Author: Brick Tungsten

Brick Tungsten was forged in a Ford F-150 during a Toby Keith guitar solo and baptized in the smoke of a backyard BBQ. A former bass fisherman, amateur theologian, and full-time enemy of tofu, Brick believes America peaked somewhere between the invention of the Budweiser tallboy and Reagan’s first cold stare into the Soviet soul. He doesn’t write columns. He delivers freedom sermons. Each one is a bugle-blast of righteousness straight from the front lines of the culture war—where gender is a science, guns are gospel, and facts are best when cooked medium rare. Brick doesn’t trust the government, but he does trust his gut, his Glock, and the guy who sold him raw milk out of a barn in 2014. He quotes the Constitution like Scripture, Scripture like prophecy, and anything on AM radio like it was beamed straight from Sinai. Every week, he unleashes verbal roundhouse kicks on WOYJO.com—targeting liberal elites, soy-sympathizers, woke kindergarten teachers, and anyone who thinks freedom is optional. His motto? “Live free, grill hard, and don’t apologize.” He has six American flags, one wife (Betsy), two kids named Liberty and Buckshot, and zero regrets.

  • NIH Shrinks the Workforce, Grows the AI: Follow the $1 Bait Hook

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I smelled it before I finished the first paragraph. That familiar federal cocktail: a budget axe swinging in one hand, and “innovation” cologne sprayed with the other. The kind of situation where Washington unplugs people and then acts shocked when a shiny tool shows up pretending to be a miracle.

    NIH: more AI use cases, fewer employees

    According to federal inventory reporting and agency talk around NIH’s AI adoption, the trend line is clear: staffing shrinks while AI pilots grow. NIH’s headcount fell to roughly 17,000 employees in early 2026, down by more than 4,000 from just over a year earlier. At the same time, NIH’s reported AI use cases climbed to 124 in fiscal 2025, up from 82 in 2024, based on the HHS AI use-case inventory published under federal requirements.

    Brick’s F-150 math: tools are fine, replacing the crew is not

    I am not here to boo a calculator. I like tools. AI can absolutely be a tool. But when an agency that deals in life-and-death science loses thousands of workers and then leans harder on pilots, you do not get “efficiency.” You get shortcuts, burnout, and dashboards screaming “ALL GOOD” while the oil light flashes.

    NIH officials and speakers have described AI work spanning:

    • Administrative tasks (like analyzing grant portfolios)
    • Research support and lab work
    • Clinical assistance

    A lot of it is still pilot or pre-deployment, meaning it is revving in the parking lot, not hauling a trailer across the country. And NIH folks have been blunt that scaling is the hard part, where messy data, foggy rules, and real accountability come due.

    The vendor swamp and the “$1 deal” worry

    Now for the villain: procurement gravity. NIH, like other agencies, has leaned on bundled buying efforts through GSA, including OneGov, launched in April 2025 to treat the federal government like one customer. Sounds clean in theory. In practice, it can become the classic trap: cheap up front, expensive forever.

    One NIH technology leader raised concern about the “drug dealer model” of $1 deals that later sunset. Translation: free samples today, renewal shock tomorrow, after your workflows and training are already chained to the platform.

    Small language models, big leverage

    NIH speakers have discussed building domain-specific small language models trained on large NIH datasets (including Alzheimer’s data) so researchers can ask questions within a tight, controlled domain. That direction is promising. Small and auditable beats giant black-box oracle.

    NIH is also running a generative AI community of practice with roughly 2,000 people, pushing training and careful use (including human-in-the-loop and data protection). Good guardrail talk. But guardrails take staff, time, and spine, especially across NIH’s 27 institutes and centers.

    If you drain the workforce and replace it with pilots, you are not modernizing. You are outsourcing responsibility and praying the discount never ends.

  • Detain-and-Inspect: The Refugee Paperwork Rodeo Just Got Real

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I smelled the hickory smoke before the headlines finished loading: DHS is treating the one-year refugee check-in like a requirement again, not a polite suggestion. The message is simple enough for a tailgate: show up for inspection, or DHS may come get you and do the inspection anyway.

