A fact-driven look at AI in warfare, who pays when AI causes harm, EPA power-plant rollbacks, and whether Trump’s proposed $5,000 checks could actually happen.
The embedded video contains solely the questions that WBAI’s We Decide’s Jenna Flanagan asked me. The entire panel discussion can be viewed here (Episode: 2026-09-14). We Decide is a joint Pacifica Affiliate, WBAI production, and the We Decide: America at the Crossroads with Jenna Flanagan.
Summary
WBAI’s We Decide panel examined three stories that converge on a common question: who bears responsibility when powerful institutions make consequential promises or deploy consequential technologies? The discussion moved from reported Israeli use of AI-assisted targeting in Gaza, to U.S. debates over AI liability, to environmental deregulation and President Donald Trump’s proposal for a $5,000 payment to U.S. adults if Republicans retain Congress. The transcript repeatedly returns to accountability—whether for governments, corporations, or political leaders.
- AI and warfare: The panel discussed the documentary NAZA, based on interviews with Israeli military and intelligence personnel about targeting practices in Gaza, including AI-assisted systems. AP and Reuters report that the film won the Venice Film Festival’s Special Jury Prize and drew fierce condemnation from Israeli officials.
- AI accountability: The discussion argued that companies should not treat artificial intelligence as an accountability-free zone. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan has likewise argued that existing consumer-protection and product-liability laws can already apply to dangerous or defective AI products, while Congress is separately considering a statutory “duty of care” for advanced AI developers.
- Pollution rules: The panel criticized environmental deregulation. EPA has already repealed tighter 2024 mercury and particulate standards for coal plants, and Reuters reported September 14 that the agency was moving to repeal Biden-era carbon standards for coal- and gas-fired power plants.
-
Water protections: The segment broadly described weakening clean-water safeguards. More precisely, EPA has proposed revising wastewater limits for steam-electric power plants and is reconsidering the federal definition of protected “waters of the United States”; those actions modify regulatory protections.
-
Trump’s $5,000 proposal: Trump publicly proposed a $5,000 payment to every U.S. adult if Republicans retain Congress. Reuters and AP report that the plan could cost more than $1 trillion and would require congressional approval; Speaker Mike Johnson has explicitly said Congress would have to authorize it.
The strongest through-line is institutional accountability. AI systems, pollution rules, military technologies, and campaign promises all produce real-world consequences, and each deserves scrutiny based on verifiable facts, legal responsibility, transparent funding, and measurable outcomes.
PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUBSCRIBER TODAY
Countering billionaires—and soon trillionaires—is hard, probing work. They flood the zone with propaganda, policy distortions, and economic fallacies rooted in the Powell Memo and financed by concentrated wealth. We work every day to answer that machinery with truth, context, and critical thinking. But independent media cannot survive on conviction alone. It needs support from people who understand the stakes. Please become a paid subscriber today. Your support keeps this work alive, expands its reach, and helps build a media ecosystem that serves people, not plutocrats. This is not charity. It is an investment in truth, democracy, and the public good.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Accountability Is the Thread Connecting AI, Pollution, War, and a $5,000 Promise
The most revealing part of this We Decide conversation is not that it covered three different controversies. It is that all three stories revolve around the same democratic question: who accepts responsibility when power produces harm, risk, or extraordinary promises?
The discussion begins with artificial intelligence in warfare. The panel focused on NAZA, the documentary by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor. According to AP, the film draws on interviews with 24 Israeli military and intelligence insiders and examines alleged systemic civilian deaths and the use of AI-assisted surveillance and targeting during the Gaza war. Reuters reported that the film won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced it as “incitement.”
That controversy raises a difficult but necessary distinction: AI does not erase human responsibility. Software may accelerate identification, classification, surveillance, or targeting, but governments and commanders still decide how systems are designed, trained, authorized, and used. The segment makes that accountability argument forcefully, rejecting the idea that institutions can point to “the algorithm” when harmful consequences follow.
The same issue now dominates the U.S. AI debate. Former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has argued that existing laws already provide tools for holding companies accountable when they release dangerous, inadequately tested, or defective products. At the same time, Reuters reports that bipartisan Senate negotiators are considering a new “duty of care” requiring advanced AI developers to mitigate catastrophic risks before deploying powerful systems. Those positions are not necessarily contradictory: existing laws may already cover fraud, negligence, defective products, privacy, and other harms, while new legislation could clarify obligations unique to frontier AI.
Environmental policy presents another version of the same conflict. The segment warns that deregulation can transfer costs from regulated industries to the public through dirtier air, water contamination, and health consequences. The factual picture is significant. EPA finalized a repeal in February 2026 of tighter 2024 mercury and particulate standards for coal-fired power plants. On September 14, Reuters reported that EPA was preparing to repeal carbon-emission standards for coal- and gas-fired plants.
The federal government has all but renounced responsibility for clean water. EPA continues to administer the Clean Water Act, but it has proposed weaker wastewater requirements for some power plants and is reconsidering which waters qualify for federal protection. That distinction matters because criticism becomes stronger, not weaker, when it states precisely what regulators are changing.
Then comes the $5,000 promise. Trump told the Republican midterm convention that every American adult would receive a $5,000 “Trump Dividend” if Republicans retain Congress. Reuters and AP estimate the potential cost at more than $1 trillion. Trump has argued that federal revenues can support it, but Speaker Mike Johnson has said Congress must approve any such payment. No enacted program currently guarantees those checks.
That makes the proper journalistic test straightforward: not whether the promise sounds attractive or outrageous, but whether the numbers, legal authority, funding mechanism, distribution rules, inflation effects, and congressional votes add up.
Across all three subjects, accountability should remain the standard. Technology does not nullify law. Deregulation does not erase public costs. A campaign promise does not become a government benefit until the legal and fiscal machinery exists to deliver it. The public deserves fewer abstractions and more evidence.
