New England Quarterback Drake Maye Touts Marriage and Family

At a time when professional athletes frequently make headlines for their negative commentary, New England Patriots quarterback Drake Maye recently had some positive opinions to share.

A little background on the quarterback is in order.

While in college, Maye played football for the North Carolina Tar Heels. In 2022 he won the title of ACC Football Player of the Year, after having led the NCAA in total yardage. And as a second-year player in the NFL, he continues to exceed all expectations.

Now at the prime age of 23, Maye has the distinct honor of leading the Patriots this coming Sunday to Super Bowl LX against the Seattle Seahawks.

The rising star recently gave a heartfelt endorsement of marriage and family as a primary source of strength, joy, and personal fulfillment.

During the Super Bowl Opening Night press conferences, Maye was asked about his own marriage to wife Ann Michael Maye. He gave an earnest response, praising marriage as “one of the best decisions” of his life, even crediting the institution for having a positive impact on his career and personal life.

He didn’t mince words.

“I definitely would advise [my teammates] to eventually get married. It’s one of the best things in life… There’s no better feeling than coming home to a wife that loves you and cares for you and is worried about your best interests,” he said, adding, “I chose to get married young and I don’t regret it one bit.”

Far from being a scripted soundbite, Maye and Ann Michael have been together since attending middle school together in North Carolina, where they began building a relationship rooted in faith, shared history, mutual support, and quiet commitment.

Their June 2025 wedding came after years of dating through high school and college and on into his budding NFL journey.

Maye’s personal story stands as a powerful counter-narrative to a sub-group of the culture that all too often glorifies excessive self-gratification, serial dating, and superficial interaction as rites of passage.

His comments highlight some fundamental principles about marriage and family, which a wide swath of modern society has largely downplayed.

A loving relationship within the bonds of marriage has the potential to provide a mental and emotional stability, sense of belonging, spiritual grounding, and motivation apart from self-interest that may be difficult to achieve and sustain, minus society’s legal, cultural, and/or religious validation.

Considering his public expressions, it should come as no surprise that the QB is a sincere man of faith.

After the New England Patriots clinched the AFC Championship, Maye expressed his gratitude to the Creator of the Universe. In his postgame interview, he said, “I thank the good Lord.”

While answering questions ahead of the Super Bowl, Maye revealed his priorities.

“Being a follower of Jesus Christ is the biggest thing in my life,” he said.

To this end, in December of 2025 he said, “I think the biggest thing is using my platform to spread the Word and spread the good news.”

Under Maye’s leadership, the Patriots have reached the biggest pro football game of the year. The QB’s statements on marriage and family are adding to the feel-good narrative.

He credits his wife with supporting his career while pursuing her own passions. Her viral baking videos have endeared her to Patriots fans, who refer to her as the “First Lady of New England.”

Maye spoke of the simple joy of coming home to someone who genuinely cares about his well-being, something that, amid the pressures of NFL life, has clearly fueled his on-field growth and leadership traits.

In praising marriage, Maye is in no way imposing his choices on others. He was careful to say that his teammates “have a right to do whatever they choose.” At the same time, he is sharing his own experience as evidence that commitment early in life can lead to profound good.

The approach of personal testimony, without passing judgement, makes his position all the more compelling and is a quiet affirmation of the leadership he displays that inspires without lecturing.

As the Super Bowl unfolds, Maye has already scored a victory for marriage and family.

It’s an age-old back to the future tale. Build your life around someone else and watch love multiply.

The Imaginary Notion of a Sanctuary City or State

Many people in our country are painfully aware of the numerous clashes that have recently occurred between protesters and our state and federal law enforcement officials.

A lot of folks have also heard the word “sanctuary” being bandied about, in reference to the policies of some of the major cities and states within the U.S.

I thought I would do a deeper dive into the meaning of the word “sanctuary” within its current political context to try and shed some light on what has happened, what may happen next, and how we as a nation can find a way to navigate the uncharted waters.

From California’s longstanding policies to Minnesota’s more recent defiance amid ICE operations, these state jurisdictions appear to be working to severely limit cooperation between state and federal immigration authorities.

