News
Seeking to heal the country, Jimmy Carter pardoned men who evaded the Vietnam War draft
President Jimmy Carter waves to the crowd while walking with his wife, Rosalynn, and their daughter, Amy, along Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House following his inauguration in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 1977. On the following day, he issued a pardon for people who had evaded the Vietnam War draft.
Suzanne Vlamis/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Suzanne Vlamis/AP
President Jimmy Carter waves to the crowd while walking with his wife, Rosalynn, and their daughter, Amy, along Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House following his inauguration in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 1977. On the following day, he issued a pardon for people who had evaded the Vietnam War draft.
Suzanne Vlamis/AP
When President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated in 1977, he wasted little time fulfilling one of his most controversial campaign promises: pardoning those who evaded the Vietnam War draft.
Carter issued Proclamation 4483 on his first full day in office, less than two years after the end of what was then America’s longest war.

The new commander in chief was hoping to heal the divisions left by the conflict, but the move also drew criticism from some who believed it was too lenient toward the men who had sidestepped military service during the war.
It’s one of the defining presidential moments for Carter, who died on Dec. 29 at age 100.
Anti-war activists had urged pardons for draft violators
Carter himself had served in the armed forces before entering political life. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946 and rose to the rank of lieutenant.
But during the Vietnam War — and especially as public sentiment turned against the conflict — young men made efforts to avoid the draft.
There were legal ways to avoid the draft, such as going to college or having a medical condition that exempted you from military service. And there were illegal ways, such as fleeing to another country.
Absconding abroad required money. The majority of enlisted men who served in Vietnam came from working-class backgrounds.
As America’s involvement in the war wound down, the public was faced with the issue of what to do about those men who had eluded military service and were now in legal limbo.
Curtis W. Tarr, then the director of the Selective Service System, turns one of the two Plexiglas drums during the fourth annual draft lottery on Feb. 2, 1972. Inside are capsules containing birth dates and orders of assignment for men born in 1953.
Charles W. Harrity/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Charles W. Harrity/AP
David Kieran, a professor of military history at Columbus State University who has written about the Vietnam War, said Americans were divided on the question of whether to punish draft evaders for violating the law or forgive them to help the American public move on from the war.
“Were these people who had not lived up to their civic duty … and had failed to serve their country when their country called?” Kieran said. “On the other hand, there were people who argued these were people who had taken a moral stand against an unjust war.”
During the 1976 presidential campaign, Carter said it was critical for the country to unite after the war and vowed to pardon all the men who had evaded the draft.
“I think that now is the time to heal our country after the Vietnam War,” he said during a televised debate.
His Republican opponent, then-President Gerald Ford, didn’t support an across-the-board pardon. During his time in the White House, Ford started a program granting amnesty to some men who had evaded the draft during the Vietnam War in exchange for 24 months of public service.
Carter made good on his promise — and got flack from both sides
Carter won, and after he was inaugurated he issued a pardon for certain people who “violated the Military Selective Service Act by draft-evasion acts or omissions committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973.”
Protesters against the United States’ participation in the Vietnam War are seen outside the national headquarters of the Selective Service System, which oversees the draft, on May 3, 1971, in Washington, D.C.
AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
AFP via Getty Images
The pardon meant that the thousands of men who skirted military service and either went underground or fled abroad to countries such as Canada and Sweden wouldn’t face criminal charges. It didn’t apply to people who had begun military service and then deserted.
The move was pilloried by members of the military and conservative politicians, who said it was an insult to those who had gone to Vietnam. Sen. Barry Goldwater, a Republican from Arizona, said the pardon was “the most disgraceful thing that a president has ever done,” The Washington Post reported at the time.
Yet others said Carter’s action didn’t go far enough.
The American Veterans Committee praised the pardon but said it should have also included deserters and those who were given less-than-honorable discharges, categories that were disproportionately represented by “minority and less advantaged groups in our society.”

In the years that followed, Kieran said, conservatives continued to view liberals as apologizing for the Vietnam War, with Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan declaring in 1980 that America had fought for a “noble cause” in the country.
But decades later, Carter still defended the pardon as “the right thing to do” and saw it as an extension of the partial amnesty program undertaken by the Ford administration.
“I think, in that sense, [Carter] is seen as having made a good-faith effort,” Kieran said, “to address an issue that had been a fairly significant one in American life for nearly a decade by the time he becomes president, and really sought to find a way to help the country heal after Vietnam.”
News
Waymo called the cops on teen riders, raising privacy concerns
A Waymo robotaxi drives in San Francisco’s North Beach neighborhood this week.
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
Police in San Mateo, Calif., posted Monday on social media that they had apprehended a pair of teenagers from a Waymo driverless robotaxi after the company alerted authorities to suspected criminal activity. It’s the latest incident involving video surveillance of passengers and others by autonomous vehicles — raising questions about the limits of privacy in such vehicles.

