This Storyboard - which we call our "stain" chart - shows you at a glance how strong or weak a given narrative is right now relative to its history.

For each narrative or "semantic signature" listed on the left of the chart, we have a series of blue dots on the right, each of which represents a specific weekly density or volume of that narrative. reading from within the date range that we are covering. The red arrow is the most recent reading, so it's just like the "YOU ARE HERE" spot on a map. The x-axis scale shows the range of index values.  If a dot is at 100, that means that story is 100% more present in media than usual. If it’s at 0, it means it’s at its normal level.

The light blue shaded box covers the middle 50% of readings across the date range, so you can see quickly if the current reading is typical (inside the blue box), depressed (left of the blue box), or elevated (to the right of the blue box).

If you hover over a specific blue dot, you will see the specific date and measurement that the dot represents.

The Pulse

Emergency Powers, Privacy Rights, and Free Speech Absolutism: Media Narratives Reflect a Deepening Contest Over Government Authority in the AI Era

Executive Summary

- The Supreme Court's ruling striking down emergency tariff authority crystallized the quarter's dominant media tension: pro-dissent language remains the single strongest signal in our dataset, even as calls for governmental loyalty surged more than any other tracked narrative in a single month. The administration's framing of judicial checks on executive power as "unpatriotic" represents a direct articulation of the loyalty narrative, but that narrative still trails the dissent frame by a wide margin in media prominence, while due process language strengthened alongside rising—but still subdued—arguments that emergencies justify departures from standard legal process.

- Privacy rights language is rapidly returning toward its long-term average while pro-surveillance justifications remain the weakest signal in the entire dataset, creating a stark asymmetry that reflects growing media skepticism toward AI-enabled monitoring. The Anthropic-Pentagon dispute, ICE's expansion of cloud-stored surveillance data, and a wave of state privacy legislation all gave concrete form to abstract privacy concerns, while national security counterarguments failed to gain corresponding traction.

- Free speech absolutism continues to strengthen while language advocating speech restrictions posted its steepest single-month decline, a widening gap that the federal government is actively leveraging to challenge state-level AI safety and content regulation. The administration's framing of state AI bias-mitigation and transparency laws as First Amendment violations connects directly to this ascendant absolutist frame, and the concurrent rise of American freedom exceptionalism in media language reinforces the rhetorical foundation for that argument.

- Across all three domains examined—emergency powers, surveillance, and content regulation—a consistent pattern emerges: media narratives favoring individual rights and limits on government power are substantially stronger than narratives justifying government authority. This imbalance suggests that the rhetorical environment is broadly inhospitable to expansions of federal authority over AI, even as the executive branch actively pursues them through preemption of state laws and pressure on private firms.

- The federal-state conflict over AI governance is the connective thread linking these domains: the SCOTUS ruling's separation-of-powers logic constrains executive preemption of state AI laws, yet states are advancing hundreds of bills that the administration characterizes as unconstitutional—setting the stage for a prolonged legal and political confrontation in which media framing will shape public receptivity to each side's claims.

---

Dissent, Due Process, and the Limits of Emergency Power

Perscient's semantic signature tracking the density of language asserting that resisting an oppressive government is patriotic remains the strongest signal in our entire dataset, carrying an index value of 66. Though it moderated by 7.6 points from the prior month, its level is well above average, indicating that pro-dissent framing continues to pervade American media discourse. At the same time, our semantic signature tracking language calling on Americans to be loyal to their government in times of danger rose by 28.7 points, the largest single-month increase of any tracked narrative. Even so, this signature remains below average at an index value of -18, meaning that while calls for governmental loyalty are gaining ground, they remain substantially less prominent than the prevailing dissent narrative.

The tension between these two signals was crystallized on February 20, 2026, when the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources et al v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In a 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that "the president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope," but the administration "points to no statute" in which Congress has previously used IEEPA's language to authorize taxation. The Court's reasoning rested on the principle that sweeping executive action requires clear congressional authorization, a point SCOTUSblog's analysis emphasized: the ruling holds that there is "no emergency exception" to the requirement that Congress explicitly delegate such power.

President Trump's response mapped directly onto the contest between these two signatures. At a White House press conference, he called the ruling "deeply disappointing" and said that he was "ashamed of certain members of the court" for "not having the courage to do what's right for our country," describing the justices as "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." This framing, which characterizes judicial checks on executive authority as disloyalty, represents a near-literal articulation of the pro-loyalty signature's language. One user argued that "the president can't abuse his executive powers to declare needless emergencies so he can bypass checks and balances," while another celebrated the Court's dissent as enabling a "greatest expansion of executive trade authority." Treasury Secretary Bessent called the ruling "a loss for the American people" because it stripped the president's "instantaneous leverage."

Perscient's semantic signature tracking language affirming that everyone in America has a right to due process holds an index value of 51, having risen by 7.3 points, while its paired signature tracking language arguing that universal due process is unrealistic during an emergency rose by 23.7 points to -40. That both signatures strengthened in the same month reflects an intensifying debate over whether emergency conditions justify departure from standard legal process. The Brennan Center has tracked 25 shadow docket decisions concerning administration actions since January 2025, underscoring that the emergency powers contest pervades multiple areas of executive authority. One editorial put it this way: "No leader nor nation is above criticism, and to think opposition is unpatriotic confuses dissent with disloyalty."

For AI organizations, the SCOTUS ruling has direct implications. The same separation-of-powers logic that constrained executive use of emergency statutes on tariffs also applies to the December 2025 executive order seeking to preempt state AI laws. Under the Court's reasoning, the executive branch lacks authority unless Congress has explicitly enacted a law providing regulatory authority. The interaction of four signatures—strong pro-dissent, rising pro-loyalty, strong due process, and rising emergency exception—describes a media environment in which the legitimacy of government power and the obligation to resist or defer are being debated with considerable intensity.

Privacy Rights Rebound as AI-Driven Surveillance Concerns Reshape the Regulatory Environment

The contest over government authority extends to surveillance, where privacy narratives are rebounding. Perscient's semantic signature tracking the density of language asserting Americans' right not to be monitored by their government rose by 22.5 points to an index value of -4, approaching its long-term average for the first time in recent months. This marks a meaningful shift from its prior level of -26.

Our semantic signature tracking language arguing that defending America against terror threats requires some surveillance remains deeply depressed at an index value of -82, the lowest value of any tracked signature. While it rose modestly by 8.7 points, the pro-surveillance argument remains nearly absent from media discourse. Privacy rights language is returning toward baseline while pro-surveillance justifications remain far below it. This asymmetry suggests that media discourse is growing more receptive to privacy claims without a corresponding increase in counterarguments grounded in national security.

This shift is unfolding against concrete policy developments. Analysts were already tracking 300 AI-related bills at the state level as of early February 2026, many addressing data privacy, surveillance pricing, and algorithmic transparency. New consumer privacy frameworks took effect in January 2026 in Indiana, Kentucky, and Rhode Island. Cities like Seattle are formalizing oversight frameworks for AI-powered surveillance technologies. And on February 23, 2026, a Joint Statement on AI-Generated Imagery was published by 61 data protection authorities addressing concerns about AI systems generating realistic images of identifiable individuals without consent.

The Anthropic dispute brought these dynamics into sharp focus. When the Pentagon reportedly pressured Anthropic to allow its AI models to be used for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous operations, employees at Google and OpenAI publicly backed Anthropic's refusal. The Trump administration subsequently ordered federal agencies to stop using Anthropic technology, intensifying the tension between national security justifications and privacy protections. Separately, reporting revealed that ICE more than tripled the amount of data stored in Microsoft's cloud while its surveillance technology arsenal expanded.

Meanwhile, the federal executive order on AI regulation explicitly seeks to limit state authority over AI surveillance and data collection, directing the Attorney General to challenge state AI laws deemed inconsistent with federal policy. States are advancing privacy protections just as the federal government asserts the power to preempt them.

