This recent trend is most conspicuous in an ongoing regulatory war being waged against the Internet and the corporate citizens that inhabit it. Terrified that Australia’s tender children will suffer ruination at the hands of online platforms, the entire population of the country will be subjected to age verification checks. Preparations are already underway in the country to impose a social media ban for users under the age of 16, ostensibly to protect the mental health and wellbeing of children. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was passed in November last year to amend the Online Safety Act 2021, requiring “age-restricted social media platforms” to observe a “minimum age obligation” to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from having accounts. It also vests that ghastly office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Information Commissioner with powers to seek information regarding relevant compliance by the platforms, along with the power to issue and publish notices of non-compliance.

While the press were falling over to note the significance of such changes, little debate has accompanied the last month’s registration of a new industry code by the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. In fact, Inman Grant is proving most busy, having already registered three such codes, with a further six to be registered by the end of this year. All serve to target the behaviour of internet service companies in Australia. Not all have been subject to parliamentary debate, let alone broader public consultation.

Inman Grant has been less than forthcoming about the implications of these codes, most notably on the issue of mandatory age-assurance limits. That said, some crumbs have been left for those paying attention to her innate obsession with hiving off the Internet from Australian users. In her address to the National Press Club in Canberra on June 24, she did give some clue about where the country is heading: “Today, I am […] announcing that through the Online Safety Act’s codes and standards framework, we will be moving to register three industry-prepared codes designed to limit children’s access to high impact, harmful material like pornography, violent content, themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating.”  (Is there no limit to this commissar’s fears?) Under such codes, companies would “agree to apply safety measures up and down the technology stack – including age assurance protections.”

With messianic fervour, Inman Grant explained that the codes would “serve as a bulwark and operate in concern with the new social media age limits, distributing more responsibility and accountability across eight sectors of the tech industry.” These would also not be limited in scope, applicable to enterprise hosting services, internet carriage services, and various “access providers and search engines. I have concluded that each of these codes provides appropriate community safeguards.”

From December 27, such technology giants as Google and Microsoft will have to use age-assurance technology for account holders when they sign in and “apply tools and/or settings, like ‘safe search’ functionality, at the highest safety setting by default for an account holders its age verification systems indicate is likely to be an Australian child, designed to protect and prevent Australian children from accessing or being exposed to online pornography and high impact violence material in search results.” This is pursuant to Schedule 3 – Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code (Class 1C and Class 2 Material).

How this will be undertaken has not, as yet, been clarified by Google or Microsoft. The companies have, however, been in the business of trialling a number of technologies. These include Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) cryptography, which permits people to prove that an aspect of themselves is true without surrendering any other data; using large language models (LLMs) to discern an account holder’s age based on browsing history; or the use of selfie verification and government ID tools.

Specialists in the field of information technology have been left baffled and worried. “I have not seen anything like this anywhere else in the world,” remarks IT researcher Lisa Given. This had “kind of popped out, seemingly out of the blue.” Digital Rights Watch chair, Lizzie O’Shea, is of the view that “the public deserves more of a say in how to balance these important human rights issues” while Justin Warren, founder of the tech analysis company PivotNine, sees it as “a massive overreaction after years of police inaction to curtail the power of a handful of large foreign technology companies.”

Then comes the issue of efficacy. Using the safety of children as a reason for censoring content and restricting technology is a government favourite. Whether the regulations actually protect children is quite another matter. John Pane, chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), was less than impressed by the results from a recent age-assurance technology trial conducted to examine the effect of the teen social media ban. And all of this cannot ignore the innovative guile of young users, ever ready to circumvent any imposed restrictions.

Inman Grant, in her attempts to limit the use of the Internet and infantilise the population, sees these age-restricting measures as “building a culture of online safety, using multiple interventions – just as we have done so successfully on our beaches.” This nonsensical analogy excludes the central theme of her policies, common to all censors in history: The people are not to be trusted, and paternalistic governors and regulators know better.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Last week, Microsoft announced that it would no longer use China-based engineering teams to support the Defense Department’s cloud computing systems, following ProPublica’s investigation of the practice, which cybersecurity experts said could expose the government to hacking and espionage.

But it turns out the Pentagon was not the only part of the government facing such a threat. For years, Microsoft has also used its global workforce, including China-based personnel, to maintain the cloud systems of other federal departments, including parts of Justice, Treasury and Commerce, ProPublica has found.

This work has taken place in what’s known as the Government Community Cloud, which is intended for information that is not classified but is nonetheless sensitive. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, the U.S. government’s cloud accreditation organization, has approved GCC to handle “moderate” impact information “where the loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability would result in serious adverse effect on an agency’s operations, assets, or individuals.”

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has used GCC to support its criminal and civil investigation and litigation functions, according to a 2022 report. Parts of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education have also used GCC.

Microsoft says its foreign engineers working in GCC have been overseen by U.S.-based personnel known as “digital escorts,” similar to the system it had in place at the Defense Department.

Nevertheless, cybersecurity experts told ProPublica that foreign support for GCC presents an opportunity for spying and sabotage. “There’s a misconception that, if government data isn’t classified, no harm can come of its distribution,” said Rex Booth, a former federal cybersecurity official who now is chief information security officer of the tech company SailPoint.

“With so much data stored in cloud services — and the power of AI to analyze it quickly — even unclassified data can reveal insights that could harm U.S. interests,” he said.

Harry Coker, who was a senior executive at the CIA and the National Security Agency, said foreign intelligence agencies could leverage information gleaned from GCC systems to “swim upstream” to more sensitive or even classified ones. “It is an opportunity that I can’t imagine an intelligence service not pursuing,” he said.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has deemed China the “most active and persistent cyber threat to U.S. Government, private-sector, and critical infrastructure networks.” Laws there grant the country’s officials broad authority to collect data, and experts say it is difficult for any Chinese citizen or company to meaningfully resist a direct request from security forces or law enforcement.

Microsoft declined interview requests for this story. In response to questions, the tech giant issued a statement that suggested it would be discontinuing its use of China-based support for GCC, as it recently did for the Defense Department’s cloud systems.

“Microsoft took steps last week to enhance the security of our DoD Government cloud offerings. Going forward, we are taking similar steps for all our government customers who use Government Community Cloud to further ensure the security of their data,” the statement said. A spokesperson declined to elaborate on what those steps are.

The company also said that over the next month it “will conduct a review to assess whether additional measures are needed.”

The federal departments and agencies that ProPublica found to be using GCC did not respond to requests for comment.

The latest revelations about Microsoft’s use of its Chinese workforce to service the U.S. government — and the company’s swift response — are likely to fuel a rapidly developing firestorm in Washington, where federal lawmakers and the Trump administration are questioning the tech giant’s cybersecurity practices and trying to contain any potential national security fallout. “Foreign engineers — from any country, including of course China — should NEVER be allowed to maintain or access DoD systems,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote in a post on X last Friday.

Last week, ProPublica revealed that Microsoft has for a decade relied on foreign workers — including those based in China — to maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems, with oversight coming from U.S.-based digital escorts. But those escorts, we found, often don’t have the advanced technical expertise to police foreign counterparts with far more advanced skills, leaving highly sensitive information vulnerable. In response to the reporting, Hegseth launched a review of the practice.

ProPublica found that Microsoft developed the escort arrangement to satisfy Defense Department officials who were concerned about the company’s foreign employees, given the department’s citizenship requirements for people handling sensitive data. Microsoft went on to win federal cloud computing business and has said in earnings reports that it receives “substantial revenue from government contracts.”

While Microsoft has said it will stop using China-based tech support for the Defense Department, it declined to answer questions about what would replace it, including whether cloud support would come from engineers based outside the U.S. The company also declined to say whether it would continue to use digital escorts.

Microsoft confirmed to ProPublica this week that a similar escorting arrangement had been used in GCC — a dynamic that surprised some former government officials and cybersecurity experts. “In an increasingly complex digital world, consumers of cloud products deserve to know how their data is handled and by whom,” Booth said. “The cybersecurity industry depends on clarity.”

Microsoft said it disclosed details of the GCC escort arrangement in documentation submitted to the federal government as part of the FedRAMP cloud accreditation process. The company declined to provide the documents to ProPublica, citing the potential security risk of publicly disclosing them, and also declined to say whether the China-based location of its support personnel was specifically mentioned in them.

ProPublica contacted other major cloud services providers to the federal government to ask whether they use China-based support. A spokesperson for Amazon Web Services said in a statement that “AWS does not use personnel in China to support federal contracts.” A Google spokesperson said in a statement that “Google Public Sector does not have a Digital Escort program. Instead, its sensitive systems are supported by fully trained personnel who meet the U.S. government’s location, citizenship and security clearance requirements.” Oracle said it “does not use any Chinese support for U.S. federal customers.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Renee Dudley, with research by Doris Burke.

The evidence discussed in the article points to a single Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) as the original organism from which all life existing on earth today is descended and the appearance of this ancestor roughly 4.2 billion years ago. That ancestor appears to have been what is called a “prokaryote-grade anaerobic acetogen,” in other words, a very simple single-celled organism, neither male nor female and not requiring oxygen to survive. It procreates simply by creating copies of itself. Such cells continue to exist today, and our bodies contain large numbers of them.

As astonishing and significant as this statement is, it is important to recognize what it does not say. First, it does not say that other life forms did not precede LUCA. In fact, these even more primitive life forms (or pre-life chemistry) are presumed to have existed and evolved into LUCA, but we have no traces of them.

Second, LUCA is not presumed to have been the only existing life form at the time, but rather the only one that survived and evolved into all earthly life forms that exist today. To put this into perspective, let’s remember that our entire pre-human population of 900,000 years ago fell to only 1280 individuals, and remained that size until 117,000 years later, before starting to increase again. Furthermore, the entire human race today can trace its ancestry to a single woman, who existed around 200,000 years ago. Every human being alive today shares her DNA.

Both of these examples illustrate the fact that not all of the branches of a family tree ultimately bear fruit, so that even if the family is large, many individual members will themselves have no descendants. The continuation of my line, for example, depends entirely upon my two grandsons, who may or may not have children. That’s not unusual. Every family can ultimately trace its line to a single ancestor. In the case of LUCA, therefore, the common ancestor of all life on Earth is simply the one that survived. Others surely existed, but left no offspring that exist today.

The evolution of LUCA and the laws of evolution

Obviously, LUCA did not remain unchanged. It evolved into many other species and forms of life, through the processes first described by Charles Darwin. In fact, as the Nature article sets forth, it evolved into all other forms of life living today on Earth. How did it do that? Simply by following the laws of evolution. These laws have been described by many naturalists and biologists. The most famous of these laws with respect to evolution, is the law of natural selection, first articulated by Charles Darwin in his book, The Origin of Species. With some editing on my part to allow for the more recent discovery of DNA and its role in what Darwin called heredity, it can be stated as follows:

Evolutionary Law #1: Natural selection is the process by which an individual member of a species passes along traits encoded in its DNA to its offspring. To the extent that these traits contribute to the survival of the offspring, they propagate themselves (and therefore the species).

Natural selection operates over generations to select for the traits that help a species to survive, and to select out the traits that do not. This is often called “survival of the fittest,” with “fittest” being a relative term, depending on changes in the environment in which the species lives. In some cases, the entire species dies out, which we call extinction, when, for example a change in habitat is too great or too abrupt for natural selection to save the species. Some examples of extinct species are the trilobite, the Irish elk, and the Hawaii Chaff Flower. In other cases, one species can evolve into more than one, when populations of a species are isolated from each other for a long time in habitats that alter them in different ways. A common example is the donkey or burro and the horse.

The factors at play in evolution and extinction are many. Some examples are:

• climate change
• cataclysmic events
• loss of habitat
• invasive competing species
• loss of food source
• physical isolation of a species, or a population with the species

By the same token, some of the traits by which species propagate themselves in order to adapt to these changes are:

• strength
• speed
• rapid maturation
• defensive mechanisms
• access to prey or nourishment
• aerial flight
• prolific distribution of seed or offspring
• ability to store nutrients
• access to sexual propagation
• ability to survive hardship and deprivation

All of these are fairly obvious, but it is their common thread that can be consequential in ways that are well-known but not yet fully explored. That common thread is competition. All organisms compete with each other – both within and between species – for resources and sustenance, including food, shelter, mates/procreation, protection, etc. This is true for fungi and single-celled organisms as much as for higher species. It is a well-known, universally accepted statement (or law, if you prefer). It permeates the behavior of all life forms, including (obviously) the human species. It can also be stated as a second Law of Evolution:

Evolutionary Law #2: All living things compete for their existence with all other living things.

The role of cooperation

But does natural selection operate by competition alone? What about cooperation, such as symbiosis and other mutually beneficial relationships between organisms of both the same and different species?

There’s no doubt that cooperation is a factor, but what is its role? We can begin this line of inquiry by examining what eventually happened with LUCA. For well over a billion years, LUCA and its descendants remained prokaryotes. Evolution was not static during this time, but it was exceedingly slow, and dependent to a vastly greater extent upon chance mutations and interactions other than mating, which did not yet exist.

Nevertheless, prokaryotes eventually graduated to eukaryotes – single cells with a nucleus housing the DNA – sometime between 2.7 and 1.8 billion years ago. This means that for a minimum of 1.5 billion years, LUCA did not to evolve beyond simple anaerobic single-celled organisms with no nucleus. This is not to say that prokaryotes did not evolve at all during that time, only that before the appearance of eukaryotes, the potential of natural selection was not apparent. This all changed with eukaryotes – a fundamentally new form of life, containing a nucleus housing the DNA.

Eukaryotes were capable of combining with each other to form offspring that were a combination of two parent cells, and not merely copies of a single parent. As a result, the offspring would have combinations of the DNA from the two parents, and thus be different from either of them. This drove faster evolution, and eventually developed into male and female types, as well as a categorical distinction between plants, animals and fungi, starting as early as 1.5 billion years ago, with plants consuming carbon dioxide and expelling oxygen, and animals and fungi consuming oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide. Even more significant, eukaryote cells began to cluster in ways where some could specialize in certain functions – such as digestion and protection – that served other members of the cluster, and vice versa. These colonies of cells with specialized functions exist today in organisms like the Portuguese man o’war, and bear some resemblance to colonies of insects like ants, termites or bees. In any case, these clusters of eukaryotes can be considered early examples of cooperation, and these first cooperative groups of eukaryotes eventually evolved into the first multi-celled organisms, both plants and animals.

Competition vs. cooperation

There is no question that both competition and cooperation are inherent in all life forms on Earth, and that the origin of cooperation may be said to begin with the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, some 2 billion years ago. It is no wonder that they are both part of our DNA, so to speak.

But I would argue that competition is in fact the only driving force in evolution. Why? Let me begin with a reductionist argument. Let us suppose that an organism exists that does not compete for its existence against organisms that do compete? With no motivation to defend itself against other organisms, how fast would it simply cease to exist?

But if that is self-evident, how can cooperation exist at all? The answer is that cooperation confers an advantage to the organisms that engage in it. It was true for the early eukaryotes, and it is true for social alliances today, from wolf packs to human nations and bee hives.

But what is the nature of the advantage that cooperation confers upon the organisms that engage in it? The simple answer is that it enhances the ability to compete. In French they say, “l’union fait la force.” Unity makes strength. Strength for what purpose? To compete.

Ungulates form herds. Why? For protection. Nations form alliances for the same reasons. Criminals form gangs. Wolves form packs. Fish form schools. Bees form hives. Eukaryotes form colonies and eventually multi-celled organisms. But the purpose is always the same: to compete more effectively, to survive and to pass one’s genes to one’s offspring. Cooperation is a means of competition, not an alternative to it, as far as natural selection is concerned. Life does not compete in order to cooperate; it cooperates in order to compete. This may be stated as:

Evolutionary Law #3: All living things cooperate in varying degrees with each other for mutual advantage over other living things.

Obviously, none of this is directly relevant to questions of morality, ethics, justice or religion. Right and wrong, as well as good and bad, are questions which must be answered in a different type of discussion. The analysis that is presented here is devoted to what is or is not, with respect to evolution and where it is leading the human species, life on Earth, and potentially life throughout the universe. I am not addressing the question of what should or should not be. But it always helps to start with what we know, in order to look at the effects and consequences.

The emergence of technological species

We come now to the question of the human species and its evolution. We know that evolution has led life in many different directions during its long history on Earth. It began in the sea, migrated onto land, and eventually into the air, as well. It has developed life forms that generate poison and perfume, change color at will, grow horns, fangs and armor and many other means and strategies for defending themselves, gaining advantage over other organisms, and propagating themselves. Evolution can be a very powerful process.

We are, nevertheless, at a particularly momentous juncture in the history of evolution. I refer not so much to the development of the human species per se as to the development of technology in the hands of the human species. Humans are of course the primary and almost exclusive agent of technology on Earth, and they are exceptional in its natural history. We tend to think of intelligence as the primary reason for the ascendance of the human species. But we know that other species possess intelligence as well, including cetaceans, corvids, elephants and cephalopods. And we can’t be sure about the power of their intelligence, their linguistic abilities, and their abilities to function in organized groups. Their intelligence and communication skills, as well as their social organization and life cycles may be so different that it can be hard to gauge their capabilities.

But the octopus is the only other intelligent organism that possesses anything like our hands, and cephalopods are handicapped by a very short lifetime and a lack of social structure. Our ability to fashion, with our hands, new and artificial objects and machines and to harness energy, i.e. technology, is unique. We are clearly the first technological species on this planet. This is why I prefer to emphasize the contribution of technology, rather than brain development or intelligence per se toward the age in which we find ourselves. Let us remember that our brains are essentially the same as they were tens of thousands of years ago. The last major change was the development of human language, which required some rewiring of the brain, but not a lot, because it had already proceeded in that direction, as it has in other species. Current estimates are that the capacity for modern language in Homo sapiens evolved prior to 135,000 years ago, but actual modern language may not be much older than 100,000 years. On the other hand, tool making is millions of years old. Neither tool making nor intelligence nor language nor even hands are unique to the human species, but the convergence of them is. And clearly, these capabilities have fed off each other in a systematic way, even if none of them has resulted in major physical changes in our species.

Some of this can be inferred from the growth and spread of human population, especially during the last 60,000 years or so. Equally astonishing has been the parallel and roughly simultaneous development of agriculture, urban architecture, and written languages, even in the Americas, which could not have known what was happening on the other side of the world. The reasons for this are not likely to be organic changes, since we are essentially the same organism everywhere on Earth. The process and the convergence appear to be largely self-driving, once all the elements are in place, perhaps when human settlements reach a critical size that creates a level of interaction that is in some ways exponential. No other species achieved these breakthroughs.

The process has now brought about the Age of Technology, which is accelerating at breakneck speed, challenging our efforts to keep up with and adapt to it, and potentially relegating our participation to that of mere cogs in a system controlled by algorithms, technical managers and organizations like Cambridge Analytica, who discovered that humans could be controlled to a significant degree through their electronic devices. The onset of the age may have begun with the first stone tool kits of hominids, millions of years ago, but today it has progressed to where technology increasingly drives itself, with humans as the pollinators of developments such as AI, artificial life forms and exploration of both the farthest and innermost reaches of the universe. We are often unprepared for the consequences. Most of us try to keep up, but it requires increasing vigilance to stay ahead of the forces arrayed to manipulate us and turn us into mere fuel for the vast machinery that is technology today. Think about your interaction with your smartphone. Who is controlling whom?

Perhaps most of this is the inevitable result of the convergence of forces that formed our species and its societal dynamics. Nevertheless, it is in our interest to try to understand what is happening to our species and our planet – and beyond – to the best of our abilities. This is a unique time in the history of life on earth, and it is due to the evolution of our species and its capabilities. Intelligent species existed in the distant past, especially among dinosaurs, but while we have found their remains, we have never found any signs of civilizations or technologies produced by them. And we surely would have, if they existed. Apparently, the convergence of developments that resulted in a species capable of creating a technological society has never existed on Earth until now.

Similarly, we have no confirmed signs of technology from other worlds, either on our planet or on the others that we have investigated thus far. At most, we have speculation about unexplained phenomena that remain unexplained, which has been true since the beginning of time. But we have no objects on Earth that could not have been produced on Earth, whereas we have transported earth-made artifacts to several other bodies in our solar system, which could not have been produced on those bodies. Where is the space junk from extraterrestrial civilizations?

A similar question was famously asked by nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950 at a gathering of his fellow scientists. After some debate about life on other planets, they concluded that it must exist, because there is nothing particularly unique about Earth. Planets with life may be rare, but there are so many planets in the universe that ours cannot be the only one to produce life. Even one in a million allows for a vast number. Furthermore, even though it took Earth more than 4 billion years to create its first technological species capable of interplanetary – and potentially interstellar – travel, there is no reason to think that we are necessarily the first in the entire universe, much less the only one. In fact, the odds are hugely against this being the case. This is the point at which Fermi asked his famous question, known as the Fermi Paradox, “Then where are they?”

This is more than an idle question. It is a troubling mystery and refers to an uncomfortable fact that deserves an answer. Why is there no evidence of any contact with extraterrestrial civilizations? Why would such civilizations not have left their traces during the billions of years of our planet’s existence? If we can find one-celled organisms from the earliest times, how much easier is it to find alien space junk? Even if aliens found our planet not worth very much of their time, how much more interesting are the moon and Mars, where we left our space junk? It is simply inconceivable that Earth would not have been visited, nor that we are the very first technological species to exist in all the universe.

The answer to Fermi’s question may help give us an idea about where we are headed as a technological species, and I believe it is possible to at least partially provide such an answer using the facts and analysis already discussed thus far. I apologize in advance if the answer is not to your liking; it is not to mine, either.

The evolutionary ceiling

What worries me is that there may be a law of evolution that has the effect of blocking technological species from developing beyond a certain point – that a technological species hits a ceiling above which it cannot rise, and that this law is the same everywhere in the universe, because the laws of evolution operate the same throughout the universe, as do the laws of physics. If we could pass that point, we would make contact with other technological species from other planets. But the available evidence points to the conclusion that no species anywhere in the universe develops beyond that point. Why?

Does it have anything to do with competition being the prime mechanism behind natural selection and cooperation secondary? I don’t know, but the idea that human nature is fundamentally different from the nature of all other life seems flawed and unrealistic to me. We’re not that different. The laws of the universe are universal.

Hollywood is full of films, like Dr. Strangelove and Don’t Look Up, about apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic visions of the world. We all agree that they have a plausible basis, because we know the power of existing weaponry and the potential to use it, as well as the weakness of human will. Our species is entirely capable of wreaking terrible destruction on our planet, and destroying many of its species, including our own. In fact, a significant number of species already trace their extinction to human activity. Did technological species on other planets and star systems meet the same fate? Is there a law of nature and evolution that dictates that when a technological species reaches a certain point of development, it destroys itself or sets itself so far back in development that it requires a long, arduous crawl to recover, at which time it once again hits its evolutionary ceiling? Perhaps we should take Hollywood more seriously.

We certainly have the means to accomplish such an apocalyptic outcome: nuclear war, climate change, biological warfare (such as experimental disease strains), chemical warfare, even artificial intelligence. If extraterrestrial civilizations have the same experience, this would certainly explain the absence of contact from or with them. But is it a law of evolution?

I believe that a strong case can be made that it is, that it is built into the nature of life and the primary mechanism of natural selection, as a corollary to Evolutionary Law #2, that all living things compete for their existence with all other living things. I therefore propose Evolutionary Law #4 as follows:

Evolutionary Law #4: When a technological species achieves the capability of self-destruction, its primary competitive drive sooner or later causes the exercise of this capability.

Is an evolutionary ceiling hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles? Do natural laws of evolution dictate that sooner or later we will bring catastrophe upon ourselves? If so, how close are we to that point? In the last 2 million years, have we ever invented a weapon that we have not used? The answer is no, we haven’t.

The spectacular and unprecedented changes through which we are now living appear to be accelerating geometrically and perhaps exponentially. Compared to the period of the existence of life on Earth, the Age of Technology is no more than a split second, but its acceleration seems without constraint. My analysis is a modest attempt to suggest that there may in fact be a limit – an unplanned direction in which we may be headed, and which may be directed by universal laws that we as yet understand poorly.

Let me ask six questions for which I do not have answers but which may illustrate the problem.

1. How likely is it that we will stop inventing new means of destroying ourselves, either in part or in whole, whether deliberately or not?
2. How likely is it that all the nations of the world will agree to destroy all technology that endangers our entire species?
3. How likely is it that we will live with the tools of our own destruction for the indefinite future without using them, either by accident or on purpose?
4. If we agree to measures that will make us safe, how long will all the nations of the world abide by them, with no “Samson option” that destroys everyone?
5. If we achieve the previous objectives, how likely is it that we will manage to keep the means of destruction out of the hands of actors that are not party to the agreements?
6. If we manage to adhere to all of these control measures for ten years, how much longer will we be able to do so? Another 10 years? Another 50 years? Another 100 years? Another 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Will we really keep all of these weapons under control indefinitely?

We have no previous experience with this point in our evolutionary history. Nothing to compare it to. If or when we hit the Evolutionary Ceiling, what will it look like? Will we destroy all life on Earth? Will we destroy all human life plus some other species? Will we destroy ourselves only to the point of leaving behind enough population remnants to rebuild slowly, in the absence of the technological tools to which we will have become accustomed? If we succeed in rebuilding, will we find ourselves hitting the same Evolutionary Ceiling as before? In that case, will the result be as bad or better or worse than the first time, or is it totally unpredictable?

As I said, we have nothing to guide us. For us this is the first time in our planet’s history (and possibly the last) to face this situation. We also have no guidance from the rest of our galaxy or universe, at least not yet.

I don’t know about you, but I would find it very comforting to receive visitors from other planets telling and showing us that there is another option and explanation for Fermi’s Paradox.

• Image credit: NASA.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Larudee.

The shift to post-industrialism was associated with the rise of a powerful new set of capitalist elites and new corporate centers of production, finance, and communication. In the 21st century, Silicon Valley became the symbol of the new post-industrial high-tech world. It would become the showcase of the new high-tech companies, such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple, which were becoming the first trillion-dollar companies, led by tycoons such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Peter Thiel, all fabulously wealthy members of the Big Tech power elite. Silicon Valley introduced itself as a modern miracle, bringing unprecedented new productivity and prosperity that would benefit both owners and workers, and contribute to the betterment of the general population with magical new products such as the personal computer, the iPhone, and the new internet-based world of online culture and communication on social media. This new world revolutionized the economic and social spheres, while also having major uses and implications for politics and the military. Because billions of people globally now have iPhones or personal computers, with access to the new online universe of the internet and social media, Silicon Valley seemed to open up not only a transformative new economy for entrepreneurs and knowledge workers but a transformed, newly connected world of online social communication and relationships.

This is not entirely an illusion. The online world does open up new social connections and political connections, with social media being a powerful new tool for the younger generation to build new friendships, communities, and politics. But Silicon Valley’s fantastic new array of electronic communications and online connections may also prove to be a gateway to weak social relations and ultimately the end of strong face-to-face social relationships, as well as democracy itself. We face a sociocidal transformation fueled by high tech, with Silicon Valley also proffering its own politics of authoritarianism. Sociocide is the process by which human connection is largely severed, and individuals are only concerned for themselves. A sociocidal society is one in which solidarity is nonexistent and meaningful human relationships are destroyed.

Several sociocidal forces emerge directly from the economic restructuring created by huge Big Tech firms, especially the “Magnificent Seven,” whose individual worth now reaches into the trillions:  Microsoft, Apple, NVIDIA, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), and Tesla. One is the interest of these corporate high-tech elites, much like their corporate counterparts in other spheres, in eroding the face-to-face workplace and social ties that can challenge their power. In the workplace, that translates into the intensified attack on secure employment, unionism, and a collective physical workplace. The intent is to weaken the social relations of workers in the workplace – and more broadly, to subvert the solidarity and face-to-face connections of people throughout society that can challenge authoritarianism in both work and politics.

Focusing first on the workplace, the Magnificent Seven play a special role here by creating and developing the technology – including the personal computer, iPhone, internet apps, AI, robots, and social media — that allows corporate elites to create a precariat of dispersed and contingent workers, increasingly separated from each other, while also replacing millions of workers and transferring their jobs to robots and other AI inventions.

The most rapid replacement of workers by robots and AI is in high-skill jobs. Matt Sigelman, president of the Human Resources Institute, summarized his Institute’s widely circulated report on AI, saying, “There’s no question the workers who will be most impacted are those with college degrees, and those are the people who always thought they were safe.” He indicates that: “Companies in finance, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, have some of the highest percentages of their payrolls likely to be disrupted by generative A.I. Not far behind are tech giants like Google, Microsoft and Meta.”

Tech workers, talented and highly trained, are developing the tools allowing their companies to eliminate many of their own jobs. Meanwhile, employers are also using robots to replace low-skill workers. The sociocidal tech impulse of Silicon Valley, as in other sectors, is embraced because of its profit-saving capacity. And the fastest way to increase profit is to reduce wages, usually by weakening relations among employees or busting unions.

The Magnificent Seven have used their overwhelming economic power to directly undermine unions, the most effective form of worker social relations and organization. In January 2024, Elon Musk, now legendary for his anti-union and broader right-wing views, filed a lawsuit in federal courts to declare unconstitutional the National Labor Relations Board, which protects and regulates workers’ right to organize. In August 2024, just before his re-election, Trump joked with Musk about firing workers, complimenting Musk during a two-hour conversation on X for firing Tesla workers who wanted to strike. “They go on strike,” Trump said to Musk, “and you say, ‘That’s OK, you’re all gone.’” Trump then added, “You’re the Greatest!” The UAW filed labor charges against both Trump and Musk for the unfair labor practices that the two had celebrated; Musk’s Tesla had clashed with union activists for years, and the NLRB in 2021 had found that the non-union Tesla violated labor laws when it fired a union organizer.

One of Musk’s Magnificent Seven compatriots, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, quickly joined in Trump and Musk’s union-busting party, filing a copycat suit to make the NLRB and unions unconstitutional. Here, we see the world’s two richest men, leaders of the High-Tech Robber Barons, exploiting economic size to reap the fruit of their technology’s economic power. They are seeking a revolutionary breakdown of workplace social relations, moving from the sociopathy of the first Gilded Age to the sociocide of today’s Gilded Age.

The Magnificent Seven’s power undercuts workplace social relations and fiercely attacks union solidarity in the name of free-spirited libertarianism running rampant in Silicon Valley. The broader corporate success in drastically weakening unions is key to sociocide in the entire US labor force and has been achieved not only by the anti-union fervor of corporations since the New Deal but also by the zeal of the Republican Party from Reagan through Trump to make the destruction of labor solidarity and unions a top political priority.

_________________________________________

The above is an excerpt from Charles Derber’s most recent book, Bonfire: American Sociocide, Broken Relations, and the Quest for Democracy.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Charles Derber.

“You need double the electric of what we have right now, and maybe even more than that,” Trump said, recalling a conversation with “David”—most likely White House AI czar David Sacks, a panelist at the summit. “I said, what, are you kidding? That’s double the electric that we have. Take everything we have and double it.”

At the high-profile summit on Tuesday—where, in addition to Sacks, panelists and attendees included Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Google president and chief investment officer Ruth Porat, and ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods—companies announced $92 billion in investments across various energy and AI-related ventures. These are just the latest in recent breakneck rollouts in investment around AI and energy infrastructure. A day before the Pittsburgh meeting, Mark Zuckerberg shared on Threads that Meta would be building “titan clusters” of data centers to supercharge its AI efforts. The one closest to coming online, dubbed Prometheus, is located in Ohio and will be powered by onsite gas generation, SemiAnalysis reported last week.

For an administration committed to advancing the future of fossil fuels, the location of the event was significant. Pennsylvania sits on the Marcellus and Utica shale formations, which supercharged Pennsylvania’s fracking boom in the late 2000s and early 2010s. The state is still the country’s second-most prolific natural gas producer. Pennsylvania-based natural gas had a big role at the summit: The CEO of Pittsburgh-based natural gas company EQT, Toby Rice—who dubs himself the “people’s champion of natural gas”—moderated one of the panels and sat onstage with the president during his speech.

Read Next

Trump promised to help Big Oil. Its revenues plummeted.

Tik Root

All this new demand from AI is welcome news for the natural gas industry in the US, the world’s top producer and exporter of liquefied natural gas. Global gas markets have been facing a mounting supply glut for years. Following a warm winter last year, Morgan Stanley predicted gas supply could reach “multi-decade highs” over the next few years. A jolt of new demand—like the demand represented by massive data centers—could revitalize the industry and help drive prices back up.

Natural gas from Pennsylvania and the Appalachian region, in particular, has faced market challenges both from ultra-cheap natural gas from the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico as well as a lack of infrastructure to carry supply out of the region. These economic headwinds are “why the industry is doing their best to sort of create this drumbeat or this narrative around the need for AI data centers,” says Clark Williams-Derry, an energy finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. It appears to be working. Pipeline companies are already pitching new projects to truck gas from the northeast—responding, they say, to data center demand.

The industry is finding a willing partner in the Trump administration. Since taking office, Trump has used AI as a lever to open up opportunities for fossil fuels, including a well-publicized effort to resuscitate coal in the name of more computing power. The summit, which was organized by Republican senator (and former hedge fund CEO) Dave McCormick, clearly reflected the administration’s priorities in this regard: No representatives from any wind or solar companies were present on any of the public panels.

Tech companies, which have expressed an interest in using any and all cheap power available for AI and have quietly pushed back against some of the administration’s anti-renewables positions, aren’t necessarily on the same page as the Trump administration. Among the announcements made at the summit was a $3 billion investment in hydropower from Google.

Read Next

Data centers are building their own gas power plants in Texas

Dylan Baddour & Arcelia Martin, Inside Climate News

This demand isn’t necessarily driven by a big concern for the climate—many tech giants have walked back their climate commitments in recent years as their focus on AI has sharpened—but rather pure economics. Financial analyst Lazard said last month that installing utility-scale solar panels and batteries is still cheaper than building out natural gas plants, even without tax incentives. Gas infrastructure is also facing a global shortage that makes the timescales for setting up power generation vastly different.

“The waiting list for a new turbine is five years,” Williams-Derry says. “If you want a new solar plant, you call China, you say, ‘I want more solar.’”

Given the ideological split at the summit, things occasionally got a little awkward. On one panel, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who headed up a fracking company before coming to the federal government, talked at length about how the Obama and Biden administrations were on an “energy crazy train,” scoffing at those administrations’ support for wind and solar. Speaking directly after Wright, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink admitted that solar would likely support dispatchable gas in powering AI. Incredibly, fellow panel member Woods, the ExxonMobil CEO, later paid some of the only lip service to the idea of drawing down emissions heard during the entire event. (Woods was touting the oil giant’s carbon capture and storage business.)