The Facebook post by the San Mateo County Police said: “Parents do you know where your teens are? @waymo does!”
The 15-year-olds were allegedly drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns from the car, according to the police. They said Waymo’s systems detected behavior that then triggered a safety response, after which the company disabled the vehicle and contacted police.
Waymo’s cars, equipped with an array of cameras, microphones and other sensors to monitor passengers and other nearby vehicles, are becoming more common in cities across the United States. Experts say the detention of the two teens in San Mateo highlights a potential — but not inevitable — trade-off between privacy and convenience. It also questions the extent to which companies similar to Waymo are required to hand over private data, including audio and video of passengers, in situations where a crime is suspected.
NPR reached out to Waymo, which is owned by Alphabet, the parent company of Google, for comment on the details of the San Mateo incident and how the company responded, but did not hear back. But on its website, the company says that as many as 29 cameras in its autonomous cars provide an all-around view and “are designed with high dynamic range and thermal stability, to see in both daylight and low-light conditions, and tackle more complex environments.”
“There already exist laws that govern duty to report or even duty to protect” for carriers such as Waymo, according to Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of information technology at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “The privacy problems arise when and if driverless carrier companies used such laws or ethical obligations as a pretext for blanket, indiscriminate accumulation of identifiable data for unspecified future purposes.”
That includes not just monitoring people inside the cars, but outside too. Take, for example, a hit-and-run investigation last year in Los Angeles. Media reported that the police inquiry was aided by video captured by a Waymo taxi that had a clear view of the crime. Critics suggested at the time that authorities were using the company’s vehicles as a mobile surveillance platform. And during 2025 protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdowns, demonstrators vandalized Waymos, apparently angry that video recorded by the vehicles could be used by police, although there is no evidence that happened.
In a transparency report, Google says it received nearly 290,000 requests from governments worldwide in the first six months of 2025 for disclosure of user information across all its platforms, including Waymo. The company says that in more than 80% of the requests in those six months, some information was disclosed. “Google carefully reviews each request to make sure it satisfies applicable laws. If a request asks for too much information, we try to narrow it, and in some cases we object to producing any information at all,” the company says.
In an email to NPR, San Mateo Police Department spokesperson Jeanine Luna said that detaining the teens in the Waymo on Monday was “wholly appropriate” under the circumstances. “We received the call of a ‘firearm’ being shot from a moving vehicle,” she said. “Furthermore, the occupants were described as being possibly ‘intoxicated.’” she said.
“Being that the vehicle was disabled (the occupants had every right to exit the vehicle before police arrival, but they did not), a high-risk traffic stop was conducted to ensure the safety of all involved,” Luna added. “They were not arrested and were released to their parents, however, potential charges are still pending dependent on what the video from inside the vehicle shows.”
Autonomous taxis represent an ethical gray area
Robotaxis began to roll out across the U.S. in December 2018, when Waymo launched in Phoenix. These services have been used for less than a decade — so the norms surrounding them aren’t settled, experts agree.
The Facebook post may make Waymo passengers wonder what triggers a police intervention, says Irina Raicu, director of the Internet Ethics program at Santa Clara University. She has used Waymo’s driverless taxis and says ethically, the privacy issues surrounding them sit in a gray area. “There’s something about being in a car without another person that makes you think it’s private.”
“With all these recording devices, we don’t see them, [and] they’re not these obvious things being stuck in our faces,” Raicu adds.
That brings up a key issue: informed consent, Acquisti says.
“It is not clear the extent to which passengers … are reminded that when they step into the car, that they are being monitored, and most likely they are not told in its entirety how the data will be used,” he says.
Bruce Schneier, a cybersecurity and privacy expert and professor at the Munk School at the University of Toronto, believes that Waymo does have a compelling interest in protecting its vehicles. He compares monitoring a robotaxi via cameras to a human taxi driver keeping an eye on passengers in the rearview mirror.
“Maybe the driverless car comes back … and it has all of its cushions slashed, and it’s like, ‘Who the hell did that? Let’s go and look at the tape,’” Schneier suggests. “You can’t have sex in the back of a taxi, right? Someone would say, ‘Stop it.’”
He concludes that some supervision makes sense. In an Uber rideshare, he notes, “most of the time there’s a camera recording the back seat.” (Uber says on its website that it allows drivers to install such cameras for the purpose of “fulfilling transportation services.”)