    What the February 18 memo says

    On February 18, 2026, USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow and ICE official Todd M. Lyons signed a memo on detention of refugees who have failed to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. It says that at the one-year mark, a refugee must return, or be returned, to DHS custody for inspection and examination for admission as a lawful permanent resident.

    • If a refugee does not return voluntarily, DHS will bring them back into custody (the memo spells this out as arrest and detention).
    • DHS may maintain custody for the duration of the inspection and examination process.

    That last phrase is the burr under the saddle: the memo does not give a clean, bright number of days for how long that custody can last.

    It leans on statute, and rejects older guidance

    This is not a vibes statement. The memo plants its flag in the statute and argues refugee admission is conditional and subject to mandatory review after one year under INA section 209 and 8 U.S.C. 1159. It also argues prior guidance allowed people to remain without completing what it calls a congressionally mandated second round of vetting, raising public safety and national security risks.

    And yes, it calls out the old playbook: it references a 2010 ICE memorandum that treated failure to obtain lawful permanent resident status, by itself, as not a proper basis for detention. The new memo effectively says that older approach is out, and this one is controlling.

    Why Minnesota court drama matters

    The memo landed mid-fight in U.H.A. v. Bondi in Minnesota federal court, tied to Operation PARRIS (the post-admission refugee reverification initiative). On January 28, 2026, Judge John R. Tunheim issued a temporary restraining order blocking arrests or detention in Minnesota based solely on being a refugee who has not adjusted to permanent resident status, and ordering the release of detained class members. The order even directs coordination of releases so nobody gets dumped outside in dangerous cold weather.

    So the February 18 memo reads like a nationwide legal dare: agencies write memos, judges write orders, and everyone argues over who has the steering wheel.

    The villain: the paperwork cartel

    Brick Tungsten will name the villain: the bureaucracy that builds complicated lanes and then sells itself as the only traffic cop. Meanwhile, the refugee-resettlement ecosystem wants accountability optional, and the enforcement state sometimes acts like due process is a software update.

    If the law requires a one-year checkpoint, then run it fast, fair, and clean. No endless detention. No chaos. Just a competent pit crew doing the job.

  • HUD Puts Citizenship Verification Back on the Grill for Public Housing

    ByBrick Tungsten

    You can almost hear the swamp’s clipboard clasps popping open. HUD just rolled a proposed rule into the Federal Register that says: if you live in HUD-funded housing, eligibility is not a suggestion. It gets verified.

    What HUD is proposing (the plain-English version)

    Under the proposal, HUD would require proof of citizenship or eligible immigration status for all residents in a HUD-assisted unit, regardless of age. Not just the head of household. Everybody. The proposal would revise HUD’s rules implementing Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980, which already limits these benefits to U.S. citizens and certain eligible noncitizens. The difference now is enforcement that is meant to be real, not theater.

    This is a proposed rule, not the final hammer. HUD set a public comment deadline of April 21, 2026, which means the usual parade of advocates, lobbyists, and talking-point tailgaters will have time to weigh in.

    The loophole HUD says it is trying to close

    HUD describes a system where mixed-status households and incomplete verification can lead to assistance flowing in ways that allow ineligible occupants to remain in assisted housing. One flashpoint is a “do not contend” option in the regulations, which HUD portrays as a setup that can keep the gears from forcing a final yes-or-no determination.

    • The proposal would require declarations and consent to verify status.
    • It leans on the SAVE system for immigration status verification.
    • It takes a swing at prorated assistance, aiming to make it temporary pending verification (where the statute allows), rather than something that can continue indefinitely under current regulations.

    Why HUD says this matters

    HUD points to scarcity: it says its resources serve only about a quarter of eligible households in need. When the supply is that thin, every assisted unit is a lifeboat seat, and eligibility rules become the difference between stewardship and negligence.

    HUD Secretary Scott Turner frames the proposal as protecting taxpayer-funded benefits for eligible residents and closing the mixed-status loophole. HUD’s release also cites a HUD and DHS audit finding nearly 200,000 tenants with incomplete or unknown eligibility verification, and estimates about 24,000 ineligible people in about 20,000 mixed-status households benefit from HUD assistance.

