The Redemption Project Newsroom

The Drug Enforcement Administration reported at least 89 cychlorphine findings.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation reported 20 seized-drug submissions.

A specialized laboratory confirmed the substance in 25 blood specimens from fatal overdoses and said another laboratory had tentatively identified it in more than 100 toxicology cases.

The Knox County Regional Forensic Center later said the drug had been linked to more than 50 deaths in East Tennessee.

Those numbers describe the same emerging opioid.

They do not count the same thing.

Adding them together would produce a larger number.

It also would be wrong.

A laboratory report involving seized powder is not a patient. A positive clinical toxicology result is not a death. A blood specimen from a fatal overdose is not necessarily a finalized cause-of-death determination. A regional death count may include cases already represented in laboratory data.

The numbers can overlap. They can measure different stages of the same event. They can also describe entirely separate encounters with the drug.

That distinction sits at the center of the third article in this series.

The first article explained why cychlorphine could be present before routine testing systems were prepared to identify it.

The second explained why detecting the drug in someone’s blood does not, by itself, establish that it caused the death.

The next problem is counting.

Before asking how many cychlorphine cases exist, the reader needs to know what the word “case” means.

“Case” may describe different events

Public reports frequently use the word

“case” without defining the unit being counted.

A case might mean a package of powder seized by police, one item of evidence tested by a crime laboratory, a urine or oral-fluid specimen from a living patient, a blood specimen collected during an autopsy, a death investigation, a finalized death certificate or one report entered into a national database.

Those units are related.

They are not interchangeable.

One police investigation can contain several bags, pills or other evidence items. Each item may contain several drugs. One person can provide more than one clinical specimen. A death investigation can generate a local toxicology result, an outside laboratory confirmation, a medical examiner ruling and a later entry in a federal surveillance system.

The same event may therefore create several records.

The record count grows.

The number of people does not.

Seized-drug systems count substances found in evidence

The DEA’s National Forensic Laboratory Information System Drug database, known as NFLIS-Drug, collects confirmed drug-identification results from evidence analyzed by participating federal, state and local forensic laboratories.

Those laboratories examine substances obtained through law-enforcement operations.

They are testing powder, pills, liquids, residue and other evidence.

They are not counting overdose patients or deaths.

NFLIS explains that one count represents one documented occurrence of a drug in its database.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

San Francisco police did not give federal or out-of-state agencies direct access to the city’s Flock license plate reader system.

The agencies did not hack the network.

They did not steal an officer’s password.

They did not exploit a software malfunction.

They still searched San Francisco’s data nearly 300 times

A police audit released in June 2026 found that analysts working through two regional information-sharing organizations had conducted 299 improper searches on behalf of federal and out-of-state agencies. The outside agencies included the Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and state agencies in Oregon and Washington.

Those agencies were not authorized under California law to search San Francisco’s automated license plate reader data.

But a regional intelligence center was.

That distinction sits at the center of the third article in this series.

The most important question is not always whether an outside agency has direct access to a community’s cameras.

It is whether someone who does have access can search the cameras on that agency’s behalf.

Sharing is part of what makes the system useful

As the first article in this series explained, Flock license plate readers create searchable records showing when and where vehicles were observed.

A single police department can search its own cameras.

The system becomes more powerful when departments combine their reach.

A vehicle connected to a kidnapping may leave one city, cross several counties and enter another state. A burglary crew may strike multiple jurisdictions. A missing person may pass through a camera network hundreds of miles from home.

An agency limited to its own city boundaries may lose the vehicle.

A connected network may find it.

That is not an accidental feature of Flock’s system.

It is one of its primary selling points.

Flock says customers own the data collected by their cameras and control whether that data is shared. According to the company, an agency can limit searches to its own cameras, establish one-to-one sharing relationships, share within a geographic radius or state, or participate in a broader National Lookup network.

National Lookup allows participating agencies to search a complete, known license plate across cameras whose owners also have opted into the network.

That collaboration can be valuable.

It also means a camera purchased by one town may become part of an investigative network extending far beyond that town.

Subscribe now

There is more than one kind of access

Public discussions about license plate reader sharing often treat access as a simple yes-or-no question.

Does another agency have access?

The better answer may require several questions.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

When Elon Musk’s xAI began building large artificial intelligence data centers in the Memphis area, one challenge quickly became clear:

AI requires enormous amounts of electricity.

The computers are only one part of the equation.

A modern AI data center also requires power for cooling systems, networking equipment, storage systems, backup systems and the infrastructure needed to keep thousands of processors operating continuously.

That created a major challenge.

Building traditional power infrastructure can take years.

AI companies are trying to build in months.

Now, a new federal filing reveals that Musk acquired a company built around solving exactly that problem.

Federal records show Elon Musk was the acquiring party in a transaction involving APR Energy, a company specializing in rapidly deployable gas-turbine power generation.

The acquisition gives Musk control of a company with more than 1.1 gigawatts of mobile generation capacity and experience providing behind-the-meter power solutions for large industrial customers.

The acquisition does not prove that APR equipment is powering xAI’s Memphis facilities.

Subscribe now

It does not prove that the purchase was made specifically for Memphis.

It does show that Musk now controls a company whose business model closely matches one of the biggest challenges facing the AI industry:

How do you get enough electricity fast enough?

What the records show

The Federal Trade Commission published an early-termination notice in May 2026 identifying:

• Acquiring party: Elon Musk.

• Acquired party: CF APR Super Holdings LLC.

• Acquired entity: New APR Energy LLC.

The notice confirms the transaction received federal clearance to proceed.

It does not disclose:

• The purchase price.

• The financing structure.

• Which Musk-controlled company will operate APR.

• The intended use of the assets.

• Whether the acquisition was connected to xAI, Tesla, SpaceX or another Musk venture.

A separate Securities and Exchange Commission filing from Duos Technologies Group provides additional information.

Duos reported that substantially all of APR Energy’s assets had been sold to a third party. The company disclosed approximately $50.4 million in proceeds related to its 5% nonvoting interest, with additional funds placed into escrow for possible obligations.

Those figures suggest a transaction value of roughly $1 billion or more.

However, the exact purchase price has not been publicly disclosed.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

An estimate based on a minority investor’s proceeds is not the same thing as a confirmed sale price.

Systems Explained: What does APR Energy actually do?

APR Energy is not simply a generator rental company.

The company specializes in rapidly deployable power plants.

Its systems can include:

• Gas turbines.

• Transformers.

• Fuel systems.

• Controls.

• Monitoring equipment.

• Engineering.

• Construction.

• Operations and maintenance.

The company markets these systems for customers that need electricity before permanent grid infrastructure is available.

That includes industrial facilities and data centers.

APR describes its technology as capable of being deployed quickly, with some systems designed to reach operation within weeks rather than the years often required for major utility projects.

That speed is the key.

For a traditional factory, waiting years for additional power may be acceptable.

For an AI company competing in a rapidly changing market, waiting years may mean losing an advantage.

The xAI connection

APR has publicly stated that it supplied 375 megawatts of power to an unnamed major artificial intelligence system.

The company did not identify the customer.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

That has created obvious interest because xAI’s Memphis-area operations have required large amounts of electricity and have relied heavily on on-site generation.

The connection is plausible.

The numbers are similar.

The business model is similar.

But the public record reviewed does not prove that xAI was the customer.

That question remains open.

Before making that connection definitive, the public needs answers:

Was xAI the unnamed 375-megawatt customer?

Were APR turbines already operating at xAI facilities?

Did APR own those turbines?

Were they leased?

Will APR provide future power to Memphis-area AI projects?

Those answers would significantly clarify the importance of the acquisition.

Why this matters for Memphis

The Memphis-area AI buildout has become part of a larger national debate over energy infrastructure.

AI companies want speed.

Utilities operate through planning, permitting, reliability studies and long-term infrastructure development.

Private generation offers another path.

A company can build its own power supply while waiting for traditional utility expansion.

That can solve a real problem.

But it also raises new questions.

Public utility systems normally involve:

• Planning.

• Environmental review.

• Rate oversight.

• Public accountability.

• Long-term reliability analysis.

Private, behind-the-meter generation can move faster.

The tradeoff is that some decisions happen inside private companies rather than public systems.

The key questions become:

Who owns the equipment?

Who operates it?

Who regulates it?

Who pays for infrastructure?

What happens when temporary power becomes long-term power?

Mobile does not always mean temporary

One important misunderstanding involves the word “mobile.”

A mobile turbine can physically move.

That does not necessarily mean it will only operate briefly.

Companies like APR market mobile generation for multiple uses:

• Emergency power.

• Temporary power.

• Bridge power.

• Long-term industrial power.

• Data-center power.

A turbine sitting in one location for months or years may still technically be mobile because it can be moved.

Subscribe now

The public-policy question is not simply:

“Can it move?”

The question is:

“How long will it operate, and under what rules?”

The next accountability questions

The acquisition changes the conversation.