Still, the hype train, for the most part, moved smoothly, with everyone agreeing on one thing: We’re going to need a lot of power, and soon. Blackstone CEO Jonathan Gray said that AI could help drive “40 or 50 percent more power usage over the next decade,” while Porat, of Google, mentioned some economists’ projections that AI could add $4 trillion to the US economy by 2030.

It’s easy to find any variety of headlines or reports—often based on projections produced by private companies—projecting massive growth numbers for AI. “I view all of these projections with great skepticism,” says Jonathan Koomey, a computing researcher and consultant who has contributed to research around AI and power. “I don’t think anyone has any idea, even a few years hence, how much electricity data centers are gonna use.”

In February, Koomey coauthored a report for the Bipartisan Policy Center cautioning that improvements in AI efficiency and other developments in the technology make data center power load hard to predict. But there’s “a bunch of self-interested actors,” Koomey says, involved in the hype cycle around AI and power, including energy executives, utilities, consultants and AI companies.

Koomey remembers the last time there was a hype bubble around electricity, fossil fuels, and technology. In the late 1990s, a variety of sources, including investment banks, trade publications, and experts testifying in front of Congress began to spread hype around the growth of the internet, claiming that the internet could soon consume as much as half of US electricity. More coal-fired power, many of these sources argued, would be needed to support this massive expansion. (“Dig More Coal—The PCs Are Coming” was the headline of a 1999 Forbes article that Koomey cites as being particularly influential to shaping the hype.) The prediction never came to pass, as efficiency gains in tech helped drive down the internet’s energy needs; the initial projections were also based, Koomey says, on a variety of faulty calculations.

Koomey says that he sees parallels between the late 1990s and the current craze around AI and energy. “People just need to understand the history and not fall for these self-interested narratives,” he says. There’s some signs that the AI-energy bubble may not be inflating as much as Big Tech thinks: in March, Microsoft quietly backed out of 2GW of data center leases, citing a decision to not support some training workloads from OpenAI.

“It can both be true that there’s growth in electricity use and there’s a whole bunch of people hyping it way beyond what it’s likely to happen,” Koomey says.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump and the energy industry are eager to power AI with fossil fuels on Jul 20, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Molly Taft, WIRED.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Microsoft says it has stopped using China-based engineers to support Defense Department cloud computing systems after ProPublica revealed the practice in an investigation this week.

“In response to concerns raised earlier this week about US-supervised foreign engineers, Microsoft has made changes to our support for US Government customers to assure that no China-based engineering teams are providing technical assistance for DoD Government cloud and related services,” the company’s chief communications officer, Frank Shaw, announced on X Friday afternoon.

Microsoft’s announcement came hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said his agency would look into Microsoft’s use of foreign-based engineers to help maintain the highly sensitive cloud systems.

“Foreign engineers — from any country, including of course China — should NEVER be allowed to maintain or access DoD systems,” Hegseth wrote in a post on X Friday.

In its investigation, ProPublica detailed how Microsoft uses engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems — with minimal supervision by U.S. personnel — leaving some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking or spying from its leading cyber adversary. The arrangement, which was critical to Microsoft winning the federal government’s cloud computing business a decade ago, relies on U.S. citizens with security clearances to oversee the work and serve as a barrier against espionage and sabotage.

But these workers, known as “digital escorts,” often lack the technical expertise to police the work of foreign engineers with far more advanced skills, ProPublica found.

Earlier Friday, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, cited ProPublica in a letter to Hegseth asking for details about which DOD contractors use Chinese personnel to maintain the department’s information and computing systems.

China poses “one of the most aggressive and dangerous threats to the United States, as evidenced by its infiltrations of our critical infrastructure, telecommunications networks and supply chains,” Cotton wrote in the letter, which he posted on X. “DOD must guard against all potential threats within its supply chain, including those from subcontractors.”

Since 2011, cloud computing companies like Microsoft that wanted to sell their services to the U.S. government had to establish how they would ensure that personnel working with federal data would have the requisite “access authorizations” and background screenings. Additionally, the Defense Department requires that people handling sensitive data be U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

This presented an issue for Microsoft, which relies on a vast global workforce with significant operations in India, China and the European Union.

So the tech giant enlisted staffing companies to hire U.S.-based digital escorts, who had security clearances that authorized them to access sensitive information, to take direction from the overseas experts. An engineer might briefly describe the job to be completed — for instance, updating a firewall, installing an update to fix a bug or reviewing logs to troubleshoot a problem. Then, with little review, an escort would copy and paste the engineer’s commands into the federal cloud.

“We’re trusting that what they’re doing isn’t malicious, but we really can’t tell,” one escort told ProPublica.

In an earlier statement in response to ProPublica’s investigation, Microsoft said that its personnel and contractors operate in a manner “consistent with US Government requirements and processes.”

The company’s global workers “have no direct access to customer data or customer systems,” the statement said. Escorts “with the appropriate clearances and training provide direct support. These personnel are provided specific training on protecting sensitive data, preventing harm, and use of the specific commands/controls within the environment.”

In addition, Microsoft said it has an internal review process known as “Lockbox” to “make sure the request is deemed safe or has any cause for concern.”

Insight Global — a contractor that provides digital escorts to Microsoft — said it “evaluates the technical capabilities of each resource throughout the interview process to ensure they possess the technical skills required” for the job and provides training.

Doris Burke contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Renee Dudley.

X user @mRupeshVerma posted the video with the viral claim on July 8, 2025, highlighting remarkable inventions under Modi’s tenure as Prime Minister. (Archive)

#विपक्ष_की_बौखलाहट
यह है मोदी सरकार के 11 वर्ष के कार्यकाल की एक और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण उपलब्धि अब आप अपने जीवन मे कभी भी अंधेरा नही देख सकेंगे अब कभी लाइट बंद नही होगी और ना ही लाइट जायेगी मोदीजी है तो सबकुछ मुमकिन है pic.twitter.com/dHDrxLEdvM

— RV || The Engineer || 𝕏 (@mRupeshVerma) July 8, 2025

The video was also viral on Facebook with similar claims. Screenshots below:

Alt News also received multiple requests on its WhatsApp helpline (+91 76000 11160) to verify the video and the claims.

Fact Check

To check the authenticity of the claims, we ran a keyword search to look for any verified media reports on the invention, but found none.

Thereafter, we ran a reverse image search on one of the key frames from the viral video, which led us to this YouTube video, uploaded in March 2007.

According to the caption, the video demonstrates the ‘Searl effect’.

Taking cue from this, we ran a relevant keyword search and found that the device seen in the video, developed by John Searl, is a Searl Effect Generator (SEG). It uses rotating magnets arranged in a ring to generate energy by harnessing electrostatic charges from the atmosphere. This was developed in the 1940s.

Notably, this invention was critiqued for its use of ‘fraudulent science’. Many allege that the SEG’s magnetic phenomenon has not been constructively demonstrated or tested.

Thus, claims that India invented a magnetic generator under the Modi government are baseless and fabricated. No credible media outlets have reported this. Besides, the device shown in the video shared with the viral claim is a Searl Effect Generator (SEG), a controversial invention by John Searl in the mid-20th century.

The post Claim that India has invented a ‘self-sustaining’ generator that runs for 700 years without power/ fuel is fabricated appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Prantik Ali.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

For nearly a decade, Microsoft has used engineers in China to help maintain highly sensitive Defense Department computer systems. ProPublica’s investigation reveals how a model that relies on “digital escorts” to oversee foreign tech support could leave some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary.

Here are the key takeaways from that report:

Since 2011, cloud computing companies that wanted to sell their services to the U.S. government had to establish how they would ensure that personnel working with federal data would have the requisite “access authorizations” and background screenings. Additionally, the Defense Department requires that people handling sensitive data be U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

This presented an issue for Microsoft, which relies on a vast global workforce with significant operations in India, China and the European Union.

Microsoft’s foreign workforce is not permitted to access sensitive cloud systems directly, so the tech giant hired U.S.-based “digital escorts,” who had security clearances that authorized them to access sensitive information, to take direction from the overseas experts. The engineers might briefly describe the job to be completed — for instance, updating a firewall, installing an update to fix a bug or reviewing logs to troubleshoot a problem. Then the escort copies and pastes the engineer’s commands into the federal cloud.

The problem, ProPublica found, is that digital escorts don’t necessarily have the advanced technical expertise needed to spot problems.

“We’re trusting that what they’re doing isn’t malicious, but we really can’t tell,” said one current escort.

Microsoft uses the escort system to handle the government’s most sensitive information that falls below “classified.” According to the government, this includes “data that involves the protection of life and financial ruin.” The “loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability” of this information “could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect” on operations, assets and individuals, the government has said.

Defense Department data in this category includes materials that directly support military operations.

Because the U.S.-based escorts are taking direction from foreign engineers, including those based in China, the nation’s greatest cyber adversary, it is possible that an escort could unwittingly insert malicious code into the Defense Department’s computer systems.

A former Microsoft engineer who worked on the system acknowledged this possibility. “If someone ran a script called ‘fix_servers.sh’ but it actually did something malicious, then [escorts] would have no idea,” the engineer, Matthew Erickson, told ProPublica.

Pradeep Nair, a former Microsoft vice president who said he helped develop the concept from the start, said a variety of safeguards including audit logs, the digital trail of system activity, could alert Microsoft or the government to potential problems. “Because these controls are stringent, residual risk is minimal,” Nair said.

“If I were an operative, I would look at that as an avenue for extremely valuable access. We need to be very concerned about that,” said Harry Coker, who was a senior executive at the CIA and the National Security Agency. Coker, who also was national cyber director during the Biden administration, added that he and his former intelligence colleagues “would love to have had access like that.”

Chinese laws allow government officials there to collect data “as long as they’re doing something that they’ve deemed legitimate,” said Jeremy Daum, senior research fellow at the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School. Microsoft’s China-based tech support for the U.S. government presents an opening for Chinese espionage, “whether it be putting someone who’s already an intelligence professional into one of those jobs, or going to the people who are in the jobs and pumping them for information,” Daum said. “It would be difficult for any Chinese citizen or company to meaningfully resist a direct request from security forces or law enforcement.”

In a statement, Microsoft said that its personnel and contractors operate in a manner “consistent with US Government requirements and processes.”

The company’s global workers “have no direct access to customer data or customer systems,” the statement said. Escorts “with the appropriate clearances and training provide direct support. These personnel are provided specific training on protecting sensitive data, preventing harm, and use of the specific commands/controls within the environment.”

Insight Global — a contractor that provides digital escorts to Microsoft — said it “evaluates the technical capabilities of each resource throughout the interview process to ensure they possess the technical skills required” for the job and provides training.

Microsoft told ProPublica that it described the escort model in documents submitted to the government as part of cloud vendor authorization processes. Former defense and intelligence officials said in interviews that they had never heard of digital escorts. Even the Defense Department’s IT agency didn’t know about it until reached for comment by ProPublica.

“I probably should have known about this,” said John Sherman, who was chief information officer for the Defense Department during the Biden administration. He said the system is a major security risk for the department and called for a “thorough review by [the Defense Information Systems Agency], Cyber Command and other stakeholders that are involved in this.”

DISA said, “Experts under escort supervision have no direct, hands-on access to government systems; but rather offer guidance and recommendations to authorized administrators who perform tasks.”

Multiple people raised concerns about the escort strategy over the years, including while it was still in development. A former Microsoft employee, who was involved in the company’s cybersecurity strategy, told an executive they opposed the concept, viewing it as too risky from a security perspective.

Around 2016, Microsoft engaged contacts from Lockheed Martin to hire escorts. The project manager says they told their counterpart at Microsoft they were concerned the escorts would not have the “right eyes” for the job given the relatively low pay.

Microsoft did not respond to questions about these points.

It’s unclear whether other major cloud service providers to the federal government also use digital escorts in tech support. Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud declined to comment on the record for this article. Oracle did not respond to requests for comment.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by ProPublica.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Microsoft is using engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems — with minimal supervision by U.S. personnel — leaving some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary, a ProPublica investigation has found.

The arrangement, which was critical to Microsoft winning the federal government’s cloud computing business a decade ago, relies on U.S. citizens with security clearances to oversee the work and serve as a barrier against espionage and sabotage.

But these workers, known as “digital escorts,” often lack the technical expertise to police foreign engineers with far more advanced skills, ProPublica found. Some are former military personnel with little coding experience who are paid barely more than minimum wage for the work.

“We’re trusting that what they’re doing isn’t malicious, but we really can’t tell,” said one current escort who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, fearing professional repercussions.

The system has been in place for nearly a decade, though its existence is being reported publicly here for the first time.

Microsoft told ProPublica that it has disclosed details about the escort model to the federal government. But former government officials said in interviews that they had never heard of digital escorts. The program appears to be so low-profile that even the Defense Department’s IT agency had difficulty finding someone familiar with it. “Literally no one seems to know anything about this, so I don’t know where to go from here,” said Deven King, spokesperson for the Defense Information Systems Agency.

National security and cybersecurity experts contacted by ProPublica were also surprised to learn that such an arrangement was in place, especially at a time when the U.S. intelligence community and leading members of Congress and the Trump administration view China’s digital prowess as a top threat to the country.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has called China the “most active and persistent cyber threat to U.S. Government, private-sector, and critical infrastructure networks.” One of the most prominent examples of that threat came in 2023, when Chinese hackers infiltrated the cloud-based mailboxes of senior U.S. government officials, stealing data and emails from the commerce secretary, the U.S. ambassador to China and others working on national security matters. The intruders downloaded about 60,000 emails from the State Department alone.

With President Donald Trump and his allies concerned about spying, the State Department announced plans in May to “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students” — a pledge that the president seems to have walked back. The administration is also trying to arrange the sale of the popular social media platform TikTok, which is owned by a Chinese company that some lawmakers believe could hand over sensitive U.S. user data to Beijing and fuel misinformation with its content recommendations. But experts told ProPublica that digital escorting poses a far greater threat to national security than either of those issues and is a natural opportunity for spies.

“If I were an operative, I would look at that as an avenue for extremely valuable access. We need to be very concerned about that,” said Harry Coker, who was a senior executive at the CIA and the National Security Agency. Coker, who also was national cyber director during the Biden administration, added that he and his former intelligence community colleagues “would love to have had access like that.”

It is difficult to know whether engineers overseen by digital escorts have ever carried out a cyberattack against the U.S. government. But Coker wondered whether it “could be part of an explanation for a lot of the challenges we have faced over the years.”

Microsoft uses the escort system to handle the government’s most sensitive information that falls below “classified.” According to the government, this “high impact level” category includes “data that involves the protection of life and financial ruin.” The “loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability” of this information “could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect” on operations, assets and individuals, the government has said. In the Defense Department, the data is categorized as “Impact Level” 4 and 5 and includes materials that directly support military operations.

John Sherman, who was chief information officer for the Department of Defense during the Biden administration, said he was surprised and concerned to learn of ProPublica’s findings. “I probably should have known about this,” he said. He told the news organization that the situation warrants a “thorough review by DISA, Cyber Command and other stakeholders that are involved in this.”

In an emailed statement, the Defense Information Systems Agency said that cloud service providers “are required to establish and maintain controls for vetting and using qualified specialists,” but the agency did not respond to ProPublica’s questions regarding the digital escorts’ qualifications.

It’s unclear whether other cloud providers to the federal government use digital escorts as part of their tech support. Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud declined to comment on the record for this article. Oracle did not respond to requests for comment.

Microsoft declined to make executives available for interviews for this article. In response to emailed questions, the company provided a statement saying its personnel and contractors operate in a manner “consistent with US Government requirements and processes.”

Global workers “have no direct access to customer data or customer systems,” the statement said. Escorts “with the appropriate clearances and training provide direct support. These personnel are provided specific training on protecting sensitive data, preventing harm, and use of the specific commands/controls within the environment.” In addition, Microsoft said it has an internal review process known as “Lockbox” to “make sure the request is deemed safe or has any cause for concern.” A company spokesperson declined to provide specifics about how it works but said it’s built into the system and involves review by a Microsoft employee in the U.S.

Over the years, various people involved in the work, including a Microsoft cybersecurity leader, warned the company that the arrangement is inherently risky, those people told ProPublica. Despite the presence of an escort, foreign engineers are privy to granular details about the federal cloud — the kind of information hackers could exploit. Moreover, the U.S. escorts overseeing these workers are ill equipped to spot suspicious activity, two of the people said.

Even those who helped develop the escort system acknowledge the people doing the work may not be able to detect problems.

“If someone ran a script called ‘fix_servers.sh’ but it actually did something malicious then [escorts] would have no idea,” Matthew Erickson, a former Microsoft engineer who worked on the escort system, told ProPublica in an email. That said, he maintained that the “scope of systems they could disrupt” is limited.

The Defense Department requires anyone working with its most sensitive data to be a U.S. citizen, U.S. national or permanent resident. “No Foreign persons may have such access,” according to the department’s cloud security requirements. Microsoft, however, has a global workforce, so it created the digital escort system as a work-around. Here’s an example of how it works and the risk it poses:

Tech support is needed on a Microsoft cloud product.

A Microsoft engineer in China files an online “ticket” to take on the work.

A U.S.-based escort picks up the ticket.

The engineer and the escort meet on the Microsoft Teams conferencing platform.

The engineer sends computer commands to the U.S. escort, presenting an opportunity to insert malicious code.

The escort, who may not have advanced technical expertise, inputs the commands into the federal cloud system.