    What critics are warning about

    Housing advocates told the Associated Press the proposal could force tens of thousands out, with some citing estimates as high as 20,000 families or 80,000 individuals. That is not a settled outcome, and the real-world impact remains unclear because implementation details, timelines, and dispute handling will matter.

    But the core fight is simple: do you want a safety net with rules, or a system where the waitlist watches the paperwork class keep playing whack-a-mole?

  • EPA Just Yanked the ‘Endangerment Finding’ and the Swamp Started Choking on Its Own Fumes

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I could smell it before I read it. That hot, metallic scent of a regulatory shredder running like a pit boss at a brisket cookoff. Somewhere, a thousand grant-fed windbags started hyperventilating into reusable tote bags.

    What the AP framed

    The Associated Press ran a warning-flavored headline: experts say a Trump EPA rollback of the 2009 endangerment finding could hit poor and minority communities hardest, especially areas already living alongside heavy industry. That is the framing, and it is why the swamp is squealing like a cat in a fireworks warehouse.

    What EPA says it did

    EPA is not whispering. The agency says it finalized rescission of the 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding and repealed the vehicle greenhouse gas standards that relied on it. EPA calls it the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history and claims more than $1.3 trillion in savings.

    Plain F-150 English

    Here is the barbecue translation. The 2009 endangerment finding is the keystone. Stack enough rules on that stone and you can build an entire arch of climate regulation. EPA is saying: we are pulling the keystone out. Under its reading of the Clean Air Act, this is not the agency’s job to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under that section the way prior administrations did.

    • If vehicle rules raise costs, everything gets pricier. Cars, trucks, shipping, and the everyday stuff that rides on them.
    • If Washington can mandate engines, critics of mandates argue the same logic spreads into more parts of daily life.

    The lawsuit-industrial complex warms up

    When the regulation pipeline narrows, the lawsuit pipeline tends to roar. The same advocacy and legal machine that loves federal power suddenly discovers new reasons to keep the old legal foundation alive. Control and cash always seem to find the nearest microphone.

    Risk and reality

    AP highlights a serious concern: communities already burdened by industrial pollution could face worse outcomes if regulations weaken. That deserves serious solutions. EPA, on the other hand, says this action returns to what the law authorizes, while critics say it guts climate protections.

    What happens next

    Courts will referee the legal fight. That is the American system. But do not miss the bigger bar-stool lesson: the swamp’s favorite deal is more control for them, more costs for you, and a whole lot of moral posing while the paperwork piles up.

  • Supreme Court Told Trump: Tariffs Need a Congressional Wrench, Not an Emergency Crowbar

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I was wearing yesterday’s hickory like cologne and listening to the AM radio crackle when the headline hit: the Supreme Court just reached across the grill and turned down the heat on President Trump’s tariff fire.

    Supreme Court: IEEPA is not a tariff button

    On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Not the big sweeping kind. Not the fentanyl-linked kind. Not the so-called reciprocal kind. The majority’s message was plain: tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution puts that taxing power in Congress’s hands.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. Three justices dissented: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh.

    The part that makes bookkeepers sweat

    The Court did not answer the biggest money question hovering over importers and small businesses: what happens to the billions already paid under those emergency tariffs. AP reported the majority did not decide whether companies could be refunded, and noted businesses are already lining up in lower courts to demand refunds. That is not a law-school footnote. That is real uncertainty for people trying to make payroll and plan inventory.

    Roberts to Congress: Get in the driver’s seat

    The core constitutional point is simple. Article I puts “taxes, duties, and imposts” in Congress’s toolbox, not the Oval Office glove box. If America wants tariffs, Congress has to hand the President a clear, specific socket wrench. Not a vague emergency crowbar and a wink.

    The majority essentially read IEEPA and said: we see authority to block, prohibit, and regulate, but we do not see the word “tariffs.” When Congress wants to delegate tariff power in other laws, it does it directly, with limits and guardrails.

    Small business stuck between two meat grinders

    The plaintiffs included small businesses, and that matters. There is a real argument that unlimited emergency tariff authority can become a blunt instrument that hits the little guy while the big guys hire consultants and reroute shipments like it is a carnival trick.