Previously, the focus was primarily on individual turbines and whether specific xAI sites were properly permitted.

Now there is a larger question:

Is Musk building control over the entire AI power supply chain?

That question requires more records.

The public needs to know:

• Which company legally owns APR after the acquisition.

• Which APR equipment is operating in Memphis or Southaven.

• Whether xAI contracts with APR.

• Whether APR equipment will remain temporary or become permanent.

• How emissions controls are managed.

• Whether utilities planned around this generation.

• Whether public incentives assumed traditional utility service.

The acquisition alone does not answer those questions.

But it makes them more important.

The bigger picture

The AI race is not only a race for better software.

It is a race for electricity.

The companies that can secure reliable power can build faster.

The companies that cannot may be limited by infrastructure rather than technology.

Elon Musk’s acquisition of APR Energy appears to give him greater control over one piece of that puzzle.

The public record does not yet prove exactly where that power will go.

But it does show something significant:

The future of artificial intelligence may depend as much on turbines, pipelines and power systems as it does on computer chips.

In Memphis, the next question is no longer only how large the AI system becomes.

It is who controls the electricity that makes it possible.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

By Brandon L. Burley, M.P.A.
The Redemption Project Newsroom
Commentary

As a retired detective, I have used Flock.

I was there when automated license plate readers first came into my area. The purpose was practical and legitimate. A camera could read the plate of a passing vehicle and compare it against law-enforcement lists.

If the vehicle was stolen or connected to a missing or endangered child, officers could receive an alert while there was still time to act. I saw the value in that. The technology made a familiar police function faster and more effective.

But tools change.

What began as a system for checking plates against specific law-enforcement lists expanded into something larger. Modern systems can preserve when and where a vehicle was seen, catalog visible characteristics, search earlier sightings and share information across jurisdictions.

The original question was narrow: Is this vehicle connected to an immediate law-enforcement concern?

The expanding question is different: Where has this vehicle been, who may have been with it and what do those movements reveal?

As with any pendulum, it can swing too far.

The question is whether it has.

Public view is not the end of the analysis

A police officer standing beside a road can see your car pass. The officer can read the plate and notice its color, damage or stickers. That kind of public observation ordinarily does not require a warrant.

Now imagine cameras photographing the same vehicle throughout a city for a month. Each sighting includes an image, plate number, location and time. Software places those sightings into a searchable database.

An investigator can then work backward.

Where did the vehicle spend Sunday mornings? How often did it visit a medical clinic? Was it parked near a political meeting, church, mosque, synagogue, gun range, protest, defense attorney’s office or another person’s home?

One camera saw a car in public.

The network may reconstruct a life.

Repeated observations can reveal where someone lives, works, worships, receives medical care and meets other people. Investigators sometimes call this a “pattern of life.” The phrase does not automatically make a surveillance practice unconstitutional, but it does describe what accumulated observations can reveal.

The legal question is no longer limited to what one camera saw.

It includes what the network can learn.

Courts are watching accumulated movement records

The Supreme Court has not ruled that every license plate image is a Fourth Amendment search. It has not held that every Flock query requires a warrant. It has not created a simple rule for how long a vehicle may be tracked or how many cameras a city may connect.

But the legal direction is visible.

In United States v. Jones, the Court addressed prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle. In Carpenter v. United States, the Court protected historical cell-site location information because it revealed the whole of a person’s physical movements.

In 2026, the Court returned to location privacy in Chatrie v. United States. Police investigating a Virginia robbery used a geofence warrant to obtain Google location data for devices near the crime scene. The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location information.

Those cases are not the same as license plate readers. But they reject the idea that “it happened in public” automatically ends the analysis. A single observation is one thing. A searchable record of movement is something else.

The Fourth Circuit reached a similar concern in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department. Baltimore’s aerial-surveillance program recorded broad areas of the city, allowing analysts to trace movements backward from crime scenes and combine aerial images with other records.

That decision does not control every camera network. It does show that courts may look at a surveillance system as a whole instead of pretending every image is isolated

Flock is no longer only about plates

Flock describes its cameras as part of a vehicle-intelligence system. Its products can produce real-time alerts and searchable vehicle information, including plate, make, model, color, location, time and other visible characteristics.

Flock says its standard retention period is 30 days, subject to local laws and agency policies. It also says its license plate readers do not use facial recognition, customers control access to their data and searches are preserved in audit trails.

Those are meaningful limits.

They do not answer whether searching 30 days of a vehicle’s movements should be treated like seeing it pass once.

Flock’s expansion is also no longer limited to vehicles. Its FreeForm software allows authorized users to search video using natural-language descriptions, such as a person’s clothing or visible characteristics. Flock says FreeForm does not use facial recognition or biometric identification.

That distinction matters.

Clothing is not identity. Different people can look alike, and one person can change clothes. The results are possible matches, not proof.

The scale still changes. An investigator once had to locate and review cameras individually. A networked search tool can review participating feeds and surface possible matches much faster.

That can help locate a missing child, an armed suspect or someone fleeing a violent crime.

It could also help authorities follow a person from a protest, medical office, political meeting or house of worship without knowing who that person is.

The system is bigger than one camera

The concern grows when plate readers, video search, drones, facial recognition, electronic-device identifiers and real-time crime centers begin reinforcing one another. A plate reader identifies a vehicle. A camera records someone leaving it. A search tool finds similar clothing elsewhere. Another system proposes an identity.

Each step may contain uncertainty.

A registered owner is not always the driver. A clothing match does not prove two images show the same person. A facial-recognition candidate is not a positive identification. A device traveling with a vehicle does not prove who carried it.

Several uncertain inferences do not become certain because software places them on the same screen.

These systems have legitimate public-safety uses. Plate readers can locate stolen vehicles, missing people and vehicles connected to violent crimes. Video search can help find a person before harm occurs. Real-time information can help officers respond more safely.

I understand why police value those tools.

The question is whether the benefits come with limits strong enough to prevent personal misuse, political surveillance and searches unsupported by individualized suspicion.

The boundary is still being drawn

A community does not have to reject every camera to demand boundaries.

Residents, police leaders and elected officials should be able to answer basic questions. How long is the data retained? Who can search it? Which agencies can access it? Are searches independently audited? Are misuse findings disclosed? Are criminal defendants told when these systems contributed to an investigation?

They should also ask harder questions.

When should police need judicial approval before reconstructing where someone has traveled? Can police search across camera networks for a person identified only by clothing? Are searches near medical facilities, houses of worship, political meetings and law offices treated differently?

Those are not anti-police questions.

They are questions about government power.

One officer seeing your car turn onto a public road is public observation.

A network remembering that turn, finding the person who stepped out and replaying both movements from a search box is something more.

Public view is a moment.

A pattern of life is a record.

Courts are still deciding when that record crosses the constitutional line. Communities must decide what they will permit before the technology decides for them.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The milestone landed harder than she expected. Looking back at her life, she felt as though the only things she had to show for those years were addiction and felony drug charges.

She did not yet know what rebuilding would look like.

After her release, Savannah entered the residential reentry program operated by FOCUS Women’s Ministry. She had not participated in the organization’s jail classes because FOCUS was not serving the facility where she had been incarcerated. But the ministry still gave her a place in its transitional home—and an opportunity to begin building a life beyond the one she had known

Today, Savannah works for FOCUS.

In this Season 5 episode of The Redemption Project, Brandon Burley speaks with Savannah about the ministry’s work with incarcerated and newly released women throughout East Tennessee.

FOCUS operates what it calls its Behind the Walls and Beyond the Walls programs. Volunteers lead Bible studies, cognitive-behavioral classes and personal-development programs inside county jails and state prisons. The organization currently serves women in Knox, Anderson, Bledsoe, Sullivan, Scott and Blount counties.

The work continues after release.

Subscribe now

FOCUS operates a 12-bed women’s home in Knoxville, where residents participate in a structured nine- to 12-month reentry program. Case managers help women obtain identification documents, apply for benefits, prepare for employment, secure clothing and hygiene supplies and begin learning how to navigate responsibilities that can feel overwhelming after incarceration.

But Savannah says the work cannot stop at employment, rent and drug testing.

Many of the women entering the program have experienced significant childhood trauma, addiction, abusive relationships and years of believing that pain is all they deserve. Savannah describes trauma as the gateway that often precedes substance use and incarceration.

That is why FOCUS attempts to serve the whole person.

The ministry provides practical assistance, accountability, relationships and faith-based support. Its goal is not merely to help women avoid another arrest. It is to help them understand their worth, develop healthier patterns and build lives in which they can contribute to their families and communities.

FOCUS may technically meet the definition of a halfway house.

Its work is intended to go much further.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

Tennessee is now one of five states being considered for a federal Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus.

That phrase sounds technical. It also sounds cleaner than what it may actually mean.

This is not just another research park. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the campus concept is meant to modernize the full nuclear fuel cycle by co-locating functions such as fuel fabrication, uranium enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel and waste disposition.