Certain jurisdictions have refused to honor detainer requests or lend assistance in deportation matters, even in cases that involve the most dangerous of criminals.

Proponents of city and state sanctuary policies claim to be guardians of civil liberties. However, a closer examination reveals that sanctuary status is actually a legal fiction.

In my research, I have found the idea of sanctuary cities and states to be a clever contrivance. Clever, but at the same time insidious, because it skirts federal supremacy and flirts with partial secession.

As President Donald Trump’s administration attempts to restore the rule of law, logic dictates that it is an appropriate time to deconstruct the sanctuary myth and clarify the constitutional principle of uniform enforcement of the law.

The concept of a sanctuary jurisdiction is dependent on something called “the anti-commandeering doctrine,” which was set forth in specific Supreme Court rulings as follows:

– In New York v. United States (1992), the High Court struck down parts of a federal law that required states to take title to radioactive waste if they failed to regulate the waste themselves. The majority held that Congress cannot “commandeer” state legislatures into enacting federal programs.

– In Printz v. United States (1997), SCOTUS invalidated certain provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun buyers.

– In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the doctrine was used to prohibit Congress from barring states from authorizing sports betting.

The Supreme Court has not yet directly ruled on sanctuary policies in a major case.

Lower courts, however, have applied this doctrine to affirm that cities or states do not have to cooperate with federal agents who are enforcing immigration law.

This interpretation, in my opinion, is a legal fiction, because it is built on a selective reading of the law, which ignores the broader constitutional framework.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) declares federal law to be the “supreme Law of the Land,” preempting conflicting state actions.

By actively obstructing federal efforts, such as prohibiting local police from notifying federal law enforcement about arrested illegal immigrants, sanctuary policies do not merely deny law enforcement the much-needed assistance, such policies materially interfere with national sovereignty.

There is the very real practical fallout of the implementation of city and/or state sanctuary policies.

In sanctuary strongholds, federal law enforcement professionals, in the midst of carrying out their official duties, are forced to maneuver through a labyrinth of obstructive non-cooperation, which may lead to serious risk of harm to themselves and to the public at large.

Notably, federal law (e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1373) prohibits states from restricting information-sharing about immigration status. And even more importantly, the federal law prohibits states from going beyond mere non-cooperation into active obstruction.

Obstruction is precisely what we are now witnessing in places such as the state of Minnesota. Under the Supremacy Clause, actions involving obstruction are directly crossing over into preemption territory, thereby rendering them illegal.

The Department of Justice’s August 2025 list, which designated states (including California, Illinois, and New York) as sanctuaries, underscores this. These areas create de facto safe havens in which federal immigration law is selectively ignored.

Rather than applying law, courts have allowed states to nullify federal policy without the outright defiance of the Nullification Crises, which put forth the idea that a state could declare federal laws unconstitutional and thus void within its borders. This tested the Union’s cohesion and was a precursor to the Civil War.

This brings us into a discussion of “secession.”

Sanctuary policies are, in essence, a form of partial secession, a kind of veiled attempt to carve out territorial exemptions from national authority.

By declaring certain cities or states off-limits to full federal enforcement, these jurisdictions are asserting a type of faux-sovereignty, which mirrors the resistance of the Confederate states to the abolition of slavery.

Imagine if states were to refuse to cooperate with federal tax collection, environmental regulations, etc. Such defiant fragmentation could never be tolerated.

Immigration, which is a core federal power under Article I, Section 8, demands uniformity in order to prevent chaos.

Defiance of federal law has an actual human toll, one that history demonstrates may lead to tragic consequences.

Congress needs to pass legislation affirming that while states should not be “commandeered,” they also cannot obstruct federal operations.

The Union must be protected.

For this to happen we need a return to reality.

Time to end the illegal charade of sanctuary cities and states.

May the USA remain that way.

The Never-ending Erosion of Privacy

In this era of out-of-control crime, certain retail chains and big-box stores are now using surveillance technology in an effort to address the massive amount of theft that has been taking place.

Up until recently, folks were generally unaware that such surveillance methods were being utilized by establishments. But as word has spread, so has public concern. And for good reason.

Newly applied surveillance techniques now include the use of facial recognition devices, which quietly scan and store biometric data on customers as they shop for everyday groceries and household supplies.

Biometric data are comprised of unique physical and behavioral characteristics that collectively determine each individual’s personal identity.

The biometric data that are being collected include, among other things, unique facial geometry, iris or retina patterns, hand geometry, behavioral traits, and even voiceprints.

This type of data is fundamentally different from personal information that was collected in the past. These data are processed electronically and are highly sensitive due to their uniqueness and permanence.

Unlike a password or credit card information, which after suffering a security breach can be changed, biometric information is generally a fixed measure. As such, once data are collected and stored, the information contained within is fixed as well, meaning it cannot be revoked or altered.

The primary type of biometric data currently being collected falls under the category of facial recognition, i.e., the use of technology to scan the face of an individual via an in-store device.

The in-store device collects and stores the one-and-only facial geometry of a distinct individual, creating a kind of “template” or mathematical representation of the individual’s face.

Use of this kind of technology raises major privacy concerns, particularly due to its ability to scan individuals en masse, and do so without first obtaining consent.

Signs displayed at the entrances of some Wegmans grocery store outlets located in New York City now disclose, as per the local law, that specified data collection is being conducted on the premises.

However, in many other retail establishments across the country, shoppers are not being forewarned.

Things are happening quickly, though. Some high-profile retailers, including Walmart, Target, and Home Depot, are currently facing lawsuits for practices similar to the ones implemented at Wegmans.

Certain companies have attempted to justify biometric data collection, claiming that the tool enhances overall security measures.

However, to legal scholars and average folks alike, the risks to privacy, the possible misuse of personal data, and the potential violation of civil liberties certainly appear to outweigh the commercial benefit that retailers are seeking.

Entering a store is hardly an agreement to be the subject of biometric surveillance. In most jurisdictions, customers have no practical way to refuse.

Consent, within the retail context, is an illusion.

With regard to regulation, it is primarily effectuated in the United States at a state and local level, with no comprehensive federal law governing private or governmental use of facial recognition and similar technologies.

Additionally, there is no federal statute that specifically regulates facial recognition or biometric data collection by either private entities or for governmental use.

The Federal Trade Commission has warned of inherent harms in biometric data collection technologies.

Some states are moving to ban retail facial recognition outright, recognizing that people shouldn’t have to surrender their biometric privacy for merely wanting or needing to shop for groceries.

Even in jurisdictions where disclosure is required, such as New York City, the practice of biometric data collection persists, without any affirmative permission from customers.

A number of state laws have led to lawsuits against retailers for collecting data without having obtained informed consent. However, the patchwork legal reality in the United States has left far too many Americans unprotected, basically allowing companies to treat public spaces as data-mining operations.

Aside from the privacy issue, these systems allow for deeper intrusions. For example, the biometric data can be used for what is known as “surveillance pricing,” where retailers track behavior such as the length of time one lingers in a certain aisle in order to charge an individual more money, based on a perceived willingness to pay.

Facial recognition technology also has the capacity to analyze emotions or demographics for the purposes of targeted marketing, a kind of shopping profiling, if you will.

It is my legal as well as my personal opinion that the time has come to ban altogether the practice of biometric surveillance in retail spaces.

While we wait for this to happen, here’s an idea:

All like-minded shoppers unite, and with what privacy we still have left we take our faces elsewhere.

Are you in?

Nick Reiner’s Uphill Legal Battle

In a case that has shocked the entertainment world, Nick Reiner, son of legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner, stands accused of first-degree murder of his father, and also of his mother, Michele Reiner.

With the inevitable backdrop of the glaring Hollywood spotlight, time will tell whether Reiner’s murder trial ends up devolving into a spectacle of celebrity privilege and familial drama.

Reiner, if convicted, faces life in prison without parole.

Battle lines within the courtroom have already been drawn. His defense team is being led by high-profile attorney Alan Jackson, who previously represented disgraced filmmaker Harvey Weinstein as well as Karen Read, who was accused of murder and subsequently acquitted.