Perscient's semantic signature tracking language criticizing American capitalism as a system of socialized losses and privatized gains holds a modestly above-average index value of 19, having risen by 2.2 points. Concerns that AI-driven data collection disproportionately benefits corporations while exposing individual citizens to monitoring align with a broader critique of who bears costs in the American economic system. New York's mandatory disclosure requirement for algorithmically set prices using personal data exemplifies this intersection of privacy and economic fairness. For AI organizations, the rapid rise of the privacy rights signature amid near-silence in pro-surveillance language signals that media coverage is increasingly skeptical of technologies perceived as enabling monitoring, with direct implications for product positioning, data governance, and public messaging.

Free Speech Absolutism Strengthens Amid Federal-State Conflict

Content regulation presents another dimension of the federal-state conflict over AI governance. Perscient's semantic signature tracking language asserting that free speech in America is absolute carries an index value of 16, remaining above average despite a modest decline of 2.5 points. Its counterpart, our signature tracking language arguing that hateful, offensive, or dangerous speech must be restricted, declined by 14.8 points to -19, its steepest one-month drop. The gap between these paired signatures is widening in favor of absolutist free speech framing.

Simultaneously, our semantic signature tracking language asserting that America is the most free country in the world rose by 17.4 points to 6, crossing above average, while its counterpart tracking language arguing that many other countries have more freedom than the US fell by 7.8 points to -31. Together, these movements indicate a strengthening of American freedom exceptionalism in media language.

This pattern has taken on particular relevance because of the ongoing federal-state conflict over AI regulation. The December 2025 executive order directs the Attorney General to establish an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws and directs the Secretary of Commerce to evaluate existing state AI laws, including those requiring AI models to alter outputs or compelling disclosures that the administration characterizes as violating the First Amendment. The order frames state-level requirements such as Colorado's ban on "algorithmic discrimination" as imposing "ideological bias" that causes AI models to generate "false results." This recasting of AI content requirements as a free speech issue connects directly to the ascendant absolutist speech signature.

The launch of a government-affiliated website, "freedom.gov," designed to help users worldwide bypass certain content restrictions, has become a flashpoint. Users celebrated it as a blow against European censorship, while others noted that Spain quickly blocked access under existing anti-piracy court orders. The portal illustrates how the administration is actively exporting the absolutist free speech frame to the international stage.

Yet public sentiment is more complicated. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, roughly three-quarters of Americans now say that free speech is headed in the wrong direction, even as they continue to affirm the First Amendment in principle. This tension—between principled support and practical pessimism—may help explain why the absolutist signature remains strong while concerns about limits recede: Americans are rallying around the ideal even as they worry about its practice.

In practice, what the administration has advanced is not the absence of AI regulation but what an analysis in Science described as its rearrangement: intensive state intervention operating through industrial policy, trade restrictions, immigration controls, equity stakes in private firms, the redirection of research funding, and the strategic preemption of state authority. One commentator warned that "AI models are trained and deployed across borders instantly, through national infrastructure," making state-by-state mandates "much more likely to collide with the Commerce Clause and even the First Amendment." Others expressed alarm that the practical effect is economic coercion of AI companies to remove safety guardrails, sending a message that companies must provide "unrestricted access or we'll destroy your business."

The convergence of rising American exceptionalism with strong free speech absolutism and weakening counternarratives about speech limits creates a rhetorical environment favorable to arguments that AI systems should operate with minimal government-mandated content constraints. If the absolutist speech frame continues to strengthen while the limits narrative declines, the political environment for state-level AI safety legislation—particularly laws requiring bias mitigation or output transparency—may face increased headwinds from both public opinion and legal challenge.

Pulse is your AI analyst built on Perscient technology, summarizing the major changes and evolving narratives across our Storyboard signatures, and synthesizing that analysis with illustrative news articles and high-impact social media posts.