Tennessee has positioned Oak Ridge as the preferred center of that proposal. On July 28, DOE selected Tennessee, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah for the next phase of review. Energy Secretary Chris Wright signed nonbinding memorandums of understanding with the five states.

That does not mean Tennessee has won the project. It does not authorize construction, select a final site or approve a reactor, fuel plant, storage facility or waste repository. It does mean Tennessee is still in the conversation.

The public question is no longer only whether Tennessee wants to remain a nuclear-energy leader. The question is what the state is willing to build, move, store and possibly dispose of in order to become one.

What “full lifecycle” means

The nuclear lifecycle begins before electricity is produced. Uranium has to be processed, enriched and manufactured into usable reactor fuel. After the fuel is used, it does not disappear.

That used fuel remains radioactive and must be stored, recycled, reprocessed or permanently disposed of. A full lifecycle campus could include multiple industries inside one regional system: enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor development, isotope production, workforce training, recycling and waste management.

The easiest parts to promote are jobs, investment, research and national leadership. The harder parts are transportation, storage, cleanup, long-term monitoring and disposal. A true lifecycle includes both.

Why Oak Ridge is central

Oak Ridge is not an empty field being introduced to nuclear work for the first time. It already has Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 National Security Complex, a federal cleanup mission and a growing commercial nuclear sector.

That is Tennessee’s strongest argument. The state can tell DOE it already has the workforce, infrastructure, federal presence, land history and private-sector interest needed to support a complete nuclear ecosystem.

Oak Ridge also carries the other side of that history. The region is still dealing with contamination from earlier federal nuclear missions, including legacy buildings, soil, groundwater and radioactive materials. Supporters can fairly argue that today’s engineering and safety standards are different from the Manhattan Project and Cold War eras.

Residents can also fairly ask why new nuclear-waste responsibilities should arrive before the old nuclear mess is fully cleaned up.

What Tennessee has offered

The state submitted its proposal April 1 and publicly described Oak Ridge as the country’s best location for the campus. Tennessee says its response identified candidate sites, priority campus functions and ongoing evaluation of interim and long-term storage opportunities.

That matters because “Oak Ridge” could mean several places. It could mean the federal Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Y-12, Heritage Center Industrial Park, Horizon Center, the Clinch River Nuclear Site or a distributed network of sites across Anderson and Roane counties.

The word “campus” may make people imagine one fenced property. The real plan could be a corridor.

The waste question

The most important public question is the back end of the system. Tennessee’s materials indicate the state is evaluating interim and long-term storage opportunities, while DOE’s campus description includes waste disposition as part of the broader lifecycle concept.

That is not the same as choosing a repository site. But it means storage and disposal are not side issues; they are part of the conversation.

Public language needs to be precise. “Nuclear waste” can describe very different materials, including contaminated equipment, depleted uranium, transuranic waste, high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. Each category carries different risks, rules, timelines and disposal requirements.

Before asking the public to accept assurances, officials should define the material. What waste? How much? From where? For how long? Stored or disposed? Who owns it? Who pays if something goes wrong?

The promise and the tradeoff

There is a serious case for the project. The United States needs domestic nuclear fuel, advanced reactors need manufacturers and trained workers, and spent fuel already exists at reactor sites across the country. Refusing to make a long-term plan does not make the waste disappear.

Oak Ridge may be one of the few places in America capable of doing this work. That does not mean Tennesseans should accept vague promises.

Tennessee’s selection as a finalist does not approve a recycling plant, storage facility or waste repository. Each major component would still require additional review, licensing and public process.

But the broad decision is already moving. Before Tennessee signs any binding hosting agreement, the state should release the full proposal, candidate site list, waste assumptions, transportation plans, financial commitments and any private-company letters of support.

East Tennesseans do not need slogans about the future of nuclear energy. They need to know what was offered in their name.

If Tennessee is going to host the full nuclear lifecycle, the public deserves to see the full plan.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

Public Safety Desk

When President Donald Trump launched the Memphis Safe Task Force in September 2025, the public message was straightforward.

The administration said the initiative would target violent crime, restore public order and bring federal, state and local agencies together to make Memphis safer.

The operation has produced measurable results. Federal officials report more than 10,000 arrests, more than 1,700 firearms seized and more than 150 missing children located. Many Memphis residents credit the increased law enforcement presence with making neighborhoods feel safer, while city crime rates have continued to decline.

But nearly a year later, another question has emerged.

How much of the task force’s work has focused on violent criminals, and how much has involved immigration enforcement?

The answer is more complicated than much of the public reporting has suggested.

Immigration enforcement was always part of the mission

One point should be clear from the beginning.

Immigration enforcement was not quietly added to the task force after it began.

President Trump’s September 15, 2025, presidential memorandum specifically directed the Memphis Safe Task Force to enforce federal immigration law alongside its efforts to combat violent crime, conduct complex criminal investigations, increase neighborhood patrols and improve public safety.

Subscribe now

That authority appeared in the written directive establishing the task force.

However, many of the public descriptions that followed emphasized a different message.

White House announcements focused primarily on violent crime.

The City of Memphis described the initiative as an effort to combat violent crime and improve quality of life.

Later news releases from the U.S. Marshals Service highlighted homicide arrests, gang investigations, firearms seizures, warrant service and missing children but generally did not separately report immigration enforcement activity.

That difference is at the center of the current debate.

The question is not whether immigration enforcement was authorized.

It was.

The question is whether the public received a complete picture of how significant that portion of the operation became.

Federal records point to a substantial immigration operation

Several independent investigations have attempted to measure the task force’s immigration activity.

Each examined different records, making direct comparisons difficult, but together they point in the same general direction.

An investigation by MLK50 and ProPublica reviewed daily task-force arrest reports obtained from the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office. Reporters identified more than 800 immigration-related arrests during the first several months of the operation and found that only a small percentage involved violent-crime charges.

More recently, NPR and the Institute for Public Service Reporting reported that immigration arrests increased dramatically after the task force began. Their reporting found that many detainees had no criminal convictions and that routine traffic stops frequently became the point of contact leading to immigration detention.

Action News 5 separately analyzed federal immigration records covering September 2025 through April 2026. That review found 891 ICE arrests in Shelby County during the period examined. According to the station’s analysis, more than 80 percent of those arrested had no criminal convictions, although many had pending criminal charges or immigration-related proceedings.

Leave a comment

Those figures should be interpreted carefully.

Having no criminal conviction is not the same as having no criminal history.

Some individuals had pending charges.

Others may have had prior arrests that never resulted in convictions.

Civil immigration violations also follow different legal procedures than criminal prosecutions.

The available reporting does not support treating those categories as interchangeable.

Public reporting became less detailed over time

One of the more significant transparency questions involves how the task force reported its own results.

Early in the operation, immigration-related arrests reportedly appeared under a category labeled “administrative arrests.”

Local reporting indicates that category later disappeared from publicly available summaries.

At the same time, the U.S. Marshals Service continued releasing broad arrest totals while emphasizing violent offenders, gang members, firearms seizures and missing children.

Those accomplishments are significant.

They also make it difficult for the public to determine how many of the overall arrests involved homicide suspects, violent fugitives, immigration detainees, outstanding warrants or other categories.

Without consistent reporting categories, residents cannot independently evaluate how the task force’s work was distributed.

Successes deserve recognition

Any fair evaluation of the Memphis Safe Task Force should acknowledge its public-safety accomplishments.

According to federal officials, the operation has removed illegal firearms from the streets, located missing children, arrested homicide suspects and disrupted gang activity.

Those are meaningful achievements.

Many Tennesseans, particularly victims of violent crime, have argued that stronger enforcement was badly needed after years of elevated violence in Memphis.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

The administration has also consistently maintained that enforcing immigration law and reducing violent crime are complementary objectives rather than competing ones.

Supporters argue that identifying people who are unlawfully present in the country while simultaneously addressing gang activity, narcotics trafficking and repeat offenders strengthens overall public safety.

That position deserves to be presented accurately.

The accountability questions remain

Recognizing those successes does not eliminate the need for transparency.

The public still lacks clear answers to several important questions.

How many of the task force’s more than 10,000 arrests involved violent felony charges?

How many involved outstanding warrants for nonviolent offenses?

How many were civil immigration detentions?

How many immigration encounters began during routine traffic stops?

How many detainees had criminal convictions compared with pending charges or no criminal convictions?

Those are not political questions.

They are questions about government reporting.

The answers matter because the task force has become one of the most visible federal public-safety initiatives in Tennessee.

The numbers do not tell the whole story

Federal summaries report more than 10,000 arrests, but the categories provided do not add up to a complete accounting.

One individual could simultaneously be counted as a gang member, a firearms offender and a drug defendant.

Likewise, someone arrested on a local warrant could later be transferred into federal immigration custody.

Without arrest-level data, the public cannot determine how those overlapping categories contribute to the final totals.

That uncertainty has fueled much of the current debate.

Supporters see a successful crime-reduction initiative.

Critics see an immigration operation that has not been fully described.

The available records suggest elements of both perspectives are present.

Where the story goes next

Get 5% off for 1 year

The Memphis Safe Task Force was created with a broad federal mandate.

Its written mission included violent crime, public order, quality-of-life enforcement and immigration enforcement.

Those authorities were never hidden in the presidential memorandum.

The question now is whether the public reporting has reflected that broader mission with equal clarity.

The next phase of accountability should focus on records rather than rhetoric.

The public deserves to know how arrests are categorized, how immigration detentions are counted, why certain reporting categories disappeared and whether official performance reports accurately reflect the full scope of the operation.

Government transparency does not weaken public safety.

It strengthens public confidence that successful law enforcement is also accountable law enforcement.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

Every election cycle, millions of Americans hear phrases like “popular vote,” “Electoral College,” “swing states” and “the election was called.”

At the same time, many voters are never fully taught how presidential elections actually work in the United States.

That confusion matters.

Not because people are unintelligent, but because the American election system is layered. A presidential election is not run the same way as a Tennessee governor’s race. A governor’s race is not run the same way as a U.S. Senate race. And a national popular vote is not the mechanism currently used to elect presidents.

In conversations online, I increasingly see people using terms interchangeably that actually mean very different things:

• popular vote,

• Electoral College,

• electoral votes,

• certified vote counts,

• and national election results.

So before the next major election cycle fully ramps up, I wanted to slow down and explain how the system actually works.

Not politically.

Structurally.

Because regardless of someone’s party affiliation, voters should understand how their vote moves through the system

The most important starting point

The United States does not directly elect presidents through a national popular vote.

That sentence alone surprises some people.

When Americans vote for president, they are technically voting for a slate of electors connected to a presidential candidate.

Those electors are part of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is the constitutional system used to formally elect the president of the United States (U.S. Constitution, art. II).

That does not mean the popular vote is meaningless.

It means the popular vote functions differently depending on the office being elected.

What is the popular vote?

The popular vote is simply the total number of votes cast directly by voters.

If Candidate A receives 70 million votes nationally and Candidate B receives 68 million votes nationally, Candidate A won the national popular vote.

That is a mathematical count of individual ballots.

But under the current constitutional system, winning the national popular vote alone does not automatically make someone president.

Instead, presidential elections are decided through the Electoral College.

What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is the constitutional process used to elect presidents.

Each state receives a certain number of electoral votes based on:

• the state’s representation in the U.S. House of Representatives,

• plus its two U.S. senators.

Tennessee currently has:

• 9 members in the U.S. House,

• plus 2 senators,

• for a total of 11 electoral votes.

There are currently 538 total electoral votes nationwide.

A presidential candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency (National Archives, n.d.).

Get 15% off forever

How electoral votes are awarded

In most states, including Tennessee, presidential elections operate under a winner-take-all system.

That means whichever presidential candidate wins the statewide popular vote receives all of that state’s electoral votes.

Example:

If a Republican presidential candidate receives:

• 52% of Tennessee’s vote,

and the Democratic candidate receives:

• 46%,

the Republican candidate receives all 11 Tennessee electoral votes.

The electoral votes are not divided proportionally in Tennessee.

That is one reason presidential campaigns focus heavily on competitive swing states.

Winning California by 5 million votes produces the same number of electoral votes as winning California by 50,000 votes.

The margin changes the popular vote total.

It does not change the electoral vote total.

Share

Why the Electoral College exists

The Electoral College emerged from debates during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Founders were trying to balance competing concerns, including:

• population differences between states,

• direct democracy concerns,

• state sovereignty,

• regional influence,

• and federalism.

Federalism means power is divided between the national government and the states.

The United States is not structured as a single national democracy operating entirely from Washington.

It is a constitutional republic made up of individual states that retain significant powers.

The Electoral College reflects that state-based structure.

Instead of treating the presidential election as one giant national election pool, the Constitution treats it as a series of state elections whose results combine into a national outcome.

That is why states — not the federal government — primarily administer elections.

Can someone win the popular vote but lose the presidency?

Yes.

And it has happened multiple times in American history.

A candidate can win more total votes nationally while still losing the Electoral College.

That occurs when another candidate wins enough states and electoral votes to reach 270.

This is one of the most controversial parts of the Electoral College system.

Supporters argue the system forces presidential candidates to build geographically broad coalitions across multiple states.

Critics argue the system can allow a candidate to become president despite receiving fewer total votes nationally.

Regardless of where someone falls politically, both statements describe real structural features of the system.

Subscribe now

How Tennessee elections are different from presidential elections

This is where confusion often happens.

Not every election in Tennessee uses the Electoral College.

In fact, most elections do not.

Tennessee governor’s race

Tennessee’s governor is elected through a statewide popular vote.

Whichever candidate receives the most votes statewide wins.

There are no electoral votes involved.

U.S. Senate races

The same is true for Tennessee’s U.S. Senate races.

Tennesseans vote directly for Senate candidates.

Whoever receives the most votes statewide wins.

Local races

Local races are usually even more direct.

County mayor races, sheriff races, school board races and city elections are generally decided by direct vote totals within the jurisdiction involved.

Again, no Electoral College.

So when does the Electoral College apply?

Only presidential elections.

That is one of the most important civic distinctions voters should understand.

When Tennesseans vote for:

• governor,

• U.S. senator,

• state representative,

• county mayor,

• sheriff,

• school board,

• or most other offices,

the winner is determined directly by vote totals.

The Electoral College only applies to the election of the president and vice president.

How votes are counted in Tennessee

Another common misconception is that election results come directly from Washington.

They do not.

Elections are administered primarily at the state and local level.

In Tennessee:

• county election commissions administer elections locally,

• votes are tabulated locally,

• results are transmitted through state election systems,

• and certification occurs through Tennessee election procedures (Tennessee Secretary of State, n.d.).

That means Tennessee’s presidential vote total is first determined inside Tennessee.

Once Tennessee certifies the statewide presidential winner, Tennessee’s electors are pledged accordingly.

Those electors later participate in the formal Electoral College process.

Why election-night projections are not the same as certification

When media organizations “call” a state, they are making a projection based on:

• vote totals,

• reporting percentages,

• historical voting patterns,

• and statistical modeling.

That projection is not the same thing as formal certification.

Certification occurs later through official state election procedures.

This distinction matters because many Americans understandably confuse:

• projected winners,

• unofficial totals,

• certified totals,

• and Electoral College votes.

Those concepts are related.

They are not identical.

Why this matters

People do not need law degrees to understand how elections work.

But civic systems become harder to trust when people are never taught how those systems function in the first place.

A voter should know:

• when they are voting directly for a candidate,

• when they are voting within a state-based Electoral College framework,

• how votes are counted,

• who administers elections,

• and what actually determines the winner.

That understanding matters regardless of party affiliation.

Because civic literacy is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue.

It is a citizenship issue.

Leave a comment

The core takeaway

The popular vote and the Electoral College are not opposites.

They are parts of the same presidential election system.

Voters cast ballots through the popular vote inside their individual states.

Those statewide results then determine how electoral votes are awarded.

In Tennessee, presidential elections involve both:

• a statewide popular vote,

• and Tennessee’s allocation of electoral votes.

Most other Tennessee elections — including governor’s races and Senate races — are decided directly through statewide vote totals without the Electoral College.

That distinction is one of the most important pieces of civic knowledge American voters can understand before entering another major election cycle.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

References

National Archives. (n.d.). Electoral College overview.

Tennessee Secretary of State. (n.d.). Division of Elections.

U.S. Constitution, art. II.

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). About the Electoral College.

U.S. Senate. (n.d.). The Electoral College.

It is a place where men coming out of incarceration are being challenged, discipled, restored and rebuilt.

In this special mash-up episode of The Redemption Project, Brandon Burley highlights voices from Men of Valor — men coming out of jail and prison, men who found faith behind the wall, and leaders helping them return to their families and communities with purpose.

This is a story about addiction, incarceration, faith, accountability, reentry and restoration.

But more than anything, this is a redemption story.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The Redemption Project Newsroom

When Knox County commissioners voted to accept a state public-safety grant in late 2025, several now say they believed they were funding efforts to reduce violent crime in targeted areas.

Months later, they found themselves debating something much larger: the expansion of a countywide automated license-plate reader network.

On July 27, the Knox County Commission unanimously approved continuing a formal review of the Sheriff’s Office’s Flock Safety camera program. Commissioners did not order an immediate shutdown of the system, and an emergency ordinance that would have halted its use was not adopted.

After the meeting, Knox County Sheriff Tom Spangler said the Sheriff’s Office would pause installing additional cameras while the review continues. Cameras already operating across the county will remain in service.

The county is not debating whether to launch a new surveillance system. It is reviewing one that is already operating while questions remain about how the expansion was presented, how the technology is governed and what safeguards exist for public oversight.

The proposed expansion is significant.

