Good morning everyone,

Only 9 days away from the 47th President getting sworn in. Let’s jump into it!

Trump has now been convicted in a “Hush Money” case that was brought by state charges under DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan. Wildfires and California politics continue to clash in LA’s 5th day of wildfires. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has now stated openly that he wants to “get back to our roots around free expression”

• Trump stands convicted in NY “Hush Money” case

• Wildfires and politics clash in California

• Meta gut checks left-leaning past

We got hundreds of emails, and we just dropped some merch after you all asked us to restock.
You can get it at our shop here.

Trump Convicted in NY “Hush Money” Case

_{By: Atlas}

In a historic first for American law, President-elect Donald Trump became the first former or sitting president to be convicted of a felony, marking a truly unprecedented moment in U.S. history. The conviction, stemming from what has become known as the "hush money" case, resulted in an unconditional discharge – meaning while the conviction stands, Trump faces no additional penalties as he prepares to return to the White House.

The decision by Judge Juan Merchan highlighted the unorthodox constitutional challenges of prosecuting a president-elect, as the court attempted to balance criminal accountability with the practical realities of Trump's impending presidency. The case, which resulted in 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, concluded with a virtual appearance by Trump, who maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.

The Sentencing Decision

Judge Merchan's ruling drew a clear distinction between Trump the citizen and Trump the president-elect, emphasizing that the lenient sentence was solely due to Trump's upcoming role as head of state. "Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections," Merchan stated during the proceedings, making it clear that the protections stemmed from the office rather than the individual.

The judge further elaborated that the court faced an unprecedented situation, noting that "Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances." The decision for an unconditional discharge was described as the only "lawful sentence" that would not encroach upon the highest office in the land, though Merchan emphasized this did not diminish the seriousness of the underlying crimes.

Trump's Response and Legal Strategy

The president-elect's reaction to the verdict remained characteristically defiant. During the virtual proceeding, Trump declared, "I'm totally innocent, I did nothing wrong," and maintained his position that the case represented a "political witch hunt" designed to damage his electoral prospects. Following the sentencing, Trump took to Truth Social to announce his intention to appeal, characterizing the proceeding as a "despicable charade" while claiming the unconditional discharge proved the weakness of the case against him.

The legal path forward grants new legal nuances to the 47th President. As a felon, Trump faces certain restrictions, including international travel limitations that could affect his ability to visit countries like Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom without special diplomatic arrangements. However, these restrictions could potentially be cleared in three years if Trump successfully applies for a Certificate of Good Conduct from New York State.

Constitutional Implications and Supreme Court Involvement

The case's resolution came after lots of constitutional deliberation, including a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that allowed the sentencing to proceed. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined their liberal colleagues in permitting the sentencing to move forward, largely based on Merchan's indication that no jail time or probation would be imposed.

Legal experts, including constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, noted that while the Supreme Court's decision did not explicitly mandate an unconditional discharge, the practical and political realities of sentencing a president-elect effectively required such an outcome. The case has raised never before asked questions about the intersection of criminal justice and executive power, particularly as it relates to a president-elect.

Looking Ahead

The conviction's long-term implications remain uncertain. While Trump faces no immediate penalties, the felony conviction could present unique challenges during his presidency, particularly in international relations and diplomatic travel. The president-elect's legal team has already indicated their intention to appeal, suggesting this historic case may continue to wind through the courts even as Trump prepares to return to the White House.

The case also sets a significant precedent for future prosecutions of high-ranking government officials, particularly those who achieve higher office after criminal proceedings have begun. The balance struck by Judge Merchan between acknowledging criminal liability while recognizing the practical limitations of punishing a president-elect may serve as a template for similar situations in the future (albeit for rare occasions).

Beyond the immediate legal implications, the case represents a broader moment of reckoning for the American justice system, testing the boundaries between individual accountability and the practical necessities of governing. As Trump prepares to become the first convicted felon to serve as president, the nation enters uncharted territory, balancing the principles of equal justice under law with the unique requirements of the presidency.

The resolution of this case, while historic, likely represents just the beginning of a larger constitutional conversation about presidential power, criminal justice, and the balance between accountability and governance. As Trump moves forward with his appeals and preparations for another term in office, the implications of this unprecedented conviction will continue to reverberate through American political and legal institutions.

Wildfires Burn, Politicians Churn

_{By: Atlas}

Los Angeles County faces an unprecedented crisis as six major wildfires continue to ravage the region, causing devastating losses and raising serious questions about local and state leadership. The fires, which entered their fourth day on Friday, have already claimed at least eleven lives and forced the evacuation of more than 180,000 residents, marking one of the most destructive natural disasters in the city's history.

The two largest blazes, the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire, have consumed over 34,000 acres combined. The Palisades Fire, described by the LA fire chief as "one of the most destructive fires in the history of Los Angeles," has scorched nearly 20,000 acres and destroyed thousands of structures in the affluent Pacific Palisades and Malibu areas. Meanwhile, the Eaton Fire has burned almost 14,000 acres in Altadena and Pasadena, threatening the historic Mount Wilson Observatory and forcing additional evacuation orders.

Infrastructure Failures and Political Fallout

Perhaps most damning for local officials is the revelation that critical infrastructure failed during the initial response to the fires. Governor Gavin Newsom has demanded an official inquiry into why fire hydrants failed to operate during crucial moments of the emergency response. The investigation comes after reports emerged that the Santa Ynez Reservoir was offline and empty when the firestorm gained momentum, greatly hampering firefighting efforts.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power acknowledged that up to 20 percent of hydrants ran dry during the disaster, with water demand reaching four times the normal amount for 15 straight hours. This systemic failure has prompted sharp criticism of both Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Newsom's administration, with questions arising about the maintenance and preparedness of critical infrastructure.

President Joe Biden, during a briefing on January 9, attributed some of the water pressure issues to utility companies cutting power to prevent additional fires, which subsequently disabled electric pumps. However, this explanation has done little to quell growing public outrage over the perceived lack of emergency preparedness.

The Tumult Deepens: Crime and Chaos

Adding to the catastrophe, law enforcement officials are now investigating multiple instances of arson and looting across evacuated areas. The Kenneth Fire, which has burned nearly 1,000 acres, is now officially under arson investigation after authorities detained a suspect believed to have intentionally started the blaze. The Los Angeles County Sheriff has been forced to declare a curfew amid reports of widespread looting in evacuated neighborhoods.

Reports from local media paint a disturbing picture of organized crime taking advantage of the chaos. KTLA 5 documented witnesses who stated that they saw "hundreds of looters" invading neighborhoods, with other witnesses describing groups of men arriving on scooters and attempting to break into evacuated homes. The National Guard has been deployed to assist local law enforcement in maintaining order and protecting evacuated properties.

Economic Impact and Insurance Crisis

The financial toll of the disaster has reached staggering proportions, with AccuWeather estimating total damage and economic losses between $135 billion and $150 billion – a massive increase from Wednesday's initial estimate of $52-57 billion. The insurance industry faces potential losses exceeding $20 billion, significantly higher than the previous record set by the 2018 Butte County Camp fires.

The concentration of damage in affluent areas like Pacific Palisades, where median home prices exceed $3 million, has contributed to the astronomical losses. State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has enacted an emergency moratorium prohibiting insurance companies from canceling or refusing to renew policies of those who have lost homes and buildings in the fires. However, reports indicate that approximately one in ten homeowners in Los Angeles County were already uninsured before the disaster, potentially leaving many residents facing catastrophic personal financial losses.

Leadership Under Duress

The response from political leadership has drawn intense scrutiny and criticism. Mayor Karen Bass faces mounting questions about the city's emergency preparedness and response capabilities. Governor Newsom's administration, already under siege for what critics call years of mismanagement of forest and fire prevention programs, now confronts additional criticism over the water infrastructure failures.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger has been on the ground, meeting with affected residents. "I've talked to families that have lost everything, and they don't know where to go," she reported, highlighting the human toll of the disaster. The crisis has exposed vulnerabilities in the region's emergency response systems and raised serious questions about leadership decisions leading up to the fires.

Fight On The Horizon

As firefighting efforts continue, with containment levels remaining dangerously low at 8% for the Palisades Fire and 3% for the Eaton Fire as of Friday, the political fallout appears far from over. The governor's ordered investigation into the water system failures may provide answers, but the broader questions about leadership and emergency preparedness will likely persist long after the flames are gone.

The disaster has prompted calls for total reform in California's approach to fire prevention and emergency response. With more than 10,000 structures destroyed and damages potentially reaching $150 billion, the Los Angeles fires of 2025 may prove to be a turning point in how the state approaches disaster preparedness and infrastructure maintenance.

The crisis continues to unfold as firefighters battle to protect what remains, while political leaders face their own trial by fire in the court of public opinion. With each passing day, the Los Angeles fires of 2025 increasingly appear not just as a natural disaster, but as a failure of governance and preparation that may reshape California's political landscape for years to come.

Meta Turns The Page On Censored Past, Per CEO

_{By: Arthur Lindh, Political Analyst & Contributor for Atlas}

In a sweeping overhaul that signals a 180 degree shift in Silicon Valley's approach to content moderation, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced the termination of the company's fact-checking program and along with a shrink to the speech restrictions on its platforms. The changes, coming shortly after Zuckerberg's dinner with President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, represent what many see as a strategic pivot ahead of Trump's return to the White House.

"We're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms," Zuckerberg declared in a Facebook video posted Tuesday morning. The CEO specifically pointed to what he described as politically biased fact-checkers as the impetus for the change, announcing plans to replace them with a community-based system similar to X's "Community Notes" feature.