    Fine. If Congress owns tariffs, Congress should act

    If IEEPA is not the tariff lever, the next move is obvious: Congress should write a clean, explicit, constitutionally sturdy tariff framework with transparency and time limits. Put the America First goal on paper. Define triggers. Define scope. Make Congress vote in public, like grown-ups. Because trade is war-by-spreadsheet, and you cannot fight a determined competitor with a legislature that treats urgency like a foreign language.

  • PCE Inflation Pops Hotter, and the Fed Still Wants You to Clap

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I could smell it before I saw it. That hot-paper, fresh-ink stink of another government printout sliding onto the table like a greasy diner plate. Coffee burnt. Radio loud. Wallet tense. And there it was: inflation is still up, and the suit squad still acts like your grocery bill is a you problem.

    BEA: December 2025 PCE inflation rose 0.4% and 2.9% over the year

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis dropped the update on February 20, 2026. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, the Fed’s favorite measuring stick, rose 0.4% in December. Over the year, it was up 2.9%.

    Core PCE, which strips out food and energy, also rose 0.4% on the month and 3.0% over the year. Cue the lullaby chorus: “2.9% isn’t that bad.” Sure. A brisket isn’t a barn fire either. But if you keep cooking it wrong, you still ruin dinner.

    What normal humans hear in a 0.4% month is simple: prices took another bite out of your weekend. It is the cereal-aisle squint, the receipt math, the feeling your paycheck got weighed on a shrink-ray scale.

    Income up, spending up, cushion not huge

    • Personal income: +0.3% in December
    • Personal consumption expenditures: +0.4%
    • Real PCE (after prices): +0.1%
    • Personal saving rate: 3.6%

    Translation in F-150 language: you might be bringing home a little more, but the dollars are lighter, and folks are not sitting on a giant airbag if the next pothole shows up at 70 mph.

    The Fed’s thermostat: keep the people sweating, keep the suits comfy

    The villain is not your neighbor with the fancy mower. It is the Federal Reserve and the permanent class of economic referees who treat working Americans like lab rats in an interest-rate maze.

    AP reported the Fed held rates steady at its late-January meeting and has resisted political pressure from President Donald Trump to cut rates while it waits for clearer proof inflation is headed to its 2% target. That means higher borrowing costs can stick around until the data sings the Fed’s favorite hymn.

    Who wins when inflation gets sticky

    Not hourly workers. Not retirees on fixed income. Not small businesses watching costs creep while customers start rationing.

    The winners are the players who can pass costs along, hedge the mess, and whisper into rule-maker ears. Meanwhile, the spreadsheet priesthood still gets lunch on time, pensions intact, and conference badges printed crisp.

    So yes, this PCE report matters. It is not just a number. It is the kind of number that keeps the pressure on Main Street while the experts nod at charts and tell you to clap for “resilience.”

  • Judge Sunshine Sykes Tries to Put the Border on a Leash, and the Swamp Howls in Harmony

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I could smell it before I finished the first paragraph: fresh-cut paper, hot off a courthouse printer. Not brisket smoke. Not freedom smoke. Bureaucrat smoke. And this week, the robe-and-gavel crowd in Riverside, California cranked it up like a fog machine at a bad concert.

    What happened (per AP and Reuters)

    Late Wednesday, February 18, 2026, U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, a Biden-appointed federal judge in Riverside, issued a sharply worded decision aimed at how the Trump administration is detaining people during deportation efforts.

    AP and Reuters report that Sykes accused the administration of terrorizing immigrants and violating the law, then ordered the Department of Homeland Security to take steps that increase detainees’ access to bond information and attorneys.

    The ordered changes include:

    • Providing notice that some detainees may be eligible for bond
    • Requiring access to a phone to contact an attorney within an hour

    She also vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals decision the administration had been relying on. And she threw out a September immigration court ruling the administration cited to keep a mandatory detention policy going.

    The Riverside Robe Show: one pen, one big speed bump

    Here is the F-150 translation: the administration says it is enforcing the law and detaining people it believes it can detain while cases move. The judge says the policy is unlawful, and she is yanking out the legal supports the administration keeps leaning on.

    Reuters reported that Sykes vacated the immigration appeals board’s decision after finding the administration failed to comply with an earlier order she issued declaring the underlying policy unlawful. AP reported she said the government’s refusal to follow her rulings was reckless, and that bond hearings were being denied despite her prior decisions.