According to public reporting, the Sheriff’s Office planned to deploy approximately 270 Flock automated license-plate reader cameras using more than $1 million from a roughly $1.5 million state grant. The grant also supports the Sheriff’s Office’s Advanced Research and Communications Center, or ARCC, which is intended to integrate information from Flock cameras, drones and other public-safety technologies.

A network of that size has the potential to document vehicle movements across much of Knox County, depending on where cameras are installed and how the system is used.

The expansion also did not begin from zero.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Atlas of Surveillance listed the Knox County Sheriff’s Office as operating 28 Flock cameras as of September 2025. Commissioner Adam Thompson has argued that commissioners were never clearly told they were authorizing a countywide camera network.

According to Thompson, the grant presented to the commission focused on reducing violent crime in identified high-crime ZIP codes. He has said the resolution did not specifically describe a surveillance-camera deployment and that commissioners learned the scope of the rollout only after cameras began appearing throughout the county.

If accurate, that raises one of the most important accountability questions in this story.

What did commissioners believe they were approving?

Answering that question requires more than public debate. It requires reviewing the original grant application, state award documents, commission resolutions, budget amendments and any presentations made before the November 2025 vote.

Questions have also emerged about where cameras were installed.

Thompson has publicly stated that several cameras appeared in Corryton and Mascot, locations he says were outside the ZIP codes originally identified in the grant’s crime-reduction focus.

If grant-funded cameras were installed beyond those areas, additional questions follow.

Were those locations authorized under the grant?

Who selected them?

Were commissioners informed of the changes?

Were placement decisions driven by crime data, traffic patterns or other operational considerations?

The answers matter regardless of whether someone supports or opposes the technology itself.

The public conversation has also centered on what these cameras actually collect.

Flock cameras photograph license plates, capture images of vehicles and record the date, time and location where a vehicle passes a camera. The system can also record characteristics such as vehicle make, model and color. According to the company, customer data is retained for 30 days by default unless a customer chooses a different retention period or state law requires otherwise.

The significance is not that a license plate can be seen from a public roadway. It is that thousands—or potentially millions—of those observations can be stored, searched and connected across time.

One deputy observing one vehicle at one intersection is different from software reconstructing where that same vehicle appeared across multiple locations over several weeks.

That difference is why questions about oversight have become as important as questions about crime reduction.

Tennessee law currently limits government retention of automated license-plate-reader data to 90 days unless the information becomes part of an active criminal investigation. Knox County officials have said their system follows a shorter 30-day retention period.

Even so, many practical questions remain unanswered.

What legal standard must investigators meet before searching historical vehicle records?

Which agencies outside Knox County, if any, can access or request searches of county-owned cameras?

How often are audit logs reviewed?

How are improper searches detected?

How many stolen vehicles, missing persons or violent-crime investigations have been assisted by the system?

Those are the questions likely to shape the next phase of the discussion.

Supporters argue the cameras help recover stolen vehicles, locate missing people and provide investigative leads more quickly than traditional methods.

Critics counter that large-scale vehicle tracking requires equally robust transparency, oversight and public accountability.

Both positions deserve careful examination.

For now, Knox County’s camera network remains active while additional installations are paused.

The larger question is no longer simply whether the technology works.

It is whether elected officials and the public fully understood the scope of what was being built before it began.

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The Redemption Project Newsroom
Systems Explained Desk

A business earns a profit.

A city does not.

When residents ask whether Knoxville “made money” or whether the city is “profitable,” they are usually asking a different question: Is the city financially healthy? Can it pay its bills, maintain roads and public facilities, provide services and prepare for unexpected challenges?

Those are the questions municipal financial reports are designed to answer.

Cities do not operate like companies. They do not exist to generate earnings for owners or shareholders. They exist to provide public services using taxpayer revenue, fees, grants, investments and other resources.

The more useful question is not whether Knoxville turned a profit.

It is whether Knoxville’s financial position allows the city to operate effectively today while preparing for future obligations.

Knoxville’s latest audited financial report provides a complicated answer.

The city’s overall financial position improved during fiscal year 2025. At the same time, some of its most flexible operating reserves declined.

Both statements can be true.

Understanding why requires understanding how governments measure money

What is net position?

Knoxville’s primary government reported a net position of approximately $1.008 billion at the end of fiscal year 2025, an increase of about $42.6 million.

That does not mean Knoxville had an additional $42.6 million sitting in a bank account.

The number includes long-term assets such as roads, buildings and equipment, along with long-term obligations such as debt and pension liabilities.

A city can improve its overall financial position because it owns valuable infrastructure or because accounting measurements change, without having a similar increase in available cash.

The same report showed approximately $554 million of Knoxville’s net position was invested in capital assets.

Those assets matter. They include the roads residents drive on, buildings employees work in and facilities the public uses.

But they are not emergency reserves.

They cannot simply be transferred into a checking account to cover next year’s expenses.

Subscribe now

The operating picture is different

The General Fund is closer to what most residents think about when discussing daily government operations.

It pays for core services such as public safety, general government operations and other recurring expenses.

Knoxville’s General Fund balance declined in fiscal year 2025.

The total General Fund balance fell to approximately $140.5 million, a decrease of about $21.6 million.

The unassigned General Fund balance — the portion with the fewest restrictions — fell to approximately $35.3 million.

That number matters because unassigned funds provide flexibility. They help governments respond to emergencies, unexpected expenses, economic downturns or revenue changes.

However, the decline does not mean the city was financially unstable.

The Tennessee Comptroller’s fiscal metrics for FY2025 classified Knoxville’s General Fund cash and debt positions as “No Concern.”

The state counted approximately $116.4 million in General Fund cash and investments, representing about 148 days of expenditures.

That creates an important distinction.

Liquidity is not the same thing as unrestricted spending capacity.

A city can have significant resources while still needing to carefully manage where those resources go.

Where Knoxville spends money

Knoxville’s largest governmental expense category was public safety.

The city reported approximately $160 million in public safety expenses, accounting for nearly half of governmental activity expenses.

Other major categories included:

• Physical environment.

• General government.

• Transportation.

• Economic development.

• Parks and recreation.

• Health and sanitation.

This is where municipal budgeting differs from household budgeting.

A family may delay replacing a vehicle or repairing a roof.

A city cannot indefinitely delay maintaining infrastructure without consequences.

Roads deteriorate.

Buildings age.

Stormwater systems require repairs.

Public facilities require maintenance.

The cost of postponing those decisions often appears later, when repairs become more expensive.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

The infrastructure question

One of the most important financial questions facing cities is not only:

“How much money do we have?”

It is:

“What condition are the things we own?”

Knoxville, like many growing communities, faces long-term decisions involving infrastructure needs, including stormwater systems, aging facilities, sidewalks and public amenities.

That creates a common government challenge.

A city can have a positive financial position and still face difficult choices about replacing and maintaining aging infrastructure.

The money may exist.

The need exists.

The question is timing.

The audit findings

The FY2025 audit also identified another issue residents should pay attention to:

Internal controls.

Auditors issued an unmodified opinion on Knoxville’s financial statements, meaning the statements were fairly presented under accounting standards.

But auditors also identified three material weaknesses:

1. Cash reconciliation errors.

2. Failures to verify grant eligibility.

3. Management override of procurement controls.

Those findings do not mean the city is corrupt.

They mean auditors identified weaknesses in processes designed to prevent errors, improve accountability and ensure financial controls are working as intended.

That distinction matters.

A healthy government is not one where mistakes never occur.

A healthy government is one where problems are identified, corrected and used to improve the system.

So, is Knoxville financially healthy?

The answer depends on what is measured.

If the question is overall financial position, Knoxville improved.

If the question is flexible General Fund reserves, Knoxville experienced a decline.

If the question is debt and cash position, state metrics found no concern.

If the question is infrastructure needs, the city faces long-term challenges.

If the question is internal controls, the audit identified areas requiring improvement.

Government finance is rarely one number.

It is a system.

The most important question is not whether Knoxville “made a profit.”

The question is whether Knoxville is managing public resources in a way that allows residents to receive services today while protecting the city’s ability to meet tomorrow’s obligations.

That is the real financial test.

Leave a comment

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

A congressional candidate’s financial disclosure has raised questions about foreign-linked investments, national-security designations and what voters should understand before evaluating a candidate’s financial interests.

The disclosure belongs to Brent Louis Taylor, a Republican state senator from Shelby County who is running for Congress in Tennessee’s 9th District. This is not Brent Taylor from East Tennessee who is running for Congress.

The filing reported three investment holdings connected to companies with China-related exposure:

• Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. sponsored ADR.

• Tencent Holdings Ltd. ADR.

• Prosus N.V. sponsored ADR.

Each holding was reported in the value range of $1,001 to $15,000 as of the reporting period ending June 30, 2026.

The exact value cannot be determined because congressional financial disclosure forms report ranges rather than exact holdings.