The prosecution team is being led by Habib Balian. Balian is well known for his prosecutorial work on the cases of Robert Durst and the Menendez brothers.

Reiner’s defense team is signaling that the lawyers will likely go in the direction of an insanity plea, a strategy that many legal experts characterize as a steep climb.

This is exactly as it should be.

Far from being flawed, the rigorous standards in our courts for proving insanity are designed to be a safeguard against abuse, ensuring that even in high-profile, heart wrenching, inter-family cases such as this, justice will remain blind.

To be clear, the insanity defense is not, and should never be, a get-out-of-jail-free card for heinous acts.

In most U.S. jurisdictions (including California where Reiner’s case unfolds), defendants must not just prove mental illness was present, but they must also prove that they were incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the crime.

This is known as the M’Naghten Rule, the legal standard for the insanity defense, which originates from a case in England back in 1843.

Interestingly, it is a standard that, when applied, succeeds in approximately 1% of the cases in which it is attempted.

With regard to Reiner, reports suggest that his history of mental health struggles, and possible substance abuse, will be central to the plea. However, in practice, voluntary drug use rarely qualifies as legal insanity. It often points instead to diminished capacity at best, which might mitigate sentencing, but does not absolve guilt.

The maintaining of the tradition that makes it difficult to assert an insanity defense is important for society at large. It prevents the legal strategy from being weaponized in cases in which the desire for rehabilitation might generate public sympathy, despite the gravity of the crime.

If every defendant with a psychologist’s report could claim temporary madness, prisons would be empty and the families of victims would be left without recourse or closure.

In Reiner’s situation, the alleged premeditation (evidenced by crime scene details that are emerging) makes an insanity verdict even less likely. This is not injustice, but rather it is the system working to hold individuals responsible, regardless of their circumstances or position within society.

Because Reiner’s father was a renowned Hollywood filmmaker, a media frenzy is to be expected, as is speculation about motives.

At this point in time, it is reassuring that the case seems to be being handled like any other first-degree murder prosecution, unswayed by the Reiner family’s fame or inter-family dynamics.

In a recent courtroom appearance, Reiner was denied bail and is being kept incarcerated until he proceeds to trial, much like any other defendant in a similar position would be. No red-carpet treatment, but simply hearing the judge’s gavel strike in the same manner it would for any other individual.

This manifestation of equality under the law is precisely the way it is supposed to be.

We have seen far too many instances in which wealth and status appear to compromise the quality of justice itself, via deferred prosecutions, dismissed cases, and lenient sentences for those who are powerful, affluent, or well-connected.

In the Reiner criminal proceeding up until the present, prosecutors appear to have been using the full weight of evidence, pushing forward with witness statements and a timeline that paints a picture of deliberate violence.

The inter-family aspect adds layers of sorrow, no doubt. Rob and Michele were not just victims, but a father and a mother, purportedly losing their lives in a gruesome manner, allegedly at the hands of their own son, a loss that would tear any household apart.

Despite these alleged factors, though, the court thus far understands that the case should not be treated as a private family matter to be hushed up or plea-bargained away behind closed doors.

The high-profile nature of the case serves to remind us all that murder is murder, regardless of where it takes place or the societal ranking of the individuals involved.

Numerous observers have pointed out that the celebrity aspects of the case may create biases that can cut both ways, with jurors potentially being starstruck or, in contrast, overly punitive.

In its exquisiteness, the law has the protective mechanisms of jury selection, sequestering, and an appellate system that work together to keep fairness in the forefront.

May the principles that guide our legal system remain intact, and may justice for all prevail.

The Long-term Consequences of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is a philosophical construct in which there are no objective moral truths. There are only subjective truths that are shaped by a society’s hierarchy of authority, cultural norms, and myriad feelings on the part of its individual members.

In this article, I will attempt to give readers some background knowledge about:

– Moral relativism;

– The manner in which the construct has in a major way supplanted our nation’s long-standing moral framework;

– And the danger that moral relativism continues to pose for our society should we fail to reverse course.