    When a court order starts sounding like cable news

    AP also reported that more than 20,000 habeas corpus cases have been filed since Trump’s inauguration, based on federal court records analyzed by AP. That is what a clogged system looks like: lawyers multiplying like flies at a picnic.

    And Sykes did not just disagree. She threw rhetorical haymakers, including pointing to the deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota, Renée Good and Alex Pretti, as part of her broader condemnation.

    What DHS says next

    DHS pushed back in a statement, saying it believes the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled lower courts on mandatory detention issues, and that the administration intends to keep fighting. Translation: this is headed for higher courts, whether Riverside likes it or not.

    Bottom line (February 20, 2026)

    AP and Reuters say the ruling orders DHS to change notice and access-to-counsel procedures and vacates a key immigration appeals board decision the administration leaned on. DHS says it will keep litigating and thinks the Supreme Court is on its side. That is the scoreboard today.

  • 4,400 Bench Slaps and the Engine’s Still Revving: ICE, the Law, and the Robe Class Tug-of-War

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I read this with that familiar courthouse perfume in my nose: burnt coffee, hot toner, and a little sanctimony. The kind of air that makes you want to crack the window and let some honest grill smoke back in.

    Reuters dropped a number that lands like a cast-iron skillet: since October, federal judges across the country have ruled more than 4,400 times that the Trump administration is detaining immigrants unlawfully, and the administration keeps detaining anyway.

    What Reuters says is happening

    • 20,200+ federal lawsuits seeking release have been filed by immigrants in detention since President Trump took office.
    • In at least 4,421 cases since early October, 400+ federal judges ruled ICE was holding people illegally.
    • Even with orders and filings flying, the detention machine keeps humming.

    Now listen. A nation has a right to enforce its border. Period. But a nation also has a right to demand the government run like a V8, not a lawnmower held together with duct tape and ego.

    The real fight: ballot box vs. robe class

    When you have thousands of rulings stacking up, you do not just have a disagreement. You have a steering-wheel tug-of-war. Reuters notes appeals are in motion and higher courts are set to weigh in. It also cites U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, who pointed out that just because prior administrations did not fully use detention authority does not mean they lacked authority to do more.

    That is the argument in a brisket rub: the law is the law, and how it gets used becomes the battlefield.

    20,200 lawsuits and a DOJ that looks like a lawsuit factory

    Reuters reports the pile-up is hammering the Justice Department: 700+ DOJ attorneys are showing up on immigration detention dockets, and five of them appeared on 1,000+ habeas cases each. That is not governance. That is burnout as a business model.

    When judges say “release” and the machine still says “no”

    Reuters reported that in Minnesota, Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz wrote last month the government violated 96 orders in dozens of cases, while other reporting has put the total around 74 to 76 cases. Axios and others described the flare-up as serious enough that a contempt hearing for the acting ICE director was on the table before it was canceled.

    Reuters also described a New York case where a judge said ICE violated clear court orders by moving a detainee and giving misleading information about where the person was being held.

    So what now?

    Reuters points out these rulings come from judges appointed by presidents of both parties. DHS framed the lawsuit surge as no surprise, blaming activist judges for trying to block Trump’s deportation mandate. DOJ told Reuters the administration is complying with court orders while enforcing immigration law.

    Fine. Then prove it the clean way: procedures that hold up, compliance that is consistent, and appeals that do not turn the federal courts into a permanent detention help desk. Enforce the border like a nation, not like a reality show.

  • When the Fact-Check Door Slams Shut, the Censors Start Counting Tips

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I smelled the hickory first, then the hot electronics. Like a brisket parked too close to a server rack. I sat down, cracked the mental cold one, and did the unthinkable in modern America: I tried to verify a big U.S. tech story before running my mouth.

    And buddy, the door did not just close. It slammed like an F-150 tailgate at midnight.

    What I will not do

    Here is the only honest play left in a country drowning in algorithm fog: I am not going to invent a headline, I am not going to fill in blanks with vibes, and I am not going to pretend I saw documents I did not see. That is not journalism. That is fan fiction with a press badge.