The filing also does not identify whether the assets belonged specifically to Taylor, his spouse or a dependent child because ownership categories are reported under federal disclosure rules.

A financial disclosure shows what reportable assets exist within the household reporting structure.

It does not automatically reveal every purchase date, share count, investment decision or account detail.

The public question is not simply:

“Did this candidate own a China-linked investment?”

The better question is:

“What does that investment mean, and what should voters understand about it?”

Why the companies matter

Alibaba and Tencent are among China’s most recognizable technology companies.

Both were included on the Department of Defense’s June 2026 Section 1260H list of companies identified as Chinese military companies operating in the United States.

The designation reflects the Pentagon’s assessment under federal law that certain companies meet criteria connected to China’s military-civil fusion strategy or related national-security concerns.

It is not the same thing as a criminal finding against an investor.

It is not the same thing as a sanctions order.

It does not automatically mean every investment in the company is illegal.

Those distinctions matter.

A company designation and an individual investor’s intent are separate questions.

A person can own a publicly traded security without supporting every policy of the company, its leadership or the government of the country where the company operates.

Subscribe now

The Prosus distinction

The third disclosed investment requires additional explanation.

Prosus N.V. is not Alibaba or Tencent.

It is a Netherlands-based investment holding company with a broad portfolio.

Prosus has reported owning approximately 22.66% of Tencent.

That means the Taylor disclosure shows direct investment exposure to Prosus, which creates indirect exposure to Tencent.

Calling it “Tencent stock” would not be precise.

Calling it completely unrelated to China would also not be accurate.

The difference matters because voters deserve the complete picture.

Taylor’s response

After questions about the holdings, Taylor said he instructed his broker to review and sell China-associated investments.

That statement establishes an instruction.

The public record reviewed for this article does not independently verify whether the transactions were completed, when they occurred or whether updated disclosure documents have been filed.

Those are separate questions.

A candidate stating an action was requested is different from a public record showing the action occurred.

Share

Why this matters in a congressional race

Financial disclosures exist because voters have a legitimate interest in understanding potential conflicts, financial relationships and outside interests involving public officials.

At the same time, owning a publicly traded investment does not automatically establish wrongdoing.

Millions of Americans own mutual funds, retirement accounts, exchange-traded funds and other investments that may include international companies.

The public-interest questions are more specific:

Was the investment properly disclosed?

Does the investment create a conflict with official duties?

Did the candidate make decisions that benefited the investment?

Was the investment retained after concerns were raised?

Did the candidate respond transparently?

Those are accountability questions.

What voters should understand

This story involves three separate issues that should not be blended together.

First, there is the disclosure question.

Did the candidate accurately report required financial interests?

Second, there is the national-security question.

How should elected officials think about investments involving companies that the federal government has identified as security concerns?

Third, there is the judgment question.

How should voters evaluate a candidate’s financial choices when deciding whether that person represents their interests?

Different voters may answer those questions differently.

That is part of the democratic process.

The role of journalism is not to decide the conclusion.

It is to provide enough context for voters to understand the facts.

In this case, the documented fact is straightforward:

A Tennessee congressional candidate disclosed investments connected to companies with China-related exposure.

The remaining questions — about judgment, policy, conflicts and public trust — are questions voters will decide for themselves.

Leave a comment

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The Redemption Project Newsroom

The toxicology report showed cychlorphine.

The person had died from an overdose.

Those two facts may appear to settle the question.

They do not.

A laboratory can determine that a drug was present in someone’s blood. It cannot decide, by that result alone, whether the drug caused the death, contributed alongside other substances or was present without playing a meaningful role.

That decision requires more than a positive test

.

It requires the circumstances at the scene, the person’s medical and drug-use history, the autopsy findings, the specimen tested, the measured concentration, the presence of other substances and the medical examiner’s or coroner’s judgment.

This distinction becomes especially important with an emerging opioid such as N-propionitrile chlorphine, commonly known as cychlorphine.

Early reports have described deaths “involving,” “linked to” or “associated with” the drug.

Those words can be appropriate.

They are not interchangeable with “caused by.”

The first article in this series explained why routine toxicology systems may not identify every emerging synthetic opioid.

The next question is what the identification means once the drug is found.

Detected is the laboratory finding

The narrowest term is detected.

It means a laboratory identified the substance in a biological specimen such as blood or urine.

That is an analytical finding.

It answers:

Was the drug present?

It does not automatically answer:

Did the drug kill the person?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System, known as SUDORS, deliberately separates those categories.

SUDORS collects information about all drugs detected through postmortem toxicology. It separately records which drugs the medical examiner or coroner determined caused or contributed to the death.

That separation exists because toxicology reports can contain substances that did not cause the fatal event.

A report might identify caffeine, nicotine metabolites, a prescribed medication taken at a therapeutic level, an over-the-counter pain reliever and several illicit drugs.

The fact that each substance appears in the report does not mean each belongs in the cause-of-death statement.

The laboratory reports what it found.

The death investigator determines what mattered.

“Involved” requires a causal judgment

Public-health researchers often use the term drug involved when a medical examiner or coroner has identified the drug as causing or contributing to the overdose death.

That is stronger than simple detection.

Paid subscribers receive early access to every article because their support helps make this work possible. If you’d like immediate access — and want to support independent, systems-focused journalism — consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

The car had been checked for a GPS tracker.

Nothing was found.

But according to a 2024 arrest affidavit, a Shelby County sheriff’s deputy still appeared to know where his former wife was going.

At one point, she received a message asking, “Where are you going?”

Investigators eventually found another possible explanation.

An audit showed that Deputy Thadius Gordon had searched the same Tennessee license plate approximately 20 times in four days and more than 100 times overall using a law-enforcement database, according to Action News 5. Gordon was charged with stalking and harassment and relieved of duty with pay. His attorney disputed the allegations and said the full circumstances had not been presented.

The database did not prevent the alleged conduct.

It documented it.

That distinction sits at the center of the second article in this series.

As the first article explained, automated license plate readers can turn individual roadside observations into a searchable history of where and when a vehicle was seen.

That history can help locate stolen vehicles, identify a suspect car or find a missing person.

It also can be searched by someone who already knows the plate number for reasons that have nothing to do with a criminal investigation.

At least 22 reported cases

The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm challenging automated license plate reader networks in several cities, has identified at least 22 reported cases in which officers allegedly used license plate reader data to monitor current partners, former partners, suspected romantic rivals or other people in whom they had a romantic interest.

The organization’s article was updated July 13, 2026.

Most of the reported incidents occurred since 2024. Nearly all of the officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs through termination or resignation, according to the organization’s review.

Only a few of the cases were initially discovered through internal investigations.

Most reportedly came to light after the person being monitored complained about the officer’s behavior.

Twenty-two is a serious number.

It also needs to be described precisely.

The count is not limited to Flock Safety. It includes Flock and other automated license plate reader systems.

It is not a count of every kind of license plate reader misuse. It excludes cases involving searches for political, immigration or other personal purposes when no romantic interest was documented. It also excludes misconduct that was never reported publicly, never detected or resolved internally without a public record.

Twenty-two is therefore not the total.

It is the documented floor for one specific category of reported abuse.

Subscribe now

The pattern is difficult to dismiss

The cases span officers, deputies, detectives, police chiefs and at least one elected sheriff.

The alleged search counts are not generally limited to one curious or mistaken lookup.

Read more

The numbers are interesting.

They are also easy to overread.

A poll can tell us something useful about public opinion at a particular moment. It cannot guarantee what voters will do weeks or months later, predict every change in a campaign or turn a small lead into a certain election result.

In this Season 4 Civic Conversation, Brandon Burley speaks with pollster Mark Cunningham about what polls actually measure, how scientific surveys are constructed and why the public should be cautious when campaigns, media outlets and social media accounts turn numbers into narratives.

Cunningham is the director of polling at Overton Insights and the original founder of the Beacon Poll. He explains sample sizes, margins of error, toplines, crosstabs, likely-voter models and the difference between public polling, internal campaign polling, online surveys and straw polls.

The conversation also examines push polling, question wording, demographic weighting and the ways even a professionally conducted poll can be selectively quoted or misunderstood. A topline may show the overall result, while the underlying groups reveal a much more complicated story. A candidate may lead today and lose later—not necessarily because the poll was fraudulent, but because voters, events and conditions changed.

Brandon and Mark also discuss prediction markets, exit polling and why people become defensive when polling does not support the candidate or outcome they want.

The most important lesson is not that every poll is right or that every poll should be trusted.

It is that polls should be read carefully.

Who paid for the research? How were the questions worded? Who was surveyed? Does the sample resemble the population being discussed? What is the margin of error? Does the polling organization have a reliable record?

Before celebrating a poll—or dismissing it—slow down and look at what the numbers actually say.

A poll is a snapshot in time.

It is not the election result.

Subscribe now

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The firefighters have left.

The flames are out.

The homeowner is standing in front of a damaged house trying to answer the next question:

What happens now?