Illustrations for ProPublica

A Microsoft contractor called Insight Global posted an ad in January seeking an escort to bring engineers without security clearances “into the secured environment” of the federal government and to “protect confidential and secure information from spillage,” an industry term for a data leak. The pay started at $18 an hour.

While the ad said that specific technical skills were “highly preferred” and “nice to have,” the main prerequisite was possessing a valid “secret” level clearance issued by the Defense Department.

“People are getting these jobs because they are cleared, not because they’re software engineers,” said the escort who agreed to speak anonymously and who works for Insight Global.

Each month, the company’s roughly 50-person escort team fields hundreds of interactions with Microsoft’s China-based engineers and developers, inputting those workers’ commands into federal networks, the employee said.

In a statement to ProPublica, Insight Global said it “evaluates the technical capabilities of each resource throughout the interview process to ensure they possess the technical skills required” for the job, and provides training. The company noted that escorts also receive additional cyber and “insider threat awareness” training as part of the government security clearance process.

“While a security clearance may be required for the role, it is but one piece of the puzzle,” the company said.

Microsoft did not respond to questions about Insight Global.

When modern cloud technology emerged in the 2000s, offering on-demand computing power and data storage via the internet, it ushered in fundamental changes to federal government operations.

For decades, federal departments used computer servers owned and operated by the government itself to house data and power networks. Shifting to the cloud meant moving that work to massive off-site data centers managed by tech companies.

Federal officials believed that the cloud would provide greater power, efficiency and cost savings. But the transition also meant that the government would cede some control over who maintained and accessed its information to companies like Microsoft, whose employees would take over tasks previously handled by federal IT workers.

To address the risks of this revolution, the government started the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, known as FedRAMP, in 2011. Under the program, companies that wanted to sell their cloud services to the government had to establish how they would ensure that personnel working with sensitive federal data would have the requisite “access authorizations” and background screenings. On top of that, the Defense Department had its own cloud guidelines, requiring that people handling sensitive data be U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

This presented an issue for Microsoft, given its reliance on a vast global workforce, with significant operations in India, China and the European Union. So the company tapped a senior program manager named Indy Crowley to put federal officials at ease. Known for his familiarity with the rules and his ability to converse in the government’s acronym-heavy lingo, colleagues dubbed him the “FedRAMP whisperer.”

In an interview, Crowley told ProPublica that he appealed directly to FedRAMP leadership, arguing that the relative risk from Microsoft’s global workforce was minimal. To make his point, he said he once grilled a FedRAMP official on the provenance of code in products supplied by other government vendors such as IBM. The official couldn’t say with certainty that only U.S. citizens had worked on the product in question, he said. The cloud, Crowley argued, should not be treated any differently.

Crowley said he also met with prospective customers across the government and told ProPublica that the Defense Department was the “one making the most demands.” Concerned about the company’s global workforce, officials there asked him who from Microsoft would be “behind the curtain” working on the cloud. Given the department’s citizenship requirements, the officials raised the possibility of Microsoft “hiring a bunch of U.S. citizens to maintain the federal cloud” directly, Crowley told ProPublica. For Microsoft, the suggestion was a nonstarter, Crowley said, because the increased labor costs of implementing it broadly would make a cloud transition prohibitively expensive for the government.

“It’s always a balance between cost and level of effort and expertise,” he told ProPublica. “So you find what’s good enough.” Hiring virtual escorts to supervise Microsoft’s foreign workforce emerged as “the path of least resistance,” Crowley said.

Microsoft did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about Crowley’s account.

When he brought the concept back to Microsoft, colleagues had mixed reactions. Tom Keane, then the corporate vice president for Microsoft’s cloud platform, Azure, embraced the idea, according to a former employee involved in the discussions, as it would allow the company to scale up. But that former employee, who was involved in cybersecurity strategy, told ProPublica they opposed the concept, viewing it as too risky from a security perspective. Both Keane and Crowley dismissed the concerns, said the former employee, who left the company before the escort concept was deployed.

“People who got in the way of scaling up did not stay,” the former employee told ProPublica.

Crowley said he did not recall the discussion. Keane did not respond to requests for comment.

On its march to becoming one of the world’s most valuable companies, Microsoft has repeatedly prioritized corporate profit over customer security, ProPublica has found. Last year, the news organization reported that the tech giant ignored one of its own engineers when he repeatedly warned that a product flaw left the U.S. government exposed; state-sponsored Russian hackers later exploited that weakness in one of the largest cyberattacks in history. Microsoft has defended its decision not to address the flaw, saying that it received “multiple reviews” and that the company weighs a variety of factors when making security decisions.

The idea of an escort wasn’t novel. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which serves as the federal government’s standards-setting body, had established recommendations on how IT maintenance should be performed on-site, such as in a restricted government office. “Maintenance personnel that lack appropriate security clearances or are not U.S. citizens” must be escorted and supervised by “approved organizational personnel who are fully cleared, have appropriate access authorizations, and are technically qualified,” the guidelines state.

The government at the time specified the intent of the recommendation: to deny “individuals who lack appropriate security clearances ... or who are not U.S. citizens, visual and electronic access to” sensitive government information.

But escorts in the cloud wouldn’t necessarily be able to meet that goal, given the gap in technical expertise between them and the Microsoft counterparts they would be taking direction from.

That imbalance, though, was baked into the escorting model.

Erickson, the former Microsoft engineer who worked on the model, told ProPublica that escorts are “somewhat technically proficient,” but mainly are “just there to make sure the employees don’t accidentally or intentionally view” passwords, customer data or personally identifiable information. “If there are problems with the underlying” cloud services, “then only the people who work on those services at Microsoft would have the requisite knowledge to fix it,” he said.

Advanced threats from foreign adversaries weren’t on the radar for Erickson, who said he didn’t “have any reason to suspect someone more just based on their country of origin.”

“I don’t think there is any extra threat from Microsoft employees based in other countries,” he said.

Pradeep Nair, a former Microsoft vice president who said he helped develop the concept from the start, said that the digital escort strategy allowed the company to “go to market faster,” positioning it to win major federal cloud contracts. He said that escorts “complete role-specific training before touching any production system” and that a variety of safeguards including audit logs, the digital trail of system activity, could alert Microsoft or the government to potential problems.

“Because these controls are stringent, residual risk is minimal,” Nair said.

But legal and cybersecurity experts say such assumptions ignored the massive cyber threat from China in particular. Around the time that Microsoft was developing its escort strategy, an attack attributed to Chinese state-sponsored hackers resulted in the largest breach of U.S. government data up to that point. The theft initially targeted a government contractor and eventually compromised the personal information of more than 22 million people, most of them applicants for federal security clearances.

Chinese laws allow government officials there to collect data “as long as they’re doing something that they’ve deemed legitimate,” said Jeremy Daum, senior research fellow at the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School. Microsoft’s China-based tech support for the U.S. government presents an opening for espionage, “whether it be putting someone who’s already an intelligence professional into one of those jobs, or going to the people who are in the jobs and pumping them for information,” Daum said. “It would be difficult for any Chinese citizen or company to meaningfully resist a direct request from security forces or law enforcement.”

Erickson acknowledged that having an escort doesn’t prevent foreign developers “from doing ‘bad’ things. It just allows for there to be a recording and a witness.” He said if an escort suspects malicious activity, they will end the session and file an incident report to investigate further.

How much of this information federal officials understood is unclear.

A Microsoft spokesperson said the company described the digital escort model in the documents submitted to the government as part of cloud vendor authorization processes. However, it declined to provide those records or to tell ProPublica the exact language it used in them to describe the escort arrangement, citing the potential security risk of publicly disclosing it.

In addition to a third-party auditor, Microsoft’s documentation theoretically would have been reviewed by multiple parties in the government, including FedRAMP and DISA. DISA said the materials are “not releasable to the public.” The General Services Administration, which houses FedRAMP, did not respond to requests for comment.

In June 2016, Microsoft announced that it had received FedRAMP authorization to work with some of the government’s most sensitive data. Matt Goodrich, then FedRAMP director, said at the time that the accreditation was “a testament to Microsoft’s ability to meet the government’s rigorous security requirements.”

Around the same time, Microsoft put the escort concept into practice, engaging contacts from defense giant Lockheed Martin to hire cloud escorts, two people involved in the contract told ProPublica.

A project manager, who asked for anonymity to describe confidential discussions, told ProPublica that they were skeptical of the escort arrangement from the start and voiced those feelings to their Microsoft counterpart. The manager was especially concerned that the new hires would not have the “right eyes” for the job given the relatively low pay set by Microsoft, but the system went ahead anyway.

Lockheed Martin referred questions to Leidos, a company that took over Lockheed’s IT business following a merger in 2016. Leidos declined to comment.

As Microsoft captured more of the government’s business, the company turned to additional subcontractors, typically staffing companies, to hire more digital escorts.

Analyzing profiles on LinkedIn, ProPublica identified at least two such firms: Insight Global and ASM Research, whose parent company is consulting giant Accenture. While the scope of each firm’s business with Microsoft is unclear, ProPublica found more workers identifying themselves as digital escorts at Insight Global, many of them former military personnel, than at ASM. ASM and Accenture did not respond to requests for comment

Some Insight Global workers recognized the same problem as the former Lockheed manager: a mismatch in skills between the U.S.-based escorts and the Microsoft engineers they are supervising. The engineers might briefly describe the job to be completed — for instance, updating a firewall, installing an update to fix a bug or reviewing logs to troubleshoot a problem. Then, with limited inspection, the escort copies and pastes the engineer’s commands into the federal cloud.

“They’re telling nontechnical people very technical directions,” the current Insight Global escort said, adding that the arrangement presents untold opportunities for hacking. As an example, they said the engineer could install an update allowing an outsider to access the network.

“Will that get caught? Absolutely,” the escort told ProPublica. “Will that get caught before damage is done? No idea.”

The escort was particularly concerned about the dozens of tickets a week filed by workers based in China. The attack targeting federal officials in 2023 — in which Chinese hackers stole 60,000 emails — underscored that fear.

The federal Cyber Safety Review Board, which investigated the attack, blamed Microsoft for security lapses that gave hackers their opening. Its published report did not mention digital escorts, either as playing a role in the attack or as a risk to be mitigated. Sherman, the former chief information officer for the Defense Department, and Coker, the former intelligence official, who both also served as members of the CSRB, told ProPublica that they did not recall the board ever discussing digital escorting, which they said they now consider a major threat. The Trump administration has since disbanded the CSRB.

In its statement, Microsoft said it expects escorts “to perform a variety of technical tasks,” which are outlined in its contracts with vendors. Insight Global said it evaluates prospective hires to ensure they have those skills and trains new employees on “all applicable security and compliance policies provided by Microsoft.”

But the Insight Global employee told ProPublica the training regimen doesn’t come close to bridging the knowledge gap. In addition, it is challenging for escorts to gain expertise on the job because the type of work they oversee varies widely. “It’s not possible to get as trained up as you need to be on the wide array of things you need to look at,” they said.

The escort said they repeatedly raised concerns about the knowledge gap to Microsoft, over several years and as recently as April, and to Insight Global’s own attorneys. They said the digital escorts’ relative inexperience — combined with Chinese laws that grant the country’s officials broad authority to collect data — left U.S. government networks overly exposed. Microsoft repeatedly thanked the escort for raising the issues while Insight Global said it would take them under advisement, the escort said. It is unclear whether Microsoft or Insight Global took any steps to address them; neither company answered questions about the escort’s account.

In its statement, Microsoft said it meets regularly with its contractors “to discuss operations and surface questions or concerns.” The company also noted that it has additional layers of “security and monitoring controls” including “automated code reviews to quickly detect and prevent the introduction of vulnerabilities.”

“Microsoft assumes anyone that has access to production systems, regardless of location or role, can pose a risk to the system, whether intentionally or unintentionally,” the company said in its statement.

Last year, about three months after government investigators released their report on the 2023 hack into U.S. officials’ emails, a former Insight Global contractor named Tom Schiller contacted a Defense Department hotline and wrote to several federal lawmakers to warn them about digital escorting. He had become familiar with the system while briefly working for the company as a software developer. By last July, Schiller’s complaints wound their way to the Defense Information Systems Agency Office of the Inspector General. Schiller told ProPublica that the office conducted a sworn interview with him, and separately with three others connected to Insight Global. In August, the inspector general wrote to Schiller to say it had closed the case.

“We conducted a preliminary analysis into the complaint and determined this matter is not within the avenue of redress by DISA IG and is best addressed by the appropriate DISA management,” the assistant inspector general for investigations said in the letter. “We have referred the information you provided to management.”

A spokesperson for the inspector general — whose office is supposed to operate independently in order to investigate potential waste, fraud and abuse — told ProPublica they were not authorized to speak about the issue and directed questions to DISA public affairs.

“If the public information office contacts me and wants to collaborate to formulate a response through their office, I’ll be more than happy to do that,” the spokesperson said. “But I will not be responding to any kind of media request concerning OIG business without speaking with the public information office.”

DISA public affairs did not answer questions about the matter. After a spokesperson initially said that he couldn’t find anyone who had heard of the escort concept, the agency later acknowledged in a statement to ProPublica that escorts are used “in select unclassified environments” at the Defense Department for “advanced problem diagnosis and resolution from industry subject matter experts.” Echoing Microsoft’s statement, it continued, “Experts under escort supervision have no direct, hands-on access to government systems; but rather offer guidance and recommendations to authorized administrators who perform tasks.”

It is unclear what, if any, discussions have taken place among Microsoft, Insight Global and DISA, or any other government agency, regarding digital escorts.

But David Mihelcic, DISA’s former chief technology officer, said any visibility into the Defense Department’s network poses a “huge risk.”

“Here you have one person you really don’t trust because they’re probably in the Chinese intelligence service, and the other person is not really capable,” he said.

The risk may be getting more serious by the day, as U.S.-China relations worsen amid a simmering trade war — the type of conflict that experts say could result in Chinese cyber retaliation.

In testimony to a Senate committee in May, Microsoft President Brad Smith said the company is continually “pushing Chinese out of agencies.” He did not elaborate on how they got in, and Microsoft did not respond to follow-up questions on the remark.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Renee Dudley, with research by Doris Burke.

How Pacific live media communications have changed in the past 21 years.

In May 2004, the live broadcast of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s funeral from Lau required a complex and resource-intensive setup.

Fiji TV relied on assistance from TVNZ, deploying a portable satellite installation to transmit signals from Lau to a satellite up in the sky, then to Auckland, back to another satellite, and finally down to Suva.

This set-up required approval from FINTEL.

• READ MORE: Tongan royals on historic visit to Fiji, strengthening ties and celebrating heritage

This intricate process underscored the technological limitations of the time, where live coverage from remote Fiji areas demanded significant logistical coordination and international support.

Fast forward to 2025, 21 years later, and the communication and media landscape in Fiji has undergone a remarkable transformation.

Today, I see video production houses, TV stations, radio stations, and newspaper media outlets delivering live coverage directly from Lau.

This shows how high-speed internet, mobile networks, and portable streaming devices like Starlink has eliminated the need for cumbersome satellite relays. No approval from any authority.

Where once international partnerships were essential, today’s media teams in Fiji can operate independently, delivering seamless live coverage of cultural, political, and social events from even the most isolated areas.

Republished from Fiji Times managing digital editor Anish Chand’s social media post with permission. He is a former Fiji TV news operations manager.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

People on Guam are “disappointed” and “heartbroken” that radiation exposure compensation is not being extended to them, says the president of the Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors (PARS), Robert Celestial.

He said they were disappointed for many reasons.

“Congress seems to not understand that we are no different than any state,” he told RNZ Pacific.

• READ MORE: Other nuclear victims reports

“We are human beings, we are affected in the same way they are. We are suffering the same way, we are greatly disappointed, heartbroken,” Celestial said.

The extension to the United States Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was part of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” passed by Congress on Friday (Thursday, Washington time).

Downwind compensation eligibility would extend to the entire states of Utah, Idaho and New Mexico, but Guam – which was included in an earlier version of the bill – was excluded.

All claimants are eligible for US$100,000.

Attempt at amendment
Guam Republican congressman James Moylan attempted to make an amendment to include Guam before the bill reached the House floor earlier in the week.

“Guam has become a forgotten casualty of the nuclear era,” Moylan told the House Rules Committee.

“Federal agencies have confirmed that our island received measurable radiation exposure as a result of US nuclear testing in the Pacific and yet, despite this clear evidence, Guam remains excluded from RECA, a program that was designed specifically to address the harm caused by our nation’s own policies.

“Guam is not asking for special treatment we are asking to be treated with dignity equal to the same recognition afforded to other downwind communities across our nation.”

Moylan said his constituents are dying from cancers linked to radiation exposure.

From 1946 to 1962, 67 nuclear bombs were detonated in the Marshall Islands, just under 2000 kilometres from Guam.

New Mexico Democratic congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández supported Moylan, who said it was “sad Guam and other communities were not included”.

Colorado, Montana excluded
The RECA extension also excluded Colorado and Montana; Idaho was also for a time but this was amended.

Celestial said he had heard different rumours about why Guam was not included but nothing concrete.

“A lot of excuses were saying that it’s going to cost too much. You know, Guam is going to put a burden on finances.”

But Celestial said the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for Guam to be included was US$560 million while Idaho was $1.4 billion.

“[Money] can’t be the reason that Guam got kicked out because we’re the lowest on the totem pole for the amount of money it’s going to cost to get us through in the bill.”

Certain zip codes
The bill also extends to communities in certain zip codes in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alaska, who were exposed to nuclear waste.