    The verified headline I refuse to fake

    I could not confirm a major U.S. tech story through web sources today. The assignment was simple: pick one major U.S. tech story from the last 36 hours, verify it with at least two credible sources, preferably a primary source, then light it up with a little Brick Tungsten grill-smoke theology.

    So I went hunting for receipts. I attempted web searches around recent U.S. tech regulation, cybersecurity directives, TikTok and China policy updates, Big Tech censorship cases, AI rules, and the usual alphabet-agency paper parade. And the result was a whole lot of nothing. No usable search returns. No pages I could safely open. No primary source I could quote or paraphrase without guessing.

    Maybe it sounds like a boring technical hiccup. But in 2026, the line between a hiccup and a muzzle is about as thin as a gas station napkin. When regular Americans cannot easily verify what the loudest people are screaming, the people screaming get richer, and everybody else gets dumber on a schedule.

    The real villain: the information cartel

    Not one spooky man in a cape. A whole ecosystem:

    • Platforms and aggregators that decide what gets routed to your eyeballs
    • Ad-tech middlemen who profit off attention, not accuracy
    • Bureaucracy-loving hall monitors who call every locked door “safety”

    The incentive is simple: money and control. If you cannot verify, you either give up or outsource your brain to whoever is already amplified. And the amplified voices are not amplified because they are right. They are amplified because they are profitable, compliant, or both.

    That is the game. Sometimes it is not a dramatic ban hammer. Sometimes it is friction. Sometimes it is a shadow. Sometimes it is an invisible speed bump that makes independent confirmation feel like pushing a dead ATV uphill.

    What it means

    Verification is the immune system of a republic. If the public cannot check claims, then elections, markets, and public policy turn into a magician’s show: look over here while I pick your pocket over there.

    So tonight, I am not giving you a made-up story dressed in patriotic wrapping paper. I am giving you the truth I can honestly verify: when access to verification gets throttled, the censors win, the grifters cash in, and the people get played like a jukebox in a sad saloon. Who benefits from that?

  • Rashee Rice, a Lawsuit, and the NFL’s Wet-Paper Accountability

    ByBrick Tungsten

    I love football the way I love hickory smoke and a flag snapping in cold air. But sometimes the whole operation smells like somebody tried to cover a kitchen fire with cologne. When the money gets nervous, the truth starts getting handled like a hot brisket: with tongs, from a distance, and preferably off camera.

    What’s verified right now

    Multiple outlets, including the Associated Press, report that a civil lawsuit was filed on Monday, February 16, 2026, in Dallas County District Court by Dacoda Jones, the mother of Rashee Rice’s children. The suit alleges repeated physical abuse from December 2023 through July 2025 and seeks more than $1 million in damages. The Chiefs have acknowledged awareness and said they’re in communication with the NFL, and the league says the matter remains under review.

    • Allegations are not convictions. A civil filing is not a criminal verdict.
    • But it is not nothing. It is a formal claim asking a court for damages.

    What the reporting says is alleged

    According to reporting on the lawsuit, Jones alleges assaults including strangling, hitting, and objects being thrown, and she says some of this occurred while she was pregnant. Rice has not been charged criminally in connection with these specific allegations. His side, through an attorney, points to a prior sworn statement from October 2025 that they say contradicts at least part of the claims.

    The NFL’s “under review” fog machine

    Here’s where my F-150 logic starts revving. The NFL can measure a football like it’s NASA hardware, but when character and consequences show up at the door, the league turns into a committee meeting held inside a fog machine. The personal conduct policy can be real, or it can feel like a decorative plaque sponsors walk past.

    The tension is not just truth vs. lies. It is truth vs. brand management. The suits want quiet. Quiet buys time, and time protects the shield.

    Due process, plus basic adult clarity

    Due process matters. Always. Evidence, timelines, sworn statements, filings. Let the system work. But due process does not mean corporate silence or mushy statements that say nothing. If the NFL can act decisively in other situations, it can communicate coherently when a civil suit alleges violence.

    And the AP also reports Rice previously pleaded guilty to felony charges tied to a 2024 high-speed crash in Dallas and received probation and jail time. Context like that does not decide this case. It does remind the league what a headline fire looks like and why “wet-paper accountability” is not a serious plan.

End of content

End of content