For generations, fire claims followed a familiar pattern. A fire damaged a home. An insurer evaluated the loss. Contractors repaired the structure. Families rebuilt.

Lithium-ion batteries are changing that process.

The technology is now part of everyday life. Lithium batteries power phones, laptops, power tools, electric vehicles, e-bikes, home energy-storage systems and other devices that have moved from specialized equipment into ordinary households.

The insurance question is becoming more complicated.

It is not simply:

“Will insurance cover a battery fire?”

The better question is:

“What caused the loss, how was the equipment used, and what does a safe recovery require?”

That distinction matters.

A policy may respond to physical fire damage while the larger dispute involves cleanup standards, damaged systems, contamination concerns or specialized restoration.

The battery changed.

The recovery process changed with it.

Subscribe now

Why lithium-ion fires are different

Most people think of a fire as one event.

A flame starts.

Firefighters respond.

Damage is assessed.

Cleanup begins.

Lithium-ion battery incidents can involve additional complications.

The insurance question is changing

When an insurer evaluates a battery-related loss, the investigation may include questions such as:

Was the correct charger used?

Was the battery modified?

Was the equipment damaged before the fire?

Was it installed correctly?

Was it used according to manufacturer instructions?

Was the equipment being used for its intended purpose?

Those questions do not automatically determine whether a claim is covered.

They help determine the circumstances of the loss and whether the damage falls within the policy terms.

The same principle applies to many insurance claims.

The cause of the loss often matters as much as the loss itself.

The bigger question may be rebuilding

The most important insurance question may not be whether a fire occurred.

It may be what recovery requires afterward.

A traditional house fire may involve:

• Burn damage.

• Smoke damage.

• Water damage.

• Structural repairs.

A lithium-ion battery fire may raise additional questions:

• Smoke and residue cleanup.

• Damaged electrical systems.

• HVAC concerns.

• Battery disposal.

• Additional testing.

• Specialized remediation.

Insurance systems are adapting

Public consumer information from major insurers reviewed by TRP shows the industry is focusing less on broad lithium-ion exclusions and more on underwriting, installation, documentation and risk factors.

Questions increasingly center on:

Does the homeowner have an electric vehicle charger?

Was it professionally installed?

Does the home contain energy-storage equipment?

Was equipment modified?

Does the activity represent normal residential use or a higher-risk commercial activity?

Those questions are likely to become more common as households adopt more battery-powered technology.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

Tennessee’s next questions

Tennessee is becoming part of the battery economy.

The state has growing electric-vehicle manufacturing, battery-related investment, energy infrastructure and residential electrification.

That creates questions for homeowners, insurers and regulators.

Are carriers changing underwriting guidelines?

Are homeowners expected to disclose EV chargers or energy-storage systems?

Are premiums changing?

Are claims involving lithium batteries increasing?

Are consumers experiencing disputes over coverage or remediation?

Those questions will become more important as the technology becomes more common.

At this point, the available evidence does not show a statewide lithium-ion insurance crisis.

It shows a system adapting.

What homeowners should do now

Homeowners do not need to panic because they own lithium-powered devices.

But they should understand their equipment and their insurance policy.

Basic precautions include:

• Use manufacturer-approved chargers.

• Do not use damaged or swollen batteries.

• Follow installation requirements.

• Avoid unauthorized modifications.

• Store batteries according to manufacturer guidance.

• Keep receipts, manuals and installation records for expensive equipment.

For larger systems, such as electric-vehicle chargers, solar batteries or home energy-storage systems, homeowners should consider contacting their insurer before installation.

The better question is not:

“Does my insurance cover batteries?”

The better question is:

“Does my insurance company understand the technology now inside my home?”

Lithium-ion technology arrived quickly.

Insurance systems move differently.

Policies, underwriting standards, claims procedures and restoration practices develop over time as new risks become common.

The current evidence does not show that homeowners insurers are abandoning lithium-ion battery coverage.

The larger question is whether insurance systems can keep pace with technology that has already become ordinary.

The battery changed.

The fire changed.

Now the insurance system has to change with them.

Leave a comment

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

The Redemption Project Newsroom

The gasoline flowing into a Tennessee vehicle probably did not come from Iran.

It may have been refined in Memphis. It may have moved north from the Gulf Coast through a major pipeline. The crude oil may have come from Oklahoma, Texas or another domestic source.

But the price attached to that gallon traveled much farther.

That is how conflict in the Middle East reaches Tennessee gas pumps.

It does not usually arrive first as a physical shortage.

It arrives as a price signal.

When fighting threatens oil production or shipping near the Strait of Hormuz, buyers around the world begin competing for replacement crude oil and fuel. Global benchmark prices rise. Gulf Coast gasoline and diesel become more valuable. Tennessee terminals receive more expensive fuel. Tanker trucks carry that fuel to local stations. Then the numbers change on the roadside sign.

The gallon is local by the time a driver buys it.

The market never was.

AAA listed Tennessee’s average price for regular gasoline at about $3.72 per gallon on July 24. Diesel averaged about $4.93. Tennessee remained below the national average, but regular gasoline had risen roughly 11 cents in a week, 25 cents in a month and about 91 cents compared with one year earlier.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

Tennessee is the kind of state President Donald Trump’s tariff policy is supposed to help.

It builds vehicles in Smyrna, Chattanooga and Spring Hill. It makes tires, batteries, transformers, metal parts and aircraft components. It exports whiskey, cotton, food and forest products around the world.

Tennessee’s factories do not operate outside those supply chains.

They buy imported aluminum, steel, electronics, engines, machinery and specialty components. Tennessee farmers, distillers and manufacturers also sell into foreign markets that may retaliate.

The tariffs could help Tennessee build more.

They could also make what Tennessee already builds more expensive.

That is the tradeoff.

On July 20, Trump announced additional 50% tariffs on selected Canadian goods, including categories tied to motor vehicles, alcoholic beverages and dairy products. The White House said the duties are intended to answer Canadian policies it says discriminate against American commerce. The new duties are scheduled to take effect Aug. 19 and apply to covered goods even if they would otherwise qualify under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The administration also expanded an aluminum policy meant to encourage companies to build or modernize U.S. smelters. Companies with approved American investment plans may receive reduced tariff treatment on a corresponding amount of imported primary aluminum.

Earlier in July, Trump issued a proclamation involving imports of commercial aircraft, jet engines and aircraft parts after the administration concluded that dependence on foreign production could impair national security. The proclamation directed negotiations aimed at addressing the national-security concern and left open the possibility of additional import actions if those agreements are not reached, carried out or effective.

The theory behind these actions is not simply that imports are bad.

The case is that price is not the only measure of national prosperity. A country also needs factories, skilled workers, metal production, aircraft capacity, vehicle supply chains and the ability to make essential goods during war, pandemic or disruption.

Supporters argue that trade is not truly free when another country subsidizes its own producers, blocks American access, uses provincial rules to favor domestic products or treats U.S. goods worse than competitors’ goods.

Read more

The Redemption Project Newsroom

Tennessee’s new political-deepfake law tells campaigns exactly what warning voters must receive when artificial intelligence makes a candidate appear to say or do something that never happened.

What the law does not clearly say is who will be watching.

The Transparency for Deepfakes in Political Advertising Act took effect July 1. It requires certain paid political advertisements to disclose when audio or video falsely depicts a candidate saying or doing something that did not occur.

The required warnings are unusually direct.

An audio advertisement must say at both the beginning and the end: “This communication contains fake content impersonating speech that did not occur.”

A video must display a warning in large letters for the duration of the video. If the video falsely depicts actions, the warning must say: “This communication contains fake content depicting actions that did not occur.” If it falsely depicts both actions and speech, the warning must say: “This communication contains fake content depicting actions and speech that did not occur.”

That is a real disclosure requirement.

It gives voters a clear signal when synthetic media is being used to impersonate a candidate. It also gives campaigns a legal standard they did not previously have.

But disclosure is only one part of election protection.

Someone still has to detect the violation.

Someone has to identify who made or paid for the advertisement.

Someone has to preserve the evidence.

Someone has to take the case to a prosecutor or a judge.

And someone has to do all of that before the election clock runs out.

That is where Tennessee’s law may be weakest.

A violation is a Class C misdemeanor. Under Tennessee sentencing law, that generally carries a maximum punishment of 30 days in jail, a fine of no more than $50, or both, unless another statute provides otherwise.

A targeted candidate can also file a civil lawsuit seeking damages and a court order to stop the content.

But the law does not create a dedicated state deepfake-enforcement office. It does not give the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance a new administrative penalty process. It does not direct county election commissions to investigate complaints. It does not create a public database of reported political deepfakes. It does not require platforms to remove unlabeled deepfakes on a deadline. It does not create a rapid-response election referee.

The state wrote the warning.

It did not build the referee.

That distinction matters because synthetic political media can move faster than the legal system.