Celestial said it’s taken those states 30 years to be recognised and expects Guam to be eventually paid.

He said Moylan would likely now submit a standalone bill with the other states that were not included.

If that fails, he said Guam could be included in nuclear compensation through the National Defense Authorization Act in December, which is for military financial support.

The RECA extension includes uranium workers employed from 1 January 1942 to 31 December 1990.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

A Tongan cybersecurity expert says the country’s health data hack is a “wake-up call” for the whole region.

Siosaia Vaipuna, a former director of Tonga’s cybersecurity agency, spoke to RNZ Pacific in the wake of the June 15 cyberattack on the country’s Health Ministry.

Vaipuna said Tonga and other Pacific nations were vulnerable to data breaches due to the lack of awareness and cybersecurity systems in the region.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific cyber security reports

“There’s increasing digital connectivity in the region, and we’re sort of . . . the newcomers to the internet,” he said.

“I think the connectivity is moving faster than the online safety awareness activity [and] that makes not just Tonga, but the Pacific more vulnerable and targeted.”

Since the data breach, the Tongan government has said “a small amount” of information from the attack was published online. This included confidential information, it said in a statement.

Reporting on the attack has also attributed the breach to the group Inc Ransomware.

Vaipuna said the group was well-known and had previously focused on targeting organisations in Europe and the US.

New Zealand attack
However, earlier this month, it targeted the Waiwhetū health organisation in Aotearoa New Zealand. That attack reportedly included the theft of patient consent forms and education and training data.

“This type of criminal group usually employs a double-extortion tactic,” Vaipuna said.

It could encrypt data and then demand money to decrypt, he said.

“The other ransom is where they are demanding payment so that they don’t release the information that they hold to the public or sell it on to other cybercriminals.”

In the current Tonga cyberattack, media reports say that Inc Ransomware wanted a ransom of US$1 million for the information it accessed. The Tongan government has said it has not paid anything.

Vaipuna said more needed to be done to raise awareness in the region around cybersecurity and online safety systems, particularly among government departments.

“I think this is a wake-up call. The cyberattacks are not just happening in movies or on the news or somewhere else, they are actually happening right on our doorstep and impacting on our people.

Extra vigilance warning
“And the right attention and resources should rightfully be allocated to the organisations and to teams that are tasked with dealing with cybersecurity matters.”

The Tongan government has also warned people to be extra vigilant when online.

It said more information accessed in the cyberattack may be published online, and that may include patient information and medical records.

“Our biggest concern is for vulnerable groups of people who are most acutely impacted by information breaches of this kind,” the government said.

It said that it would contact these people directly.

The country’s ongoing response was also being aided by experts from Australia’s special cyberattack team.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

In the age of surveillance capitalism, information is a hot commodity for corporations and governments, precipitating a multi-billion-dollar industry that not only profits from the collection and commodification of citizens’ PII, but also puts individuals, businesses, organizations, and governments at risk for cyberattacks and data theft.

Social security numbers, location details, health information, student loan and financial data, purchasing habits, library borrowing and internet browsing history, and political and religious affiliations are just some of the personal information that data brokers buy and sell to advertisers, banks, insurance companies, mortgage brokers, law enforcement and government agencies, foreign agents, and even spammers, scammers, and stalkers. Over time, that information often ends up changing hands again and again.

As an example, and to the alarm of civil liberties experts, the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), “a shady data broker” owned by at least eight US-based commercial airlines, including Delta, American, and United, has been collecting US travelers’ domestic flight records and selling them to Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Homeland Security; and as part of the deal, government officials are forbidden to reveal how ARC sourced the flight data.

Online users should know that many data brokers camp out on Facebook and at Google’s advertising exchange, drawing from such sources as credit card transactions, frequent shopper loyalty programs, bankruptcy filings, vehicle registration records, employment records, military service, and social media posting and web tracking data harvested from websites, apps, and mobile and wearable biometric devices to “craft customized lists of potential targets.” Even when gathered data is de-identified, privacy experts warn that this is not an irreversible process, and the risk of re-identifying individuals is both real and underestimated.

Government’s misuse and abuse of citizens’ privacy

Many Americans do not realize that the United States is one of the few advanced economies without a federal data protection agency. If the current administration continues on its path of eroding citizen privacy, the scant statutory protections the United States does have may prove meaningless.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of 1970 was enacted to protect consumers from government overreach into personal identifiable data, and has been promoted as the primary consumer privacy protection. However, in 2023, attorney and internet privacy advocate Lauren Harriman warned how data brokers circumvent the FCRA, for instance, “pay[ing] handsome sums to your utility company for your name and address.” Data brokers then repackage those names and addresses with other data, without conducting any type of accuracy analysis on the newly formed dataset, before then selling that new dataset to the highest third-party bidder.

Invasion of the data snatchers

Though the “gut-the-government bromance” between the president and Elon Musk appears to be on the rocks just six months into Trump 2.0, the Department of Government Efficiency’s unfettered access to data is concerning, especially after the June 6, 2025, Supreme Court ruling that gave the Musk-led DOGE complete access to confidential Social Security information irrespective of the privacy rights once upheld by the Social Security Act of 1935. The act prohibits the disclosure of any tax return in whole or in part by officers or employees of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Nevertheless, DOGE has commandeered the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Health and Human Services systems and those of at least fifteen other federal agencies containing Americans’ personal identifiable information without disclosing “what data has been accessed, who has that access, how it will be used or transferred, or what safeguards are in place for its use.”

Since DOGE infiltrated the Social Security Administration, the agency’s website has crashed numerous times, creating interruptions for beneficiaries. In June, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden issued a letter to the SSA’s commissioner, detailing their concerns about DOGE’s use of PII. Warren told Wired that “DOGE staffers hacking away Social Security’s backend tech with no safeguards is a recipe for disaster…[and] risks people’s private data, creates security gaps, and could result in catastrophic cuts to all benefits.”

Likewise, the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (updated in 1986) was enacted to ensure data protection, prohibiting—with rare exceptions—the release of taxpayer information by Internal Revenue Service employees. According to the national legal organization Democracy Forward, “Changes to IRS data practices—at the behest of DOGE—throw into question those assurances and the confidentiality of data held by the government collected from hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Equally troubling is that Opexus, a private equity-owned federal contractor, maintains the IRS database. Worse still is that two Opexus employees—twin brothers and skilled hackers with prison records for stealing and selling PII on the dark web—Suhaib and Muneeb Akhter, had access to the IRS data, as well as to that of the Department of Energy, Defense Department, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.

In February 2025, approximately one year into their Opexus employment, the twins were summoned to a virtual meeting with human resources and fired. During that meeting, Muneeb Akhter, who still had clearance to use the servers, accessed an IRS database from his company-issued laptop and blocked others from connecting to it. While still in the meeting, Akhter deleted thirty-three other databases, and about an hour later, “inserted a USB drive into his laptop and removed 1,805 files of data related to a ‘custom project’ for a government agency,” causing service disruptions.

That investigations by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies are underway does little to quell concerns about the insecurity of personal identifiable information and sensitive national security data. And although the Privacy Act of 1974, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 were all established to protect PII, the June Supreme Court ruling granting DOGE carte blanche data access dashes all confidence that laws will be upheld.

Americans don’t know what they don’t know

Perhaps most disconcerting in this whole scenario is that too few citizens realize just how far their online footprints travel and how vulnerable their private information actually is. According to internet culture reporter Kate Lindsay, citizen ignorance comes not only from a lack of reporting on how tech elites pull government strings to their own advantage, but also from fewer corporate news outlets covering people living with the consequences of those power moves. Internet culture and tech, once intertwined topics for the establishment press, are now more separately focused on either AI or the Big Tech power players, but not on holding them to account.

The Tech Policy Press argues that the government’s self-proclaimed need for expediency and efficiency cannot justify flouting data privacy policies and laws, and that the corporate media is largely failing their audiences by not publicizing the specifics of how the government and its corporate tech partners are obliterating citizens’ privacy rights. “To make matters worse, Congress has been asleep at the switch while the federal government has expanded the security state and private companies have run amok in storing and selling our data,” stated the senator from Silicon Valley, Ro Khanna.

A 2023 Pew Research Center survey of Americans’ views on data privacy found that approximately six in ten Americans do not bother to read website and application policies. When online, most users click “agree” without reading the relevant terms and conditions they accept by doing so. According to the survey, Americans of all political stripes are equally distrustful of government and corporations when it comes to  how third parties use their PII. Respondents with some higher education reported taking more online privacy precautions than those who never attended college. The latter reported a stronger belief that government and corporations would “do the right thing” with their data. The least knowledgeable respondents were also the least skeptical, pointing to an urgent need for critical information literacy and digital hygiene skills.

Exploitation of personal identifiable information

After Musk’s call to “delete” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), approximately 1,400 staff members were fired in April, emptying out the agency that was once capable of policing Wall Street and Big Tech. Now, with the combined forces of government and Big Tech, and their sharing of database resources, the government can conduct intrusive surveillance on almost anyone, without court oversight or public debate. The Project on Government Oversight has argued that the US Constitution was meant to protect the population from authoritarian-style government monitoring, warning that these maneuvers are incompatible with a free society.

On May 15, 2025, the CFPB, against the better judgment of the ​​Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and wider public, quietly withdrew a rule, proposed in 2024, that would have imposed limits on US-based data brokers who buy and sell Americans’ private information. Had the rule been enacted, it would have expanded the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) data protections for citizens. However, in February, Russell Vought, the self-professed White nationalist and Trump 2.0 acting director of the Office of Management and Budget and the CFPB, demanded its withdrawal, alleging the ruling would have infringed on financial institutions’ capabilities to detect and prevent fraud. Vought also instructed employees to cease all public communications, pending investigations, and proposed or previously implemented rules, including the proposal titled “Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices.”

The now-gutted CFPB lacks both the resources and authority needed to police the widespread exploitation of consumers’ personal information, says the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the privacy rights advocacy agency.

Double standards for data privacy

Although the government’s collection of PII has always been a double-edged sword, with Big Tech on the side of Trump 2.0, data surveillance of law-abiding citizens has soared to worrying heights. Across every presidency since 9/11, government surveillance has become increasingly more extensive and elaborate. Moreover, Big Tech is all too willing to pledge allegiance to whichever party happens to be in power. According to investigative journalist Dell Cameron, the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, and Customs and Border Protection are among the largest “federal agencies known to purchase Americans’ private data, including that which law enforcement agencies would normally require probable cause to obtain.”

Meanwhile, it’s a Big Tech and data broker free-for-all. DOGE’s and the feds’ activities are shrouded in secrecy, often facilitated by the Big Tech lobbying money that seeks to replace legitimate privacy laws with “fake industry alternatives.” Banks, credit agencies, and tech companies must adhere to consumer privacy laws. “Yet DOGE has been granted sweeping access across federal agencies—with no equivalent restrictions,” said business reporter Susie Stulz.

Know your risks

Interpol has warned that scams known as “pig butchering” and “business email compromise” and those used for human trafficking are on the rise due to an increase in the use of new technologies, including apps, AI deepfakes, and cryptocurrencies. Hacking agents, humans, and bots are becoming more sophisticated, while any semblance of data privacy guardrails for citizens has been removed.

Individual choices matter. At minimum, when using technology, consider if a website or app’s services are so badly needed or wanted that you are willing to give up your personal identifiable information. Standard advice to delete and block phishing and spam emails and texts remains apropos, but only scratches the surface of online protection.

Privacy advocates assert that DOGE’s access to personal identifiable information escalates the risk of exposure to hackers and foreign adversaries as well as to widespread domestic surveillance. Trump’s latest contract with tech giant Palantir to create a national database of Americans’ private information raises a big red flag for civil rights organizations, “that this could be the precursor to surveillance of Americans on a mass scale.” Palantir’s involvement in government portends to be the last step “in transforming America from a constitutional republic into a digital dictatorship armed with algorithms and powered by unaccountable, all-seeing artificial intelligence,” wrote constitutional law and human rights attorney John W. Whitehead.

A longtime J.D. Vance financial backer, Palantir’s Peter Thiel, the South African, White nationalist billionaire and right-wing donor, is credited with catapulting Vance’s political career. Unsurprisingly, the Free Thought Project reported that since Trump’s return to the White House, “Palantir has racked up over $100 million in government contracts, and is slated to strike a nearly $800 million deal with the Pentagon.” Palantir, incidentally, is also contracted with the Israeli government, as is Google.

Know your rights

The right to privacy is enshrined in Article 12 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Article 17 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights asserts the same, and in 1992, the United States ratified the treaty, thereby consenting to its binding terms.

But is privacy actually a protected civil right in the United States? According to legal scholars Anita Allen and Christopher Muhawe, the history of US civil rights law shows limited support for conceptualizing privacy and data protection as a civil right. Nonetheless, civil rights law is a dynamic moral, political, and legal concept, and if privacy is interpreted as a civil right, privacy protection becomes a fundamental requirement of justice and good government.

Protection from surveillance needs to be top-down through legal and policy limits on data collection, and bottom-up by putting technological control of personal data into the hands of consumers, i.e., the targets of surveillance.

As long as the public is uninformed and the corporate press remains all but silent, the more likely it is that these unconstitutional practices will not only continue but will become normalized. Until the United States is actually governed by and for the people, we the people can start practicing surveillance self-defense now. Although constitutional lawyers are typically considered the first responders to assaults on the Constitution and privacy rights, a constellation of efforts over time is required to, as much as possible, keep private data private.

Ultimately, though, the safeguarding of data cannot be left to the government or corporations, or even the lawyers. For that reason, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s tips and tools for customizing individualized digital security plans are made available to everyone. By implementing such plans and possessing strong critical media and digital literacy skills, civil society will be better informed and more empowered in the defense of privacy rights.

• Original publication at Project Censored Dispatch.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Mischa Geracoulis.

In the age of surveillance capitalism, information is a hot commodity for corporations and governments, precipitating a multi-billion-dollar industry that not only profits from the collection and commodification of citizens’ PII, but also puts individuals, businesses, organizations, and governments at risk for cyberattacks and data theft.

Social security numbers, location details, health information, student loan and financial data, purchasing habits, library borrowing and internet browsing history, and political and religious affiliations are just some of the personal information that data brokers buy and sell to advertisers, banks, insurance companies, mortgage brokers, law enforcement and government agencies, foreign agents, and even spammers, scammers, and stalkers. Over time, that information often ends up changing hands again and again.

As an example, and to the alarm of civil liberties experts, the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), “a shady data broker” owned by at least eight US-based commercial airlines, including Delta, American, and United, has been collecting US travelers’ domestic flight records and selling them to Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Homeland Security; and as part of the deal, government officials are forbidden to reveal how ARC sourced the flight data.

Online users should know that many data brokers camp out on Facebook and at Google’s advertising exchange, drawing from such sources as credit card transactions, frequent shopper loyalty programs, bankruptcy filings, vehicle registration records, employment records, military service, and social media posting and web tracking data harvested from websites, apps, and mobile and wearable biometric devices to “craft customized lists of potential targets.” Even when gathered data is de-identified, privacy experts warn that this is not an irreversible process, and the risk of re-identifying individuals is both real and underestimated.

Government’s misuse and abuse of citizens’ privacy

Many Americans do not realize that the United States is one of the few advanced economies without a federal data protection agency. If the current administration continues on its path of eroding citizen privacy, the scant statutory protections the United States does have may prove meaningless.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of 1970 was enacted to protect consumers from government overreach into personal identifiable data, and has been promoted as the primary consumer privacy protection. However, in 2023, attorney and internet privacy advocate Lauren Harriman warned how data brokers circumvent the FCRA, for instance, “pay[ing] handsome sums to your utility company for your name and address.” Data brokers then repackage those names and addresses with other data, without conducting any type of accuracy analysis on the newly formed dataset, before then selling that new dataset to the highest third-party bidder.

Invasion of the data snatchers

Though the “gut-the-government bromance” between the president and Elon Musk appears to be on the rocks just six months into Trump 2.0, the Department of Government Efficiency’s unfettered access to data is concerning, especially after the June 6, 2025, Supreme Court ruling that gave the Musk-led DOGE complete access to confidential Social Security information irrespective of the privacy rights once upheld by the Social Security Act of 1935. The act prohibits the disclosure of any tax return in whole or in part by officers or employees of the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Nevertheless, DOGE has commandeered the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Health and Human Services systems and those of at least fifteen other federal agencies containing Americans’ personal identifiable information without disclosing “what data has been accessed, who has that access, how it will be used or transferred, or what safeguards are in place for its use.”

Since DOGE infiltrated the Social Security Administration, the agency’s website has crashed numerous times, creating interruptions for beneficiaries. In June, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden issued a letter to the SSA’s commissioner, detailing their concerns about DOGE’s use of PII. Warren told Wired that “DOGE staffers hacking away Social Security’s backend tech with no safeguards is a recipe for disaster…[and] risks people’s private data, creates security gaps, and could result in catastrophic cuts to all benefits.”

Likewise, the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (updated in 1986) was enacted to ensure data protection, prohibiting—with rare exceptions—the release of taxpayer information by Internal Revenue Service employees. According to the national legal organization Democracy Forward, “Changes to IRS data practices—at the behest of DOGE—throw into question those assurances and the confidentiality of data held by the government collected from hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Equally troubling is that Opexus, a private equity-owned federal contractor, maintains the IRS database. Worse still is that two Opexus employees—twin brothers and skilled hackers with prison records for stealing and selling PII on the dark web—Suhaib and Muneeb Akhter, had access to the IRS data, as well as to that of the Department of Energy, Defense Department, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.