Waymo robotaxis, while a fairly common sight in the San Francisco Bay Area, are still a novelty in much of the country. And many people are hesitant to ride in one, according to a Pew Research Center poll published this month. The survey found that only 5% of Americans had ever ridden in a driverless car. Meanwhile, 71% of those polled said they would feel uncomfortable in one, with only 7% saying they would be “extremely or very comfortable” riding in one.
For that reason, experts who spoke with NPR said they were optimistic that it’s not too late to shift gears on privacy norms and policies surrounding these vehicles.
Acquisti doesn’t see why privacy measures can’t be built into driverless vehicles.
“I would immediately challenge the notion that people have to be monitored,” he says, noting that privacy-preserving technologies exist and can be installed.
“Driverless cars are coming, but they don’t have to come in this particular incarnation,” Raicu says. “They’re still being designed and redesigned. It’s early days.”
News
Trump fires last members of election commission, inciting fears of midterm ‘chaos’
Donald Trump has terminated the remaining members of the independent, federal commission that assists election administration officials nationwide just a few months before the midterm elections, multiple outlets reported Thursday.
The remaining three commissioners of the four-member bipartisan commission were forced out on Thursday in different ways. The one Republican appointee resigned and the other two, Democratic appointees were notified of their terminations via email from the White House presidential personnel office.
“On behalf of President Donald J Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” the email, seen by Reuters, said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Election Assistance Commission serves as a “national clearinghouse of information on election administration”, accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, and maintains the national mail-voter registration form developed by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, according to the commission’s website. The terminations follow Trump and top administration officials’ advocacy to change vote-by-mail requirements and investigations into the 2020 election outcome, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
“It is irresponsible and dangerous that this Administration remains dead set on causing chaos for our election officials across this country,” Arizona secretary of state Adrian Fontes said in a Thursday statement. “This move undermines the integrity of nonpartisan election administration.”
The 2002 law that established the commission, the Help America Vote Act, states the president can appoint replacements to the commission.
It is unclear how Trump will move ahead with the commission.
Reuters contributed reporting
News
Former Olympian pleads not guilty in reflecting pool vandalism charges
Former U.S. Olympian David Hearn (left) walks with his attorney Norman Eisen to speak to reporters and protesters gathered after his arraignment at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.
Finn Gomez/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Finn Gomez/Getty Images
Former U.S. Olympic canoeist David Hearn pleaded not guilty to damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in D.C. Superior Court Thursday morning.
Federal prosecutors charged Hearn with a single count of destruction of property causing more than $1,000 in damage to the pool.

Hearn has previously claimed, which his attorneys repeated during a short press conference outside the court, that he simply touched the water in the pool out of curiosity.
The Trump administration had just completed a $14 million renovation of the pool.
But shortly after the work finished, peeling paint and algae gathered in the water. The remodel has been largely criticized as a massive failure and waste of taxpayer dollars.

Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean released Hearn on his own recognizance. His next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 5.
Norm Eisen, one of Hearn’s attorneys, spoke to reporters outside of court following the hearing. He said the administration is using Hearn as a “scapegoat … for their own failures.”
“It is not a crime to touch the reflecting pool, to touch water in the United States of America,” he said.
Prosecutors say there is a host of evidence against Hearn.
This is a developing story.
-
Movie Reviews7 minutes ago‘Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass’ Review: We’re Off to Hump the Wizard
-
World14 minutes agoBacklash on ethanol-blend fuel intensifies in India, puts carmakers in the dock
-
Politics25 minutes ago
Crews Drape Tarp Over White House in Latest Trump Restoration
-
Health39 minutes agoGLP-1 Users’ Guide to Protein Snacks: Here’s What a Dietitian Actually Recommends
-
Lifestyle54 minutes ago‘The Invite’ is a marriage comedy with sex and heart
-
Technology1 hour agoI spent a week using the Trump phone — it sucks
-
World1 hour agoWith US unleashing attacks, Iranian official threatens that the Islamic Republic will deliver a ‘hard slap’
-
Politics1 hour agoWATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices