court recognized both “the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all,” establishing negative speech rights.

Recent Developments

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024) addressed social media content moderation, ruling that the First Amendment protects platforms engaging in expressive activity when compiling and curating speech. The Court held that states cannot interfere with private actors’ speech to advance ideological balance.

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo (2024) prohibited government officials from wielding power selectively to punish or suppress speech through private intermediaries, establishing important precedent regarding indirect government censorship.

Analysis of the Jimmy Kimmel ABC Suspension Case

Question: What’s your analysis of the current Jimmy Kimmel events regarding Freedom of Speech?

The recent suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” by ABC provides a contemporary case study in the complex intersection of government pressure, private broadcaster decision-making, and First Amendment protections. This incident illustrates how theoretical speech protections face practical challenges in the modern media landscape.

Background of the Controversy

On September 16, 2025, ABC indefinitely suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following controversial comments the host made about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. During his Monday night monologue, Kimmel criticized the “MAGA gang” for attempting to politically exploit Kirk’s murder, suggesting they were “doing everything they can to score political points” from the tragedy. He also mocked former President Trump’s response to questions about Kirk’s death.

The suspension came after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly condemned Kimmel’s remarks on a podcast, calling them “some of the sickest conduct possible” and threatening regulatory action with the warning “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Major broadcast station owners Nexstar and Sinclair preemptively pulled the show from their ABC affiliates before the network announced the indefinite suspension.

First Amendment Analysis

This case presents a complex intersection of government pressure and private broadcaster decision-making that raises significant constitutional concerns. Under established First Amendment precedent, particularly Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), Kimmel’s political commentary clearly falls within protected speech categories as criticism of government figures and political movements.

The critical constitutional issue centers on whether government coercion violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on indirect speech suppression. As Professor Raleigh Levine of Mitchell Hamline School of Law explains, “The issue here is whether the government is using coercion or pressure to get private companies to do indirectly what it could not directly force them to do.” While private employers can typically discipline employees for speech, broadcast networks operating on public airwaves occupy a unique regulatory space.

The Supreme Court established in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) that government cannot use threats of punishment to coerce private entities into suppressing speech, even when direct censorship would be unconstitutional. FCC Chairman Carr’s explicit threats of regulatory consequences for failing to discipline Kimmel likely crossed this constitutional boundary.

Legal Precedent and Regulatory Framework

Broadcasters historically receive reduced First Amendment protections compared to other media, a doctrine criticized by constitutional scholars as creating “junior varsity First Amendment rights.” However, even under this diminished standard, political commentary remains strongly protected speech.

The FCC’s regulatory authority extends primarily to local station licensing rather than network content control. Carr’s threats appeared to leverage this licensing power to indirectly pressure content decisions, potentially exceeding statutory authority while violating constitutional boundaries.

Predicted Legal Outcomes

Question: What’s your predicted outcome now of the Jimmy Kimmel events?

Several potential legal challenges may emerge from this controversy:

First Amendment Litigation: Kimmel or advocacy organizations like the ACLU, which has already condemned the suspension as government suppression of opposing ideas, may file suit challenging the government coercion. Such cases would likely focus on proving that Carr’s threats constituted impermissible government pressure rather than permissible advocacy.

Congressional Oversight: The incident may prompt legislative hearings examining FCC overreach and the scope of regulatory authority over broadcast content. Questions about whether current broadcast regulation frameworks remain constitutionally viable in the modern media landscape could drive policy reforms.

Industry Response: The suspension’s chilling effect on other broadcasters and entertainers may generate broader resistance. Late-night hosts and Hollywood figures have already rallied to Kimmel’s defense, potentially creating sustained pressure for reinstatement.

Commercial Consequences: ABC faces significant advertising revenue losses, with “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” reportedly generating approximately $70 million annually from over 200 brands. Economic pressure may ultimately force the network to restore the program regardless of political considerations.

The most likely outcome involves eventual reinstatement of Kimmel’s show, possibly following legal settlement or policy clarification limiting FCC content oversight authority. This case may establish important precedent regarding the limits of government pressure on private media companies, particularly in the broadcast television context where regulatory relationships create unique constitutional vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

This comprehensive analysis demonstrates that while freedom of speech enjoys broad international recognition, implementation varies significantly across nations. The United States maintains strong constitutional protections through extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence, yet ranks below many other democracies in practical freedom of expression measures. The Jimmy Kimmel case illustrates ongoing tensions between government authority and speech protections, particularly in regulated industries like broadcasting.

The global landscape reveals that Nordic countries lead in practical freedom of expression, while international courts increasingly recognize speech rights as fundamental human rights. As media landscapes evolve and political tensions intensify, the balance between legitimate regulation and speech protection remains a critical challenge for democratic societies worldwide.

Bibliography and Sources

Legal Definitions

• Freedom of Speech – Cornell Law School
• Freedom of Speech Definition – The Law Dictionary
• Freedom of Speech Definition – Merriam-Webster

Global Rankings and Analysis

• Countries with Freedom of Speech 2025 – World Population Review
• Freedom of Expression Index, 2024 – Our World in Data
• Countries and Territories – Freedom House

International Law

• Using International Law to Defend Free Speech in the Information Age – Columbia Global Freedom of Expression
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations
• Freedom of Speech in International Law – Oxford Academic

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

• Free Speech Supreme Court Cases – Justia
• Notable First Amendment Court Cases – American Library Association
• Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) – Justia
• Cases By Date – MTSU Free Speech Center

Jimmy Kimmel Case Analysis

• Why Jimmy Kimmel’s Show Was Yanked Off the Air – CNN
• Were Jimmy Kimmel’s Free Speech Rights Violated When ABC Canceled His Show? – Reuters
• Does the First Amendment Apply in Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension? – CBS News
• In Pressuring ABC Over Kimmel, Trump May Have Crossed a Constitutional Line – New York Times
• Jimmy Kimmel, the FCC, and Why Broadcasters Still Have “Junior Varsity” First Amendment Rights – Cato Institute

Research compiled, analyzed, and published on September 19, 2025.