In February 2025, approximately one year into their Opexus employment, the twins were summoned to a virtual meeting with human resources and fired. During that meeting, Muneeb Akhter, who still had clearance to use the servers, accessed an IRS database from his company-issued laptop and blocked others from connecting to it. While still in the meeting, Akhter deleted thirty-three other databases, and about an hour later, “inserted a USB drive into his laptop and removed 1,805 files of data related to a ‘custom project’ for a government agency,” causing service disruptions.

That investigations by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies are underway does little to quell concerns about the insecurity of personal identifiable information and sensitive national security data. And although the Privacy Act of 1974, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 were all established to protect PII, the June Supreme Court ruling granting DOGE carte blanche data access dashes all confidence that laws will be upheld.

Americans don’t know what they don’t know

Perhaps most disconcerting in this whole scenario is that too few citizens realize just how far their online footprints travel and how vulnerable their private information actually is. According to internet culture reporter Kate Lindsay, citizen ignorance comes not only from a lack of reporting on how tech elites pull government strings to their own advantage, but also from fewer corporate news outlets covering people living with the consequences of those power moves. Internet culture and tech, once intertwined topics for the establishment press, are now more separately focused on either AI or the Big Tech power players, but not on holding them to account.

The Tech Policy Press argues that the government’s self-proclaimed need for expediency and efficiency cannot justify flouting data privacy policies and laws, and that the corporate media is largely failing their audiences by not publicizing the specifics of how the government and its corporate tech partners are obliterating citizens’ privacy rights. “To make matters worse, Congress has been asleep at the switch while the federal government has expanded the security state and private companies have run amok in storing and selling our data,” stated the senator from Silicon Valley, Ro Khanna.

A 2023 Pew Research Center survey of Americans’ views on data privacy found that approximately six in ten Americans do not bother to read website and application policies. When online, most users click “agree” without reading the relevant terms and conditions they accept by doing so. According to the survey, Americans of all political stripes are equally distrustful of government and corporations when it comes to  how third parties use their PII. Respondents with some higher education reported taking more online privacy precautions than those who never attended college. The latter reported a stronger belief that government and corporations would “do the right thing” with their data. The least knowledgeable respondents were also the least skeptical, pointing to an urgent need for critical information literacy and digital hygiene skills.

Exploitation of personal identifiable information

After Musk’s call to “delete” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), approximately 1,400 staff members were fired in April, emptying out the agency that was once capable of policing Wall Street and Big Tech. Now, with the combined forces of government and Big Tech, and their sharing of database resources, the government can conduct intrusive surveillance on almost anyone, without court oversight or public debate. The Project on Government Oversight has argued that the US Constitution was meant to protect the population from authoritarian-style government monitoring, warning that these maneuvers are incompatible with a free society.

On May 15, 2025, the CFPB, against the better judgment of the ​​Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and wider public, quietly withdrew a rule, proposed in 2024, that would have imposed limits on US-based data brokers who buy and sell Americans’ private information. Had the rule been enacted, it would have expanded the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) data protections for citizens. However, in February, Russell Vought, the self-professed White nationalist and Trump 2.0 acting director of the Office of Management and Budget and the CFPB, demanded its withdrawal, alleging the ruling would have infringed on financial institutions’ capabilities to detect and prevent fraud. Vought also instructed employees to cease all public communications, pending investigations, and proposed or previously implemented rules, including the proposal titled “Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices.”

The now-gutted CFPB lacks both the resources and authority needed to police the widespread exploitation of consumers’ personal information, says the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the privacy rights advocacy agency.

Double standards for data privacy

Although the government’s collection of PII has always been a double-edged sword, with Big Tech on the side of Trump 2.0, data surveillance of law-abiding citizens has soared to worrying heights. Across every presidency since 9/11, government surveillance has become increasingly more extensive and elaborate. Moreover, Big Tech is all too willing to pledge allegiance to whichever party happens to be in power. According to investigative journalist Dell Cameron, the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, and Customs and Border Protection are among the largest “federal agencies known to purchase Americans’ private data, including that which law enforcement agencies would normally require probable cause to obtain.”

Meanwhile, it’s a Big Tech and data broker free-for-all. DOGE’s and the feds’ activities are shrouded in secrecy, often facilitated by the Big Tech lobbying money that seeks to replace legitimate privacy laws with “fake industry alternatives.” Banks, credit agencies, and tech companies must adhere to consumer privacy laws. “Yet DOGE has been granted sweeping access across federal agencies—with no equivalent restrictions,” said business reporter Susie Stulz.

Know your risks

Interpol has warned that scams known as “pig butchering” and “business email compromise” and those used for human trafficking are on the rise due to an increase in the use of new technologies, including apps, AI deepfakes, and cryptocurrencies. Hacking agents, humans, and bots are becoming more sophisticated, while any semblance of data privacy guardrails for citizens has been removed.

Individual choices matter. At minimum, when using technology, consider if a website or app’s services are so badly needed or wanted that you are willing to give up your personal identifiable information. Standard advice to delete and block phishing and spam emails and texts remains apropos, but only scratches the surface of online protection.

Privacy advocates assert that DOGE’s access to personal identifiable information escalates the risk of exposure to hackers and foreign adversaries as well as to widespread domestic surveillance. Trump’s latest contract with tech giant Palantir to create a national database of Americans’ private information raises a big red flag for civil rights organizations, “that this could be the precursor to surveillance of Americans on a mass scale.” Palantir’s involvement in government portends to be the last step “in transforming America from a constitutional republic into a digital dictatorship armed with algorithms and powered by unaccountable, all-seeing artificial intelligence,” wrote constitutional law and human rights attorney John W. Whitehead.

A longtime J.D. Vance financial backer, Palantir’s Peter Thiel, the South African, White nationalist billionaire and right-wing donor, is credited with catapulting Vance’s political career. Unsurprisingly, the Free Thought Project reported that since Trump’s return to the White House, “Palantir has racked up over $100 million in government contracts, and is slated to strike a nearly $800 million deal with the Pentagon.” Palantir, incidentally, is also contracted with the Israeli government, as is Google.

Know your rights

The right to privacy is enshrined in Article 12 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Article 17 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights asserts the same, and in 1992, the United States ratified the treaty, thereby consenting to its binding terms.

But is privacy actually a protected civil right in the United States? According to legal scholars Anita Allen and Christopher Muhawe, the history of US civil rights law shows limited support for conceptualizing privacy and data protection as a civil right. Nonetheless, civil rights law is a dynamic moral, political, and legal concept, and if privacy is interpreted as a civil right, privacy protection becomes a fundamental requirement of justice and good government.

Protection from surveillance needs to be top-down through legal and policy limits on data collection, and bottom-up by putting technological control of personal data into the hands of consumers, i.e., the targets of surveillance.

As long as the public is uninformed and the corporate press remains all but silent, the more likely it is that these unconstitutional practices will not only continue but will become normalized. Until the United States is actually governed by and for the people, we the people can start practicing surveillance self-defense now. Although constitutional lawyers are typically considered the first responders to assaults on the Constitution and privacy rights, a constellation of efforts over time is required to, as much as possible, keep private data private.

Ultimately, though, the safeguarding of data cannot be left to the government or corporations, or even the lawyers. For that reason, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s tips and tools for customizing individualized digital security plans are made available to everyone. By implementing such plans and possessing strong critical media and digital literacy skills, civil society will be better informed and more empowered in the defense of privacy rights.

• Original publication at Project Censored Dispatch.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Mischa Geracoulis.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Brian Maloney Jr. was flummoxed when he was served with a lawsuit against his family’s business, Middlesex Truck and Coach, in January. Maloney and his father, also named Brian, run the operation, located in Boston, which boasts that it can repair anything “from two axles to ten.” A burly man in his mid-50s who wears short-sleeved polo shirts emblazoned with the company name, Maloney Jr. has been around his dad’s shop since he was 8. The garage briefly surfaced in the media in 2012 when then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney made a campaign stop there and the Boston Herald featured Maloney Sr. talking about how he had built the business from nothing in a neighborhood he described as having been a “war zone.”

Now Middlesex was being sued by a New Jersey man who claimed he had been defrauded of $133,565 in a cryptocurrency scheme. The suit claimed Middlesex “controlled and maintained” a bank account at Chase that had been used to collect the fraudulent payment. The purported victim wanted his money back.

None of this made any sense to Maloney Jr. His company did not have an account at Chase, and he barely knew what crypto was. “For God’s sake, we fix trucks and still have AOL,” he would later say.

It was only after Maloney went to Chase to investigate that he was able to piece together at least part of the explanation. It turned out that Chase had allowed an unknown individual, who applied online with no identification, to open an account under Middlesex’s name, according to information Chase provided to Maloney. The account was then used to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars from fraud victims, including the $133,565 from the man who was now trying to reclaim his funds.

Middlesex’s experience, as bizarre as it seems, is part of a global problem that plagues the banking industry. The account falsely opened in Middlesex’s name, and many others like it, are way stations in a sophisticated multistep money laundering process that transports cash from U.S. scam victims to crime syndicate bosses in Asia.

There’s been an explosion in international online fraud in recent years. Particularly widespread are “pig-butchering” schemes, as ProPublica reported in 2022. The macabre name derives from the process of methodically “fattening” victims by getting them to contribute more and more money to an investment scheme that seems to be succeeding, before eventually “butchering” them by taking all their deposits. Often operated by Chinese gangs out of prison-like compounds in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, pig-butchering in that region has reached a staggering $44 billion per year, according to a report by the United States Institute of Peace, and it likely involves millions of victims worldwide. The report called the Southeast Asian scam syndicates the “most powerful criminal network of the modern era.”

A huge portion of such fraud is transacted in cryptocurrency. But given that the typical consumer doesn’t own crypto, many scams unfold with a victim tapping a traditional bank account to wire dollars to swindlers, who receive the funds in their own accounts, then convert them into crypto to move across borders. Later in the process, the scammers will typically transfer their crypto back into standard currency.

Bank accounts are so crucial to this process that a thriving international black market has developed to rent accounts for fraud. That, it seems, is how a Chase account in the name of Middlesex ended up as a repository for the proceeds of pig-butchering.

The huge demand for accounts used for misbehavior gives banks a crucial, and not always welcome, role as gatekeepers — a responsibility required by U.S. law — to prevent criminals from opening accounts or engaging in money laundering. Yet from the U.S. to Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong, banks have consistently failed at that responsibility, according to experts who have investigated money laundering, as well as reviews of fraudulent account details shared by victims and court cases reviewed by ProPublica. The list of financial institutions whose accounts pig-butchering scammers have made use of includes global behemoths like Bank of America, Chase, Citibank, HSBC and Wells Fargo and many other U.S. and foreign lenders.

The banks said in statements to ProPublica that they make extensive efforts to fight fraud by investing in systems to detect suspicious activity and to report it to authorities (read the banks’ statements here). The American Bankers Association, which represents the industry, acknowledged that “with more than 140 million bank accounts opened every year bad actors can sometimes get through despite determined and ongoing efforts to stop them.” But the group said other industries like telecommunications providers and social media platforms need to do more to fight fraud because there’s only so much that financial institutions can do.

Pig-butchering scams present some unique challenges for banks. Among other things, a customer in thrall to a fraudster will sometimes foil their own bank’s attempts to prevent them from sending money to a criminal. And foreign-based scammers have become adept at finding middlemen in the U.S. to exploit the banking system. “Cyber-enabled fraud operations in Southeast Asia have taken on industrial proportions,” according to an October report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. John Wojcik, one of the authors of the report, told ProPublica, “Banks have never been targeted at this scale, in these ways.”

It doesn’t help that there are “no real standards as to what a bank has to do for detecting fraud or money laundering,” said Lester Joseph, a financial compliance consultant who used to oversee money laundering cases at the Department of Justice and later worked at Wells Fargo. The main law governing U.S. compliance regimes, the Bank Secrecy Act, requires financial institutions to maintain programs to know their customers and to detect and report suspicious activity to the government. That might mean noticing, say, that a newly opened account is suddenly receiving and sending hundreds of thousands of dollars of wire payments each month.

But it is up to banks to design those programs. The regulations don’t even require that the programs be effective. That gives banks wide flexibility on how much due diligence and monitoring to do — or not do. More scrutiny upfront means slowing down business and adding costs. Many banks don’t ask questions until it’s too late.

If you’re a criminal looking to obtain a bank account with no pesky formalities, it’ll take you only minutes to find one on the messaging app Telegram. Chinese forums there feature ads for “cars” or “fleets” — bank accounts or other online payment platforms that can be used to collect stolen funds. (The vehicle metaphor stems from the fact that in Chinese slang, money laundering operations are known as “motorcades.”) One Telegram ad offered accounts at PNC, Chase, Citi and Bank of America and boasted of “firsthand” control of the accounts: “People can go to the bank to transfer money,” the ad said.

Another Telegram channel listed various flavors of pig-butchering scams for which it provided bank accounts. The group, named KG Pay, boasted of accepting wire transfers, making withdrawals from U.S. banks and converting deposits into crypto to transfer them to scammers. KG offered to handle deposits of up to $1 million in accounts that imitate “normal business transactions.” To avoid suspicion, KG said, it sliced big amounts into smaller batches. If banks grew suspicious and froze one of its accounts, KG said, it had agents ready to call customer service to persuade them to lift the freeze. For smaller transfers, a video tutorial inside the channel showed how easy it was to send cash using the Chase app. (Telegram deleted the KG Pay channel after ProPublica asked about it. In a statement, Telegram said it “expressly forbids money laundering, scams and fraud and such content is immediately removed whenever discovered. Every month, over 10 million accounts, groups and channels are removed for breaching Telegram’s terms of service — including rules that prohibit money laundering and fraud.”)

Demand for money laundering is huge in Sihanoukville, a seedy gambling hub in Cambodia notorious for hosting massive scam operations. In some hotels above casinos there, blocks of guest rooms have been converted into offices where workers help fraudsters find motorcades to move illicit funds, according to a 2024 report by a doctoral anthropology student.

Inside those offices, the tap of keyboards and buzz of Telegram notifications suggested a trading floor at a stock exchange. But the work of the people interviewed by Yanyu Chen, the doctoral student, was very different. The workers, all Chinese and speaking on the condition of anonymity, were candid. They said they were tasked with matching cyberscam gangs with providers who could supply them with bank accounts to collect and move proceeds from fraud victims. In Telegram chat groups, the workers could see bank account suppliers and swindlers in need of accounts and would match the two and keep track of trades and commissions.

The business has become so mainstream that even one of Cambodia’s most prominent financial services firms, Huione Group, runs an online marketplace that allegedly facilitates such transactions. Its Telegram channels, including the one that included the aforementioned ad offering “firsthand” control of U.S. bank accounts, have helped launder funds for pig-butchering scams as well as heists linked to North Korea, according to the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. (Huione said in a statement that it is working to prevent abuse of its services and is “fully committed to collaborating with the U.S. Treasury Department to address expeditiously any and all concerns.”)

The workers interviewed by Chen were unperturbed about enabling fraud. One described the work as boring, little more than copying and pasting bank account info between scammers and motorcades. Another worker told her that he viewed himself as “solving a very old problem of getting into the banking system people who have long been shut out of it.”

The fraud that ensnared Middlesex Truck and Coach as a tangential victim covered thousands of miles via electronic byways. By all appearances, it emanated from Cambodia, then reached New Jersey, where a mark was persuaded to wire a total of $716,000 to accounts tied to purported businesses in Boston, New York, California, Hong Kong and elsewhere. All but a few appeared to have been incorporated by Chinese individuals, sometimes just days before their accounts started accepting large sums.

The fleecing of Kevin, who ProPublica agreed to identify by first name only, was a textbook example of pig butchering. Kevin had reached the stage in life when he wanted to ease his workload after a varied career as a financial planner, small-business owner and fitness instructor. Just before Christmas 2022, someone purporting to be a San Diego woman named Viktoria Zara friended Kevin on Facebook. She soon introduced him to a sleek crypto trading website called 3A on which she claimed to have made $700,000 on bitcoin futures. (Facebook deactivated Zara’s profile after ProPublica inquired about it, and a spokesperson said the social media company has “detected and disrupted over seven million accounts associated with scam centers” in Asia and the Middle East since the start of 2024.)

Kevin acknowledges he was seduced by the thrall of easy money. “Something came over me,” he said. Kevin accepted Zara’s offer to teach him how to trade and, within a few weeks, he was routinely wiring tens of thousands of dollars to various bank accounts to fund his trading.

The accounts were not registered to 3A. They were listed under a variety of companies he’d never heard of, such as Guangda Logistics and Danco Global.

Kevin found this odd. But Zara, his supposed friend, told him that was just how 3A operated, and Kevin felt safe wiring funds to accounts at Chase because of its size and reputation. Every time he did so, the sum showed up in his online 3A portal, making him think the transactions were real. Better yet, his investments had apparently soared; his account balance now read $1.4 million.

Like many a pig-butchering victim, Kevin realized something was off only when he went to withdraw his profits and 3A demanded that he first pay a “tax” of almost $134,000. Kevin knew from his financial planning days that wasn’t how things worked. But he set aside his doubts and went to his bank late one afternoon in April 2023 to wire the tax payment. He’d been given a fresh Chase account to send funds to and pressured to wire money within two hours.

This time, his money was addressed to Middlesex Truck and Coach. Kevin was so under the sway of his scammers at that point that he did not question the money’s destination. Nor did the teller at the TD Bank branch he went to. (TD declined to comment on Kevin’s case but said it trains employees to challenge customers when transactions seem suspicious and to warn them never to wire funds to people they do not know.)