In the United States, the concept of moral relativism first emerged within our universities. Then slowly but steadily it seeped into our governmental structure and our culture at large.

Its origin can be traced to the works of anthropologist Franz Boas and his students at Columbia University. Boas set out to destroy the concept of ranked cultures, i.e., that some cultures can be assigned higher or lower rankings than those of others.

Boaz and company insisted that each culture must be evaluated on its own terms and is never to be judged by external standards.

This cultural relativism quickly metamorphosed into moral relativism, meaning that no culture’s moral system should ever be assigned a higher or lower ranking than that of another.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Boaz’s students (which included cultural anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict) turned moral relativism into a popular doctrine. By the 1960s, the construct had handily made its way into the popular culture.

The relativistic views of Mead and Benedict were routinely cited as a means in which to argue that the acceptable standards of the times were, in actuality, just one cultural option among many.

By the 1970s, largely due to the implementation of multicultural education, the idea was put forth that diverse cultures have diverse moral frameworks, and imposing one group’s values on another is, in essence, a form of oppression.

So here is where we find ourselves today.

What started out as an obscure academic theory is currently the predominant operating ideology of many who hold the reins of power in our country.

Moral relativism was pushed upon our society, and it slowly and insidiously demolished a major portion of our shared moral framework.

It promises liberation but delivers anarchy.

It tells each and every individual that it is perfectly acceptable to make up your own personal rules.

It obliterates the lines between right and wrong, allowing for extremism to be justified and enabling those who wish to harm others to rationalize their unthinkable actions.

Is it any wonder that after decades of moral relativism imperatives, our society is no longer able to agree on the basic definitions of right and wrong?

For many of us it is painfully apparent that we are now living through the wretched fallout of relativistic thinking as it pertains to society’s moral code.

As we have seen, moral relativism all too frequently leads to deadly consequences.

Through tear-stained eyes we saw waves of unspeakable violence crash from shore to shore. And even as we watched we knew in our hearts the tempest was in no way over.

When a society accepts the idea that “truth” is whatever feels authentic, objective standards cease to exist. If everything is permissible, nothing is protected.

Without a common moral foundation, there is no debate over the best means to shared ends. There is only a raw power struggle in which violence is acceptable and might makes right.

Western civilization was built on the conviction that certain truths are self-evident; that human beings are created equal in dignity, not outcome; that rights come from God rather than government’s whim; and that marriage and family are society’s cornerstones.

Many have abandoned these shared principles in favor of the shifting sands of “my own truth.” But a society that cannot agree on what is virtue and vice is one that is hurtling toward collapse.

What’s the antidote to moral relativism? Well, for starters, cooler heads, clearer thinking, and caring attitudes.

If our nation is ever to regain its moral footing, it is essential that our society return to the values that carried us through for centuries.

But here’s the catch. In order for this to occur, our people have to really want it.

The question is, Do enough of us?

The answer determines our destiny.

The Threat Posed by the Democratic Socialists of America

For decades many of us were warning that socialism (a.k.a., communism lite) was slowly creeping onto the American stage, largely due to an organization called the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Now, following Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City’s November 5, 2025 mayoral election, things have become crystal clear. Overt socialism has gotten a major foothold in the largest and most iconic city in America.

Time to take a more in-depth look at DSA.

With over 80,000 dues-paying members, including 11 sitting members of Congress and over 200 state and local officials, DSA has been able to wrestle control of the levers of power in a number of key places in the U.S.

In New York City, the group controls key committees, and in Chicago, 6 DSA members have a seat at the city council’s table.

DSA presents itself as a champion of compassion. However, beneath rhetoric such as “medicare for all” and “affordable housing” lies a radical agenda rooted in Marxist ideology.

The organization has been following the communist playbook to a T, seeking to obtain power through infiltration. It has made insidious steady progress toward this goal.

Unfortunately, it is currently the central focal point of energy for the Democratic Party, a party that appears to have so lost its way it is difficult to imagine any kind of return to sensibility.

Now let’s look at DSA’s core ideology.