The move marks a complete departure from Meta's post-2016 content moderation approach, which Zuckerberg now characterizes as an overcorrection driven by media pressure. "After 2016, the legacy media wrote non-stop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth, but the fact-checkers have just been too politically-biased," he explained.

Candid Conversations with Joe Rogan

In a revealing three-hour conversation on The Joe Rogan Experience, Zuckerberg offered unprecedented insight into his evolving views on corporate culture and content moderation. The Meta CEO criticized what he called "culturally neutered" companies that have distanced themselves from "masculine energy," arguing for a return to more aggressive corporate cultures.

"Masculine energy I think is good, and obviously society has plenty of that, but I think that corporate culture was really trying to get away from it," Zuckerberg told Rogan. His comments, coupled with Meta's recent policy changes, suggest a broader philosophical shift within the company.

During the podcast, Zuckerberg also leveled sharp criticism at the Biden administration, describing contentious interactions over COVID-19 content moderation. "It was brutal," he recalled, claiming White House officials would "scream and curse" at Meta employees regarding content removal requests. This account, which the Biden administration declined to comment on, provides context for Meta's current pivot toward a more hands-off approach to content moderation.

Internal Upheaval and Corporate Restructuring

The policy changes have sparked significant internal tension at Meta, with leaked workplace chats revealing widespread dissent among employees. "It's total chaos internally at Meta right now," one employee told 404 Media, while another noted that "morale of fellow queer staff is in the absolute shitter."

Adding to the transformational moment, Meta announced the relocation of its trust and safety teams from California to Texas, a move that appears designed to diversify the political perspectives influencing content moderation decisions. The company has also dramatically scaled back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, citing recent Supreme Court decisions and changing legal landscapes.

In an internal memo, Meta's VP of Human Resources Janelle Gale explained the company's shift away from DEI programs: "The term 'DEI' has become charged, in part because it is understood by some as a practice that suggests preferential treatment of some groups over others." This restructuring extends to hiring practices, with Meta ending its Diverse Slate Approach and representation goals for women and ethnic minorities.

Alignment with the Incoming Administration

Zuckerberg's recent actions suggest a calculated realignment with the incoming Trump administration. Beyond his dinner at Mar-a-Lago and plans to attend Trump's inauguration, the Meta CEO has expressed optimism about Trump's return to the White House. "I think he just wants America to win," Zuckerberg remarked during his Rogan interview.

The timing of these changes, coupled with the appointment of UFC CEO Dana White (a longtime Trump ally) to Meta's board, indicates a strategic positioning ahead of Trump's second term. Meta's chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, emphasized this new direction on Fox News: "This is a great opportunity for us to reset the balance in favor of free expression."

The Future of Social Media Moderation

Meta's adoption of a community-based fact-checking system similar to X's Community Notes represents a probable turning point in social media content moderation. The company detailed its plans in a press release, explaining that the new system will require agreement between users with diverse perspectives to prevent biased ratings.

This approach mirrors the success seen on Elon Musk's X platform, potentially establishing a new standard for content moderation across social media. The change suggests a broader industry movement away from centralized, expert-led content verification toward more community-driven models.

What’s Next

As Meta implements these changes over the coming months, the impact on online discourse and political speech remains to be seen. The company's dramatic shift away from strict content moderation and toward a more open platform represents both a practical business decision and a philosophical realignment with changing political winds.

For Zuckerberg, who launched his career with Facebook's controversial "Hot or Not" feature at Harvard, this latest evolution may represent a return to his original vision of social media as a space for very limited restrictions on expression. Whether this new approach will successfully balance free speech with platform responsibility – and whether it will help Meta navigate the complex political landscape of Trump's second term – remains one of the most significant questions facing social media sites in 2025.

Stories you may have missed.

• Texas AG Sues TikTok for Exposing Minors to Explicit Content

• OpenAI, Meta, Uber CEOs to attend Trump Inauguration Event

• House Minority Leader will lead race for DNC Chair

Interested in more from Atlas?

We are a team of intelligence professionals and technology entrepreneurs. We are on the path to make open-source intelligence, open source. If you want to be updated on our progress, subscribe to our update email list below.

🌐Atlas Technologies: We are building world class OSINT technology that unifies the intelligence cycle by automating data collection, intelligence production and delivery to key stakeholders, all aligned with your priority intelligence requirements (PIRs).

🛒Merch Store: Visit our merch store to shop our latest gear.

📰Newsletters: Check out our other publications to stay on top of the news and get insights from intelligence professionals.

• The Public Daily Briefing

• Apolitical 

• Table Stakes

• The BLUF 

• The Situation Room

If you'd like to get involved with Atlas, please contact us with your experience or ideas. If you're a solid fit, we'll be in touch.

Advertise with us || Contact Us

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2025 Atlas.1A