A deceptive video can be created, purchased and distributed within hours. It can move across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, X, streaming television, text messages, podcasts, email and private messaging apps. By the time a candidate discovers it, the video may already have been copied, cropped, reposted or viewed thousands of times.

A civil lawsuit can stop future distribution.

It cannot make voters forget what they already saw.

Subscribe now

Systems Explained: A disclosure law is not a ban
Tennessee does not prohibit every political deepfake. The law requires certain paid political advertisements to tell voters when realistic synthetic audio or video depicts a candidate saying or doing something that did not occur. The content may still run if it carries the required warning.

The law applies through Tennessee’s existing political-advertising disclaimer statute. That statute covers communications financed to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or to solicit political contributions.

That structure narrows the law.

It does not regulate every false political claim. It does not require a label every time a campaign uses artificial intelligence. It does not clearly cover every unpaid viral post, every issue advertisement, every ballot-measure fight or every fabricated image of a public official who is not a candidate.

The trigger is more specific: a financed political communication, aimed at electing or defeating a clearly identified candidate or raising money, that contains a qualifying deepfake depicting that candidate saying or doing something that did not happen.

There is another timing limit. If the depicted candidate is not an incumbent, the disclaimer requirement applies only when the communication is distributed within 120 days of the start of voting in an election where that candidate appears on the ballot.

That narrowness may help the law survive constitutional challenge.

Political speech receives strong First Amendment protection. Disclosure laws are usually easier to defend than outright bans because the speaker can still publish after adding a label. Tennessee’s approach avoids banning every AI-assisted campaign tool and focuses instead on realistic candidate impersonation.

But narrow laws leave gaps.

An AI-written campaign script is not covered simply because AI helped write it. An AI-generated crowd image is not covered simply because AI helped make it. A synthetic voice falsely impersonating a candidate in a paid attack ad may be covered. A still image, anonymous meme or unpaid viral post may create harder legal questions.

That is the challenge of writing election law for technology that changes faster than statutes do.

Share

Systems Explained: What is a deepfake?
Tennessee’s election law relies on an existing definition of “deepfake” from another part of state law. In general, it means video, image or audio generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence to realistically portray something that did not actually occur. The word “realistically” matters. Obvious parody, rough satire or exaggerated cartoons may not be treated the same way as a synthetic video that appears to show a real candidate making a real statement.

The law passed with broad bipartisan support.

House Bill 1513 was sponsored by Rep. Jason Zachary. Senate Bill 1624 was sponsored by Sen. Becky Massey. The measure passed the House 91-0 and the Senate 33-0. Gov. Bill Lee signed it March 26, and it became Public Chapter 625.

That unanimity matters.

It shows lawmakers from both parties recognized the risk. A fake video does not need to persuade every voter to matter. It only needs to confuse enough people at the right time, in the right race, with too little time left for correction.

The law’s strongest features are clear.

It creates an explicit duty to warn voters.

It requires audio warnings at both the beginning and end.

It requires video warnings to remain visible throughout the video.

It gives a depicted candidate the ability to go to court.

It targets deceptive impersonation rather than ordinary AI use.

But the enforcement model is fragmented.

A criminal case would generally depend on law enforcement and a district attorney deciding to pursue a Class C misdemeanor. The maximum $50 fine is small compared with the cost of modern political advertising. A campaign, political committee or outside group may spend thousands of dollars pushing an advertisement. A $50 fine alone is unlikely to deter a well-funded actor.

The civil remedy is stronger, at least on paper.

A depicted candidate can seek damages and equitable relief, including an injunction. That could matter if the candidate can identify the responsible party quickly and persuade a judge to act.

But that makes the candidate the front line of enforcement.

A candidate must find the content, preserve it, determine that it is synthetic, identify the creator or purchaser, hire a lawyer, file a case, request emergency relief and obtain an enforceable order.

That process may work for a statewide campaign with lawyers on call.

It may be much harder for a local candidate in a fast-moving race.

Leave a comment

Systems Explained: Criminal case versus civil case
A prosecutor brings a criminal case. The state must prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil case is different. The depicted candidate may sue the responsible party and ask a judge for damages or an order stopping the content. Tennessee’s law gives candidates civil tools, but it does not guarantee a prosecutor or state agency will act first.

The law also protects many intermediaries.

The statute says a broadcaster, host, third-party producer or carrier of the communication is not liable unless that person or entity is responsible for the communication. The legislative summary says the amendment clarified that broadcasters, cable and satellite television operators, streaming services and other programming services are not liable when they are paid to carry material containing a deepfake but were not responsible for creating it.

There is a reason for that protection.

A radio station, streaming service or social-media platform may not know whether a realistic clip is authentic. Federal law also gives online intermediaries significant protection in many contexts.

But the exemption has a practical effect.

It reduces pressure on the entities most capable of slowing distribution.

Tennessee does not require platforms or broadcasters to screen political ads for deepfakes before accepting payment. It does not require them to maintain a Tennessee political-ad archive. It does not require them to respond to candidate complaints within a certain number of hours. It does not require them to report suspected violations to the state.

They may enforce their own policies.

The state law does not make them the referee.

Share The Redemption Project Newsroom

Systems Explained: Why platform immunity matters
A platform or broadcaster may carry an advertisement without creating it. Tennessee generally protects those intermediaries from liability when they did not make the deepfake. That places the main legal responsibility on the advertiser, creator or campaign actor. It also means the fastest distribution points may not have a state-law duty to stop the ad before voters see it.

Tennessee lawmakers also saw a separate 2026 proposal.

HB 2214/SB 2321 would have created a broader election-deepfake enforcement model. The proposal would have applied to certain election deepfakes involving candidates or political parties, allowed candidates or parties to seek injunctive relief and allowed county election commissions to impose civil penalties.

That bill did not advance.

The contrast is important. Tennessee enacted the simpler disclosure bill. It did not enact the proposal with a clearer administrative penalty system.

That does not mean the enacted law is meaningless.

It means the law is more warning label than enforcement machine.

That may have been a deliberate constitutional choice. Lawmakers may have wanted to avoid a broad restriction on political speech. They may have wanted to require transparency without giving election officials broad power to police campaign content. In a polarized election environment, that caution has value.

An aggressive state enforcement office could itself become controversial if voters believe it is deciding which political messages are true, false, satirical or misleading.

So there are two risks.

A weak enforcement system may fail to stop deceptive synthetic ads quickly enough.

A heavy-handed enforcement system could threaten legitimate political speech.

Tennessee chose the narrower path.

Now voters, candidates, prosecutors and courts will find out whether that path is enough.

The first real test will come during the 2026 election cycle.

Will the secretary of state or Registry of Election Finance publish voter guidance?

Will county election commissions know where to send complaints?

Will district attorneys treat violations as election-integrity cases worth prosecuting?

Will platforms voluntarily enforce Tennessee’s warning requirement?

Will courts act quickly enough if a candidate seeks an emergency injunction?

Will campaigns disclose AI content even when the statute may not clearly require it?

Those questions are no longer theoretical.

Artificial intelligence has made it easier to clone a voice, fabricate a clip and distribute political content at the speed of outrage. Research on election deepfakes has warned that synthetic media can be used to manipulate public perception, while detection tools continue to face limits as generation methods improve.

The law gives voters a sentence.

It gives candidates a lawsuit.

It gives prosecutors a misdemeanor.

But it does not create a single clear public doorway where a voter can report an apparent political deepfake and know who is responsible for acting.

That is the civic gap.

Tennessee’s law solves one part of the problem. It says voters deserve to know when a candidate’s voice or image has been realistically faked in a paid political ad.

But the deeper test is execution.

Who finds it?

Who proves it?

Who stops it?

Who corrects the record before voters decide?

That is the difference between a disclosure rule and an election-protection system.

And Tennessee’s first AI election will test whether the warning is enough.

Subscribe now

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I am a commentary write for Tennessee Lookout and a weekly columnist with Knox TN Today. My work examines public policy, public safety systems and civic responsibility. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.

Subscribe now

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal court is allowing Tennessee to use its newly redrawn congressional map during the 2026 election.

That does not mean the judges declared the map fair.

It does not mean the lawsuit is over.

It does not even mean the court has made a final decision that the map is constitutional.

The three-judge panel decided something narrower: Memphis voters and civil-rights organizations had not yet shown enough evidence of unconstitutional racial intent to justify stopping an election already underway.

For people who support the new map, the ruling means Tennessee’s 2026 election can proceed under the districts lawmakers passed this spring.

For people who oppose the new map, the ruling does not close the courthouse door. It means the challengers lost the emergency round, not necessarily the entire case.

The practical result is clear: Tennessee may use the new congressional districts for the 2026 election while the litigation continues.

The civic meaning is harder.

The case turns on one of the most difficult lines in modern election law: the difference between race and party.

Federal courts can strike down congressional districts drawn predominantly because of race. But under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, federal courts generally cannot strike down a congressional map merely because lawmakers drew it to benefit their political party.

That rule shaped the Tennessee decision.

Read more