Founded in 1982, its ideology is firmly rooted in Marxism, advocating for the end to all capitalism in favor of governmental control of industry.

The organization explicitly calls for the abolition of private property, the nationalization of enterprise, and the replacement of the free market system.

Most of the sustained attempts at the implementation of its ideology have ultimately arrived at communism’s doorstep. Communism’s legacy is one of economic decay, governmental ruin, and social collapse, a distinct pattern that is historically consistent across time, place, and events.

DSA’s own platform, updated in 2023, demands “public ownership of utilities, housing, and finance,” “decommodifying healthcare and education,” and “seizing the means of production,” all prequels to the imposition of totalitarianism and freedom’s ultimate demise.

The reality is DSA is a political insurgency with a proven playbook: Infiltrate, normalize, and dismantle.

Its youth wing, Young Democratic Socialists, is in favor of “abolishing prisons,” a prescription for crime and chaos that disproportionately harms the very vulnerable communities the group professes that it is seeking to protect.

DSA’s 2024 platform calls for nationalizing key sectors of the economy, such as energy and housing.

Its working group, “Ecosocialism,” advocates for “planned degrowth,” deliberately working to shrink the economy in order to meet specified climate goals.

The organization’s 2024 convention passed a resolution that called for “expropriating fossil fuel companies” and “banning private real estate development,” resolutions that translate into a form of national self-destruction.

DSA’s policies reflect a visceral hatred for the free market, and conversely, a worship of government. This inevitably leads to food shortages, black markets, and Soviet-style oppression.

The tenets of its foreign policy are equally atrocious. DSA’s “International Committee” has called for cutting all aid to Israel. It has hosted events with activists that are linked to terrorist groups. And it has refused to condemn Hamas’s October 7 massacre.

A document from the NYC-DSA’s Anti-War Working Group (AWWG), which was recently obtained by the Just The News website, shows AWWG has been plotting ways to pressure newly-elected New York mayor Mamdani to comply with its “demands.”

Demands include arresting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and active IDF soldiers, divesting city pension funds from Israeli securities, withdrawing city funds from banks that do business with Israel, ending city contracts with companies that do business with Israel, operating city-run grocery stores free from Israeli products, and evicting weapons manufacturers and transporters from New York City.

Mamdani is a longtime DSA member and leader. He is listed as one of the group’s “New York State Socialists in Office.”

When DSA-aligned officials are in power, “defund the police” efforts are typically underway as well, leading to skyrocketing crime rates.

Homicides were already up 30% in NYC post-2020, according to FBI data. Now with Mamdani’s victory secured, the trend is unlikely to be NYC’s friend.

Those who are DSA-aligned have also pushed for open borders and sanctuary policies, which have fueled a host of crises, including fentanyl overdoses, human trafficking, surging crime rates, and wage suppression for working-class Americans.

DSA’s own rhetoric betrays itself. Co-chairperson Ari Rabin-Havt recently tweeted about “seizing the means of production” as essential to combating climate change, ignoring how such seizures in Cuba and Nicaragua have led to corruption and poverty.

The communism that DSA is peddling has a 100% failure rate. This is because, among other irrefutable things, it violates human nature and defies economic realities.

We ignore this group at our peril.

It may be that many who subscribe to socialist ideology have never had to work to protect their rights. Someone else has always done that for them.

As one who with wholehearted rejection of communism and its socialism offspring has battled across decades to preserve our God-given rights, I speak for those of us who are still willing to continue to do so.

Just praying that it’s not too late.

The Dangers of AI Companions

These days it seems that people of all ages are turning to chatbots to satisfy some of our most fundamental human needs, especially conversational interactions, friendship connections, and romantic courtships.

Those who regularly engage with chatbots may or may not realize that they may actually be forfeiting genuine connections in exchange for digital illusions.

Emerging research is sounding the alarm about the dangers of human-AI interaction.

AI companions, such as chatbots, have been programmed to provide emotional support. While this may sound fine on paper, such “pseudo-intimacy” often turns out to be a double-edged sword.

People are interacting with AI “personalities” that are programmed to be encouraging of whatever is being discussed. Responses to questions are instantaneous. They are also typically tailored to satisfy the human user’s personal desires.

A 2024 study in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication highlighted how algorithmic communications mimic closeness but also lack the authenticity of genuine human bonds. The resultant bi-directional interactions lead users to over-interpret superficial cues and form unhealthy dependencies.

Far from alleviating isolation, such interactions often deepen it as users retreat from the unpredictable nature of real relationships into the sterile comfort of contrived companionship.

AI-driven tools in the workplace automate collaboration, diminishing the need for human teamwork. This weakens human bonds.

Employees who frequently interact with AI systems report higher levels of loneliness, which in turn may be linked to insomnia and other potentially harmful post-work activity, such as excessive alcohol consumption.

People innately sense the artificiality of AI interaction. Recent surveys underscore this human response.

A Pew Research Center study from June 2025 found that a majority of Americans believe AI will worsen our ability to form meaningful relationships, with far more people seeing erosion rather than improvement in human connections.

As AI saturates our daily lives, instead of bridging gaps it appears to be widening them, prompting solitude to grow into a silent epidemic.

The digital age has already caused loss of empathy and erosion of essential social skills.

Human interaction thrives on in-person experience. An essential part of communication is non-verbal nuance. Speech and voice variations are accompanied by subtle glances, hesitant pauses, and empathetic nods.

In contrast, AI simplifies communication to digital prompts and programmed algorithms. Vital human elements are stripped away.

Research from the Gulu College of Health Sciences in March 2025 warns that excessive engagement with AI companions leads to decreased social skills, emotional detachment, and difficulties in maintaining authentic relationships.

By redefining communication norms, AI reduces our capacity for understanding non-verbal cues, which is a skill honed through face-to-face encounters.

Beyond the individual, AI-human interaction threatens the fabric of society. Algorithms curate echo chambers, limiting independent thought and fostering division.

As AI reshapes standards in communication and interaction, it blurs lines between human and machine, thereby normalizing friendless lives and eroding shared cultural and spiritual identities.

The resultant fragmentation from AI raises profound questions about consent, bias, and the commodification of intimacy. Without intervention, we face a world proliferated with AI relationships. It is a world fraught with danger to the well-being of both the individual and society at large.

A longitudinal study on chatbot use, published by MIT in March 2025, revealed rising concerns about its impact on real-world socialization. Overall, higher daily usage of chatbots correlated with higher loneliness and dependence.

Younger generations immersed in AI from childhood are particularly vulnerable, with studies showing reduced patience for ambiguity and a decline in social intelligence.

Social intelligence refers to an individual’s ability to comprehend, execute, and navigate social interaction, which, among other things, may include predominant verbal and non-verbal cues.

As users prioritize digital efficiency over interpersonal depth, society runs the risk of creating isolates, i.e., those who are proficient in prompting machines but inept at connecting with other individuals.

AI’s foray into mental health poses an additional alarming danger. Because access barriers to therapy are increasing, tens of thousands are turning to AI chatbots for mental health counseling.

A June 2025 Stanford study cautions that these mental health tools may reinforce stigma, deliver dangerous advice, or fall significantly short of human empathy.

Harvard researchers found similar results, also noting that emotional wellness apps foster serious attachments and dependencies and may potentially do more harm than good.

Increasing reports of AI-induced mental issues are mounting. Clinicians document cases of psychosis, suicide, and even murder-suicide, which are stemming from intense chatbot interactions.

It is not possible or, in my opinion, ethically acceptable to outsource the mental health needs of our people to a string of calculated algorithms.

Without boundaries, widespread use of non-human mental health counseling is resulting in atrophied social skills, increased loneliness, and, in the worst of cases, a collapse in mental health functioning.

Tech leaders have the responsibility to prioritize real connections over robotic replicas. It is essential for the AI industry to work towards more human-centric designs of technology.

It is also important to simultaneously implement a set of ethical standards. The underlying philosophy that defines the ethical standards will ultimately shape society’s destiny.

In my eyes, the future is binary. Each of us is being forced to make a decision.Take care in the choices that you make.

Humanity is hanging in the balance.