As soon as Kevin got home, panic set in: 3A told him the Chase account to which he’d just wired $134,000 was frozen and that his tax payment would not go through. He would need to send another $134,000 to a different account. Confused, Kevin went back to TD first thing the next day and asked the teller to reverse the wire. Over the next two weeks, Kevin said, his bankers at TD called Chase three times but never got a response. (Chase did not answer ProPublica’s questions about Kevin’s efforts to recall his wire but said the wire recall process is challenging and rarely succeeds.)

It is possible to reverse a wire transfer if customers inform their banks quickly, before the transaction has been completed, according to lawyers and experts. But banks have no obligation to reverse a transfer even when a customer reports potential fraud. “It’s really up to the receiving institution if they release the funds and how they go after the customer on their end,” said Saskia Parnell, a banking industry veteran who now volunteers for an anti-scam group called Operation Shamrock.

As Kevin agonized, the 3A customer service reps dangled a solution: Just wire the funds again and unlock your $1.4 million. He feared TD wouldn’t let him send the wire again, so he switched to PNC Bank and sent a fresh $134,000 wire to another recipient at Cathay Bank in California. That yielded yet another tale about a purported government roadblock and the demand for yet another payment.

Kevin wasn’t thinking clearly. His son, who had struggled with substance abuse, had suddenly died of a fentanyl overdose. Kevin was overwhelmed with grief. He agreed to make another payment.

By June 2023, even a call from PNC’s fraud department declining his outgoing wire could not dissuade him. It was the only instance, out of the 11 times he attempted to wire money to scammers, that a bank stopped the transaction, according to Kevin, who did not have a history of making wire payments before. (PNC said in a statement that “we believe we took appropriate action.”)

It made no difference. Kevin’s mind was so clouded that he instead opened a new account at Wells Fargo. The switch illustrated another challenge: Even if one bank succeeds in preventing fraud, criminals can still win if another bank isn’t as diligent. (Wells Fargo said it invests hundreds of millions of dollars a year to fight scams).

After wiring $150,000 from Wells Fargo to two Chinese entities listed at a Singaporean bank, Kevin waited to receive his trading proceeds. But when all that resulted was another request that he wire money — $40,000 this time — Kevin finally grasped reality. He was now without a son, and his finances lay in ruins. “The whole world was coming to an end,” he recalled.

Kevin had preserved enough savings to hire a private investigator, John Powers of Hudson Intelligence, to follow the financial trail. Powers found a litany of red flags among the entities that had gotten bank accounts and received Kevin’s funds. Some of the businesses gave phony addresses, such as a vacant home. Another was registered to a one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles that was also listed as the headquarters of a dozen other businesses set up since 2022 by different Chinese individuals. Contact info was scarce; official emails for two companies included the temporary email domain “netsmail.us,” which doesn’t connect to a functioning website. All of these ersatz businesses had accounts at Chase, Cathay or Singapore’s DBS Bank.

Chase said that it has policies to identify and verify the identities of its customers, and that it continually evaluates and enhances them. Cathay said it also reviews its systems and policies to detect and prevent fraudulent activity. DBS did not respond to requests for comment.

Another clue indicated that the banks had been doing business with a larger criminal enterprise. Two of the companies Kevin sent funds to, Guangda Logistics (which lists no contact information) and Danco Global (which did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment), showed up on a list of more than six dozen shell entities that had been used to defraud Americans of nearly $60 million. The information was uncovered in an investigation by the U.S. Secret Service into KG Pay, one of the money laundering groups that was on Telegram.

The case of the man behind KG Pay sheds further light on how motorcades use U.S. banks. Daren Li, a Chinese national in his early 40s, went by the alias KG Perfect. Based in Cambodia, he directed the movement of large sums of pig-butchering proceeds from the U.S. to overseas. Li, who was arrested in April 2024 at the airport in Atlanta, pleaded guilty in November to conspiracy to commit money laundering. He admitted that at least $73.6 million of victim funds were deposited into bank accounts he and his co-conspirators controlled. Li, who is in federal detention awaiting sentencing, could not be reached for comment through his lawyer. Seven other people have pleaded guilty to conspiring with Li.

KG exploited a weakness in the U.S. banking system: Banks are reluctant to share account information, even after they’ve identified suspicious activity. A law enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks gave banks a reprieve from secrecy rules if they alert one another to potential terrorism or money laundering activities. But the information sharing is voluntary and “banks are not communicating with each other,” according to Matt O’Neill, who led many money laundering investigations for the U.S. Secret Service during his 25 years there. “Fraudsters know it and fraudsters are clearly making hundreds of millions or billions of dollars off of this glaring gap in the system,” said O’Neill, who now runs 5OH Consulting.

One of the most prolific cogs in Li’s motorcade, according to civil and criminal cases, was a Chinese national named Hailong Zhu. He entered the U.S. on a tourist visa around 2019 and then stayed, working odd jobs in construction and at a restaurant. In 2022, Zhu was recruited to help Li’s other operatives set up businesses and bank accounts near Los Angeles in exchange for $70,000.

Zhu turned the assignment into a full-time job, eventually juggling seven accounts at Bank of America, Chase, East West Bank and Wells Fargo tied to two entities set up in his name: Sea Dragon Trading and Sea Dragon Remodel. When Bank of America restricted Zhu’s Sea Dragon Trading account due to suspected fraud on Oct. 19, 2022, Zhu got another account at Bank of America the next day using Sea Dragon Remodel. By Nov. 1, 2022, he had secured four more accounts at Chase, Wells Fargo and East West Bank. Except for varying his address and email, investigators found that Zhu provided largely the same info when opening accounts for the two shell entities.

Zhu’s account opening spree happened just a few months after federal prosecutors blamed “the corruption of BofA bankers” for a scheme in which a handful of employees opened 754 accounts at Bank of America registered to 13 false addresses in the Los Angeles suburbs. In that case, shadowy middlemen dispensed bribes of $200 to $250 per account to Bank of America employees who overrode internal compliance systems to open accounts for overseas Chinese citizens who weren’t physically present at the branch to open the accounts, in violation of the bank’s rules. Even when the bankers registered 176 customers to one small home, the accounts were still opened. (Two of the bankers later pleaded guilty to making false entries in bank records; Bank of America said in a statement that it “uncovered illegal activity using its monitoring systems, terminated the employees, and cooperated with law enforcement, who successfully prosecuted those involved. This is how our anti-money laundering program is designed to work.”)

With banks always one step behind, Zhu’s accounts kept receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from victims across the U.S. Zhu would bundle the proceeds and transfer them abroad. During one week in November 2022, for example, he received six wires totaling almost $52,000 into one of his accounts and wired out one lump sum of $53,000. The destination was a bank account in the Bahamas controlled by Li and others, who converted the funds into cryptocurrency for their journey to scam centers located overseas, including in Sihanoukville. Investigators discovered a crypto wallet address they believed Li controlled. Data from cryptocurrency analytics firm Crystal Intelligence shows the wallet address sent and received about $341 million of crypto across 16,800 transactions between April 2021 and April 2024.

Zhu was arrested in March 2023 and charged with bank fraud. His lawyers acknowledged at trial that their client opened bank accounts and moved funds but said that Zhu did not know his bosses were using them for criminal purposes. Zhu was acquitted after the attorneys persuaded the trial judge that using false information to obtain a bank account does not constitute a scheme to defraud a bank. Only months after the acquittal, Zhu was charged again, this time with money laundering offenses, in an indictment filed in December 2023. Zhu, who couldn’t be reached for comment, did not enter a plea and was listed as a fugitive as of March 2025.

In January 2024, Kevin, desperate to get his money back, sued the 10 companies to which he had wired money at the scammers’ behest, including Middlesex Truck and Coach. None replied to his lawsuit — most were shell entities, after all — until January 2025, when Kevin’s lawyer got an email from Brian Maloney Jr.

Maloney confessed that his staff had ignored the lawsuit when it was initially served because it looked like a scam. He said he’d never banked with Chase and had no idea about any account that had been used to defraud Kevin. Maloney agreed to go to the local Chase branch to investigate and try to help Kevin get his money back.

“I went to the bank and said, ‘What the hell is going on?’” Maloney told ProPublica. After spending nearly two hours with the local Chase branch manager, Maloney realized that he, too, was a victim of the bank’s lax procedures: He said the branch manager told him that Chase had allowed someone to obtain an account online in his company’s name in March 2023 with nothing more than a digital signature and an employer identification number, but no personal identification. That account had then accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars of wire transfers. And now Maloney’s family business — not Chase — was the defendant in a lawsuit. “How is this legal?” he wondered. (Colin Schmitt, a retired FBI agent, said Chase could have mitigated the fraud by at least pausing incoming wire transfers to the fake Middlesex account and asking its owner to justify the transactions. “If you’re just using an account just for wires, that’s a big red flag,” Schmitt said.)

Still, there was a silver lining: The funds remained in the account. Not only Kevin’s $134,000, but almost $100,000 more from several other victims sat frozen inside since spring 2023.

Kevin was glad the money was still there, but he wondered why it took a lawsuit to unearth the info. “It does not seem like the system is tailored to give any deference to the victim,” he said. “That’s what frustrates me.” His lawyers advised him to seek an order from a federal judge to get his funds back and filed such a petition in March. After ProPublica asked Chase about Kevin’s funds in April, the bank agreed to return the money to him without a court order.

The $134,000 landed back in Kevin’s bank account in mid-May. Finally, he felt a sense of relief. (He has now dropped the suit against Middlesex.) But Kevin also wondered what would happen to the other people whose money got siphoned up by the fake Middlesex account. Would Chase wait for them to file lawsuits too?

Banks are starting to face lawsuits by pig-butchering victims who allege laxness in opening accounts. In December, a California man who was defrauded of nearly $1 million sued DBS and two other banks for alleged failures to comply with know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering laws. A college professor from Iowa who lost $700,000 filed a lawsuit in January against Hang Seng Bank in Hong Kong for failing to do proper due diligence on the people who opened accounts used to defraud him. Hang Seng reached an agreement with the Iowa professor to dismiss the suit and declined to comment further. DBS did not reply to requests for comment on the California case, but the bank asserted that the lawsuit contains “fatal flaws,” according to a filing in the suit.

Such cases are long shots, according to Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. The suits typically fail because it’s hard to show that financial institutions knew or should have known about potential fraud.

Still, banks are well aware that fraud is on the rise. Nearly 1 in 3 Americans say they have been the victim of online fraud or cybercrime, according to a 2023 poll commissioned by Wells Fargo. “The scale of fraud taking place every day is a massive burden for our country and for the millions of hard-working women and men whose lives are affected by it,” Rob Nichols, president of the American Bankers Association, said in an October speech.

Nichols contends that “consumers credit the banking industry with doing more than other industries to protect them from fraud and keep their information safe.” He cited an initiative by the ABA to create a database of fraud contacts to help banks figure out who to call when there’s a problem. And he urged the Trump administration to develop a national fraud prevention strategy.

Other countries are taking more aggressive steps. In October, the U.K. began requiring banks to reimburse scam victims up to £85,000, or about $116,000, per claim when they make a fraudulent payment on behalf of their customers, even if the customers authorized the transfer. Australia recently enacted a law that will require banks to share suspect account info with one another. Thailand has gone even further, creating a Central Fraud Register intended to compel banks to identify and close accounts used for money laundering.

The U.S. lacks such rules. O’Neill, the former Secret Service agent, thinks that updating the Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law meant to encourage banks to share intel, would be a good place to start. But Congress has not moved in that direction and the Trump administration has shown no sign that it plans to prioritize this issue. (Asked what steps the administration is taking, a spokesperson told ProPublica to Google the administration’s sanctions related to pig-butchering scams.)

For now, bank accounts remain easy for fraudsters to obtain. A sleek-looking brokerage akin to 3A has been online for months, soliciting deposits for what a researcher at the Global Anti-Scam Organization identified as a pig-butchering scheme. Anyone wishing to “invest,” the brokerage said, can wire money to a shifting array of banks, including Chase.

Doris Burke contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Cezary Podkul.

Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he acted to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying Iran had the capacity to build nine nuclear weapons. Israel provided no evidence to back up its claims.

On 25 March 2025, Trump’s own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said: 

Even if Iran had the capability to build a bomb, it is quite another thing to have the will to do so.

Any such bomb would need to be tested first, and any such test would be quickly detected by a series of satellites on the lookout for nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet.

It is more likely that Israel launched its attack to stop US and Iranian negotiators from meeting on Sunday.

Only a month ago, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Shamkhani, told US television that Iran was ready to do a deal. NBC journalist Richard Engel reports:

“Shamkhani said Iran is willing to commit to never having a nuclear weapon, to get rid of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, to only enrich to a level needed for civilian use and to allow inspectors in to oversee it all, in exchange for lifting all sanctions immediately. He said Iran would accept that deal tonight.”

Inside Iran as Trump presses for nuclear deal.   Video: NBC News

Shamkhani died on Saturday, following injuries he suffered during Israel’s attack on Friday night. It appears that Israel not only opposed a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear impasse: Israel killed it directly.

A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, told a news conference in Tehran the talks would be suspended until Israel halts its attacks:

“It is obvious that in such circumstances and until the Zionist regime’s aggression against the Iranian nation stops, it would be meaningless to participate with the party that is the biggest supporter and accomplice of the aggressor.”

On 1 April 2024, Israel launched an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing 16 people, including a woman and her son. The attack violated international norms regarding the protection of diplomatic premises under the Vienna Convention.

Yet the UK, USA and France blocked a United Nations Security Council statement condemning Israel’s actions.

It is worth noting how the The New York Times described the occupation of the US Embassy in November 1979:

Now it is Israel conducting a “war on diplomacy itself”, first with the attack on the embassy, followed by Friday’s surprise attack on Iran. Scuppering a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue appears to be the aim. To make matters worse, Israel’s recklessness could yet cause a major war.

Trump: Inconsistent and ineffective
In an interview with Time magazine on 22 April 2025, Trump denied he had stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites.

In the same interview Trump boasted “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran. Nobody else could do that.” Except, someone else had already done that — only for Trump to abandon the deal in his first term as president.

In July 2015 Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alongside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme for 10-15 years in exchange for the removal of some economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also gained access and verification powers.

Iran also agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent U-235, allowing it to maintain its nuclear power reactors.

Despite clear signs the nuclear deal was working, Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Despite the unilateral American action, Iran kept to the deal for a time, but in January 2020 Iran declared it would no longer abide by the limitations included in JCPOA but would continue to work with the IAEA.

By pulling out of the deal and reinstating sanctions, the US and Israel effectively created a strong incentive for Iran to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, not for the sake of making a bomb, but as the most obvious means of creating leverage to remove the sanctions.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for civilian fuel programmes.

Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1960s with US assistance. Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was ruled by the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahavi.

American corporations saw Iran as a potential market for expansion. During the 1970s the US suggested to the Shah he needed not one but several nuclear reactors to meet Iran’s future electricity needs. In June 1974, the Shah declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons, “without a doubt and sooner than one would think”.

In 2007, I wrote an article for Peace Researcher where I examined US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power because it is sitting on one of the largest gas supplies in the world. One of the most interesting things I discovered while researching the article was the relevance of air pollution, a critical public health concern in Iran.

In 2024, health officials estimated that air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year in Iran. Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisi said the “majority of these deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, strokes, respiratory issues, and cancers”.

Sahimi describes levels of air pollution in Tehran and other major Iranian cities as “catastrophic”, with elementary schools having to close on some days as a result. There was little media coverage of the air pollution issue in relation to Iran’s energy mix then, and I have seen hardly any since.

An energy research project, Advanced Energy Technologies provides a useful summary of electricity production in Iran as it stood in 2023.

With around 94.6 percent of electricity generation dependent on fossil fuels, there are serious environmental reasons why Iran should not be encouraged to depend on oil and gas for its electricity needs — not to mention the prospect of climate change.

One could also question the safety of nuclear power in one of the most seismically active countries in the world, however it would be fair to ask the same question of countries like Japan, which aims to increase its use of nuclear power to about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2040, despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme “must continue”, but the “scope and level may change”. Prior to the talks in Oman, Araghchi highlighted the “constant change” in US positions as a problem.

Trump’s rhetoric on uranium enrichment has shifted repeatedly.

So with Iran seemingly willing to accept reasonable conditions, why was a deal not reached last month? It appears the US changed its position, and demanded Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, including what Iran needs for its power stations.

One wonders if Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) influenced this decision. One could recall what happened during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first stint as Israel’s Prime Minister (1996-1999) to illustrate the point.

In April 1995 AIPAC published a report titled ‘Comprehensive US Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action’. In 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as President of Iran. The following year Khatami expressed regret for the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and denounced terrorism against Israelis, while noting that “supporting peoples who fight for their liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism”.

The threat of improved relations between Iran and the US sent the Israeli government led by Netanyahu into a panic. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Israel has expressed concern to Washington of an impending change of policy by the United States towards Iran” adding that Netanyahu “asked AIPAC . . . to act vigorously in Congress to prevent such a policy shift.”

Twenty years ago the Israeli lobby were claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. It didn’t happen.

Netanyahu’s Iran nuclear warnings.   Video: Al Jazeera

The misguided efforts of Israel and the United States to contain Iran’s use of nuclear technology are not only counterproductive — they risk being a catastrophic failure. If one was going to design a policy to convince Iran nuclear weapons may be needed for its own defence, it is hard to imagine a policy more effective than the one Israel has pursued for the past 30 years.My 2007 Peace Researcher article asked a simple question: ‘Why does Iran want nuclear weapons?’ My introduction could have been written yesterday.