#2025 #ABC #AI #America #DonaldTrump #DrWebSDomain #Education #FCC #FederalCommunicationsCommission #Health #History #JimmyKimmel #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #PerplexityPro #Politics #Resistance #Science #Television #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Un an d'abonnement offert à Perplexity Pro avec votre compte PayPal : un cadeau de 200 $ http://dlvr.it/TMxkcy #PerplexityPro #IntelligenceArtificielle

🎁 Airtel just gave you the smartest freebie of the year!

12 months of Perplexity Pro AI (worth ₹17,000) is now FREE for all Airtel users!

💡 GPT-4.1
💼 Claude 4.0
📊 File analysis
🧠 Research assistant in your pocket

📲 Claim now in the Airtel Thanks App!

#PerplexityPro #AirtelThanks #AIRevolution #DigitalIndia #GPT4 #ClaudeAI #KimiK2 #PerplexityAI #SmartSearch

https://news24media.org/perplexity-pro-airtels-17000-ai-gift/

Bouygues Telecom offre un an d’abonnement à Perplexity Pro à tous ses clients http://dlvr.it/THvw2H #BouyguesTelecom #PerplexityPro

The subject line of an email from Xfinity:

"Unlock Perplexity Pro through Xfinity"

Hell, no. I've got enough perplexity dealing with your website, and your CSRs. I don't need to up it by unlocking perplexity pro!

:holdthepain:

#Xfinity #perplexity #PerplexityPro #ad

Perplexity bringt native macOS-App für KI-gestützte Suche auf den Markt
Perplexity hat seine erste native macOS-App veröffentlicht, die Mac-Nutzer:innen eine erweiterte, KI-gestützte Suche direkt vom Desktop aus ermöglicht. Diese neue App bietet einen schnellen und
https://www.apfeltalk.de/magazin/news/perplexity-bringt-native-macos-app-fuer-ki-gestuetzte-suche-auf-den-markt/
#News #Tellerrand #Claude3 #GPT4 #KIgesttzteSuche #MacAppStore #macOSApp #Perplexity #PerplexityPro #ProSearch

SKT customers can use Perplexity Pro version for free #SKT #퍼플렉시티프로 #퍼플렉시티 #PerplexityPro #Perplexity https://news.sktelecom.com/208055

SKT customers can use Perplexity Pro version for free #SKT #퍼플렉시티프로 #퍼플렉시티 #PerplexityPro #Perplexity https://news.sktelecom.com/208055

SKT customers can use Perplexity Pro version for free #SKT #퍼플렉시티프로 #퍼플렉시티 #PerplexityPro #Perplexity https://news.sktelecom.com/208055

Perplexity bringt native macOS-App für KI-gestützte Suche auf den Markt
Perplexity hat seine erste native macOS-App veröffentlicht, die Mac-Nutzer:innen eine erweiterte, KI-gestützte Suche direkt vom Desktop aus ermöglicht. Diese neue App bietet einen schnellen und
https://www.apfeltalk.de/magazin/news/perplexity-bringt-native-macos-app-fuer-ki-gestuetzte-suche-auf-den-markt/
#News #Tellerrand #Claude3 #GPT4 #KIgesttzteSuche #MacAppStore #macOSApp #Perplexity #PerplexityPro #ProSearch

Perplexity bringt native macOS-App für KI-gestützte Suche auf den Markt
Perplexity hat seine erste native macOS-App veröffentlicht, die Mac-Nutzer:innen eine erweiterte, KI-gestützte Suche direkt vom Desktop aus ermöglicht. Diese neue App bietet einen schnellen und
https://www.apfeltalk.de/magazin/news/perplexity-bringt-native-macos-app-fuer-ki-gestuetzte-suche-auf-den-markt/
#News #Tellerrand #Claude3 #GPT4 #KIgesttzteSuche #MacAppStore #macOSApp #Perplexity #PerplexityPro #ProSearch

Perplexity bringt native macOS-App für KI-gestützte Suche auf den Markt
Perplexity hat seine erste native macOS-App veröffentlicht, die Mac-Nutzer:innen eine erweiterte, KI-gestützte Suche direkt vom Desktop aus ermöglicht. Diese neue App bietet einen schnellen und
https://www.apfeltalk.de/magazin/news/perplexity-bringt-native-macos-app-fuer-ki-gestuetzte-suche-auf-den-markt/
#News #Tellerrand #Claude3 #GPT4 #KIgesttzteSuche #MacAppStore #macOSApp #Perplexity #PerplexityPro #ProSearch

Perplexity bringt native macOS-App für KI-gestützte Suche auf den Markt
Perplexity hat seine erste native macOS-App veröffentlicht, die Mac-Nutzer:innen eine erweiterte, KI-gestützte Suche direkt vom Desktop aus ermöglicht. Diese neue App bietet einen schnellen und
https://www.apfeltalk.de/magazin/news/perplexity-bringt-native-macos-app-fuer-ki-gestuetzte-suche-auf-den-markt/
#News #Tellerrand #Claude3 #GPT4 #KIgesttzteSuche #MacAppStore #macOSApp #Perplexity #PerplexityPro #ProSearch