“With all the talk about Iran and the intentions of its nuclear programme it is a shame the West continues to undermine its own position with selective morality and obvious hypocrisy. It seems amazing there can be so much written about this issue, yet so little addresses the obvious question – ‘for what reasons could Iran want nuclear weapons?’.

“As Simon Jenkins (2006) points out, the answer is as simple as looking at a map. ‘I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has no right’ to nuclear defence?'”

This week the German Foreign Office reached new heights in hypocrisy with this absurd tweet.

Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel does. Iran is a signatory to the NPT. Israel is not. Iran allows IAEA inspections. Israel does not.

Starting another war will not make us forget, nor forgive what Israel is doing in Gaza.

From the river to the sea, credibility requires consistency.

I write about New Zealand and international politics, with particular interests in political economy, history, philosophy, transport, and workers’ rights. I don’t like war very much.

Joe Hendren writes about New Zealand and international politics, with particular interests in political economy, history, philosophy, transport, and workers’ rights. Republished with his permission. Read this original article on his Substack account with full references.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The conflict between the two, which is threatening to turn into an all-out war, started with Israel attacking nuclear and military sites in Iran on June 13. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the attack ‘Operation Rising Lion‘ – supposedly launched to disconcert Iran’s nuclear program. However, the strikes resulted in the deaths of many ordinary citizens, after which Iran, too, resorted to retaliatory missile strikes.

X user (@Skylar_Soul_) posted the viral video on June 16. When this article was written, the post had accumulated more than 100,000 views and was reshared over 1,000 times. (Archive) 

इज़राइल के सैनिक ईरान से रो रो कर रहम की भीख मांग रहे हैं…! pic.twitter.com/CoGwu8Fv3d

— Minal Sultan (@Skylar_Soul_) June 16, 2025

Another X user, @dpsingh1313, posted the same video, which was viewed over 160,000 times at the time this article was written. (Archive)

अंड भक्तों, pic.twitter.com/HHEcHPuSUw

— Davinder Pal Singh 幸王 دیویندر سنگھ ਦਵਿੰਦਰ ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰ (@dpsingh1313) June 16, 2025

The viral video was also shared by several other X users, including @Deb_livnletliv, @SanjeevCrime, @Ayesha786Majid, @armanofficial00 and @hammehaiindia62. (Archived links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

The same video was viral on Facebook with similar claims.

Fact Check

A reverse image search on one of the key frames from the clip led us to the same video on YouTube posted around the same time, but with better resolution.

We noticed that the YouTube version had a clear watermark ‘Veo’ on the bottom right corner. The same watermark can be seen in the viral video as well, but owing to lower resolution, it is faint and not very apparent.

Veo is an artificial intelligence-based video generation tool, launched by Google this year. It allows users to create 8-second-long realistic videos without anatomical abnormalities.

Note that the viral video is precisely 8 seconds long. Moreover, what makes Veo stand out from other video generation models is its ability to integrate audio and dialogue without distortions, which is evident in the viral video.

To be sure, we also ran the video through HIVE’s AI detection tool. According to this, there is an 88% likelihood that the viral video was AI-generated.

Based on these findings, we were able to conclude that the viral video showing an Israeli soldier crying and pleading with Iran to stop the retaliatory strikes against Israel is artificially generated through Google Veo, and not real.

The post Viral video of Israeli soldier pleading Iran for mercy is AI-generated appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Prantik Ali.

By Laura Bergamo in Nice, France

The UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) concluded today with significant progress made towards the ratification of the High Seas Treaty and a strong statement on a new plastics treaty signed by 95 governments.

Once ratified, it will be the only legal tool that can create protected areas in international waters, making it fundamental to protecting 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030.

Fifty countries, plus the European Union, have now ratified the Treaty.

• READ MORE: Pacific civil society groups challenge France over hosting UN oceans event as political ‘rebranding’
• Other UNOC reports

New Zealand has signed but is yet to ratify.

Deep sea mining rose up the agenda in the conference debates, demonstrating the urgency of opposing this industry.

The expectation from civil society and a large group of states, including both co-hosts of UNOC, was that governments would make progress towards stopping deep sea mining in Nice.

UN Secretary-General Guterres said the deep sea should not become the “wild west“.

Four new pledges
French President Emmanuel Macron said a deep sea mining moratorium is an international necessity. Four new countries pledged their support for a moratorium at UNOC, bringing the total to 37.

Attention now turns to what actions governments will take in July to stop this industry from starting.

Megan Randles, Greenpeace head of delegation regarding the High Seas Treaty and progress towards stopping deep sea mining, said: “High Seas Treaty ratification is within touching distance, but the progress made here in Nice feels hollow as this UN Ocean Conference ends without more tangible commitments to stopping deep sea mining.

“We’ve heard lots of fine words here in Nice, but these need to turn into tangible action.

“Countries must be brave, stand up for global cooperation and make history by stopping deep sea mining this year.

“They can do this by committing to a moratorium on deep sea mining at next month’s International Seabed Authority meeting.

“We applaud those who have already taken a stand, and urge all others to be on the right side of history by stopping deep sea mining.”

Attention on ISA meeting
Following this UNOC, attention now turns to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) meetings in July. In the face of The Metals Company teaming up with US President Donald Trump to mine the global oceans, the upcoming ISA provides a space where governments can come together to defend the deep ocean by adopting a moratorium to stop this destructive industry.

Negotiations on a Global Plastics Treaty resume in August.

John Hocevar, oceans campaign director, Greenpeace USA said: “The majority of countries have spoken when they signed on to the Nice Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty that they want an agreement that will reduce plastic production. Now, as we end the UN Ocean Conference and head on to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva this August, they must act.

“The world cannot afford a weak treaty dictated by oil-soaked obstructionists.

“The ambitious majority must rise to this moment, firmly hold the line and ensure that we will have a Global Plastic Treaty that cuts plastic production, protects human health, and delivers justice for Indigenous Peoples and communities on the frontlines.

“Governments need to show that multilateralism still works for people and the planet, not the profits of a greedy few.”

Driving ecological collapse
Nichanan Thantanwit, project leader, Ocean Justice Project, said: “Coastal and Indigenous communities, including small-scale fishers, have protected the ocean for generations. Now they are being pushed aside by industries driving ecological collapse and human rights violations.

“As the UN Ocean Conference ends, governments must recognise small-scale fishers and Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders, secure their access and role in marine governance, and stop destructive practices such as bottom trawling and harmful aquaculture.

“There is no ocean protection without the people who have protected it all along.”

The anticipated Nice Ocean Action Plan, which consists of a political declaration and a series of voluntary commitments, will be announced later today at the end of the conference.

None will be legally binding, so governments need to act strongly during the next ISA meeting in July and at plastic treaty negotiations in August.

Republished from Greenpeace Aotearoa with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Mars is 140 million miles away, but it has never been closer. Whether it’s Elon Musk’s relentless cheerleading, the competing plans of various nation states, or the unending cycle of popular culture, Mars is having a serious moment.

Earthlings have been projecting hopes and fears onto Mars for a very long time. For millennia, humans have observed and ascribed meanings to the unsettling, rust-colored, wandering light in the sky. More than a century of popular storytelling and literary speculation, along with decades of scientific exploration, have produced myriad representations of our alluring neighbor. The most explored planet in the solar system after Earth, a slew of landers, robotic rovers, and flyby missions have revealed neither Edgar Rice Burrough’s multi-limbed alien warriors nor a civilization based on irrigation canals. Instead, they have shown that our sibling planet is a freezing, irradiated, desolate desert world that has been in stasis for billions of years.

Longtime science fiction about humans on Mars is striving to become science fact. A new generation of aspiring colonial explorers is hyping the 2030s as the decade of first human landings and even initial settlement. We are increasingly being bombarded with the message that humanity can and should become multiplanetary by expanding to Mars. As our home planet’s ecological crises intensify in frequency and severity, this extreme vision is marketed as necessary, desirable, and inevitable.

For the first time since the Apollo program, which took the first humans to the Moon in 1969, momentum to get “boots on the ground” is underway. NASA, the European Space Agency, China, and the United Arab Emirates are all pouring money into Mars missions. Space is no longer just the realm of nation-state rivalries. Billionaires infatuated with dreams of corporate expansion beyond Earth’s atmosphere are pushing the fantasy that humanity’s future is in space, from tourism in low orbit luxury hotels and the untold riches of asteroid mining, to sustained human presence on the Moon and the grand prize: Mars itself. The “dawning of the new space age” is here.

The view of Earth from space, captured by the Apollo 17 crew in the iconic “Blue Marble” photograph, helped inspire a modern environmental movement that framed humanity as sharing a common fate on this miraculous oasis. How are images of Mars being wielded in our consciousness today? The cultural lenses projected onto Mars as a destination are as much about how we view our history, ourselves, and the commitment to Planet A in the face of looming Planet B. Whose imaginations are we inhabiting?

The age of astro-colonialism is upon us, but for all the fanfare and bravado, there is a lack of public discussion about the implications of what we might call our current interplanetary moment. Are the dreams of the Red Planet meant to divert and distract from the nightmares on the blue one?

In a time of accelerating extraterrestrial ambition and terrestrial catastrophe, it is vital to question how human relationships with the Red Planet are being actively shaped and sold. When we take the time to unpack the dominant narrative frames shaping US discourse about Mars, we find familiar mythologies geared up in space suits.

Frame #1 SPECIES SURVIVAL: PLANET B

I believe that the long term future of the human race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival, as it could prevent the disappearance of humanity by colonising other planets.

—physicist STEPHEN HAWKING

A common slogan seen on signs at climate protests around the world is: “There Is No Planet B.” This may seem self-evident to the millions concerned about mounting ecological threats, but it is the exact opposite of the dominant Mars narrative. To many of its advocates, Mars’s biggest selling point is that it IS Planet B. For true believers, long-term, self-sustaining human settlement on Mars is not only possible within our lifetimes, it is an existential necessity for species survival.

This frame is echoed by pro-Mars advocacy groups, space and planetary science circles, and by commercial interests with a stake in surveying Mars. The prevailing narrative is that colonizing Mars is imperative; that the best chance for guaranteeing human survival is to cease being a “single planetary civilization.” In this framing, Earth is an unstable, imminent death trap, a ticking time bomb that (select) members of our species must escape. As early science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein warned, “The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.”

To be fair, the list of oft-cited extinction-level threats is long and terrifying. Obliteration by an asteroid, suffocating under the dust from a supervolcano eruption, and the usual panoply of human-engineered self-destruction: from runaway climate change to raging pandemics to that enduring 20th-century obsession, nuclear war.

With all these gathering horsemen of the apocalypse, we must prioritize safeguarding the “light of consciousness” off-world. This frame is infused with urgency, anxiety, and an aura of inevitability. Not if but when.

The most famous (and influential, thanks to his massive wealth) evangelist for the Planet B frame is, of course, Elon Musk. As he recently said on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, “I think this is really a race against time. Can we make Mars self-sufficient before civilization has some sort of future fork in the road?” He described his “plans” for transporting a million humans and millions of tons of cargo to Mars over the coming decades. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow recently confessed, “Whenever I think about Musk, I feel some personal responsibility because there is a kind of cadre of tech billionaires who’ve read our dystopias and mistaken them for business plans.” Nevertheless, Musk’s capacity to manifest dystopian nonfiction is firmly established. Creative trolling examples abound, such as Activista’s Mars Sucks billboard outside of SpaceX for Earth Day, and a recent social media reply to Musk’s post declaring “Time to go to Mars” by Star Wars actor Mark Hamill: “You first.”

Central to this vision of Mars as a replacement for Earth is the concept of terraforming. A sci-fi staple, terraforming refers to the spectacular acts of planetary engineering that would transform Mars’s severely inhospitable environment to support human needs. Mars boosters tend to pull heavily from science fiction when describing highly speculative ideas, such as heating the planet’s surface with giant orbital solar reflectors, genetically engineering microbes that will create an atmosphere by converting CO2 to O2, or, as Musk often suggests, nuking the ice caps.

Needless to say, this confidence in the possibility of bending Mars to our will is not shared by many outside the proponents of Mars as Earth 2.0. Astronomer Lucianne Walkowicz has been an outspoken critic of the hubris of treating Mars as a backup planet. She points out that, “While we might debate the possibility of transforming the habitability of Mars, we have a demonstrated track record of unintentionally changing a planet to be less hospitable to humanity, and no practicable idea of how to do the reverse.”

Frame #2 WILD WEST FRONTIER 

I think it is every bit as vast and promising a frontier as the New World was some centuries ago.

—Sen. TED CRUZ, at “Destination Mars—Putting American Boots on the Surface of the Red Planet” hearing of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness

By now, the image is commonplace: a space industry billionaire advertising his company’s latest achievement while popping champagne in low Earth orbit. The billionaires in question—Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic), Elon Musk (SpaceX), and Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin)—are somewhat interchangeable, particularly since they all wear the same cowboy hat. The choice of headgear by these “billionauts”—the term of art for billionaires with the personal wealth and ambition to publicly moonlight as astronauts—reinforces the core framing of Mars as the new Wild West horizon, a frontier that requires space cowboys to explore and conquer.

Mars colonization pitches imagine this new home, or “spome” (space home, a term coined by prolific “Golden Age” sci-fi writer Isaac Asimov), as a prospector’s paradise in the making and recreation of nostalgic versions of American frontier life. Settler colonial tropes are projected onto the screen of Mars as a terra nullius. Untrammeled, uncorrupted, and untamed, a pristine virgin wilderness that invites rapacious extraction, a red blank slate to reboot civilization.

The dominant scientific narrative in the United States space program parallels the American cultural narrative: what Linda Billings, NASA space communicator and space policy analyst, calls “frontier pioneering, continual progress, manifest destiny, free enterprise, rugged individualism, and a right to life without limits.” Amnesiac praise functions as if westward expansion was an uncomplicated narrative, not marked by tremendous violence, subjugation, and dispossession.

An enduring thread of space-settlement fantasy views Earth as needing the influence of a space frontier civilization to show us a tougher, freer, better way. Robert Zubrin, head of the Mars Society, declares in his manifesto, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier,” that humanity needs Mars because this new frontier will provide the next great stage of human development. A clean juxtaposition of alien Mars with the familiar frontier.

The promises made by multi-billionaires for space outposts are steeped in centuries-old Eurocentric mythology, which envisions progress by moving to new lands and putting them to their proper use, celebrating expansion into a landscape allegedly devoid of humans, enabling a wildly creative frontier civilization, or providing huge economic advantages to whoever makes the first move.

In his second inaugural speech, Trump vowed to “pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars.” The unselfconscious language of settler colonialism justified as divine expansion is infecting outer space.

Asteroid mining has been touted for years as the “Gold Rush” of the millennium. Mining the Moon, Mars, and asteroids for precious metals and minerals is the astro-capitalist fantasy of limitless, unregulated wealth to be earned in space.

Arthur C. Clarke, sci fi author of 2001: A Space Odyssey, asked of the drive to propel us up and out, “Will moral advances accompany the technologies that make spaceflight possible and allow us to escape our past, or will the future be characterized by the same opportunism and exploitation that defined European and American expansion?”

Frame #3 SPACE RACE 

The space race playing out among billionaires like Branson, Bezos and Musk has little to do with science—it’s a PR-driven spectacle designed to distract us from the disasters capitalism is causing here on Earth.

—PARIS MARX, author and tech critic

It is impossible to discuss humanity’s efforts to expand into space without the lens of national competition. With Sputnik serving as the permanent cultural reminder, dominating space has long been a proxy for geopolitical power. Our first robotic and human expeditions beyond Earth were ignited by Cold War rivalry, which unleashed a massive mobilization of government resources in the service of what was openly called “The Space Race.”

Although the Soviet Union is long gone, the Space Race frame continues to shape both public understanding and national policies. Trump’s nominee to lead NASA, billionaire pilot Jared Isaacman, who was the first private citizen to complete a space walk, has made this context explicit. After his nomination hearing, Isaacman posted on X, “I can promise you this: We will never again lose our ability to journey to the stars and never settle for second place.”

Meanwhile, China’s Mars plan, the Tianwen-3 mission, is a two-part Mars sample return mission scheduled for launch in late 2028, with return to Earth expected around 2031. Both NASA and China aim to build lunar bases with continuous human presence at the South Pole of the Moon in the 2030s. Tension over who will be first is intensifying.

This latest iteration of the Space Race is not the simple binary tale of Cold War rivalry; in fact, it is the private space industry, the latest player to join the fray, which is best poised to take people to Mars. This “new” space race is largely led by venture capitalist entrepreneurs, private companies, and start-ups, catalyzing and controlling much of the mass momentum, with the oversized figures of Bezos, Musk, and Branson dominating the competition to fund and popularize space exploration and tourism.

The second astronaut to walk on the Moon, Buzz Aldrin, has urged the need to get past the “flags and footprints” blip. Touring the globe wearing a t-shirt saying “Get your ass to Mars”, he wants permanent habitation by 2039.

Cosmologist Aparna Venkatesan has called this phenomenon the “manufactured urgency” of space colonization, where the actions of state and private global interests are “driven by a perpetual anxiety to not be the last to arrive.”

Frame #4 EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY 

Nothing seems to pique a spirit of wonder, curiosity, ambition and humility quite like space exploration and discovery. 

—MATTHEW SHINDELL, Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum curator

Uncritical references to the New World, Age of Discovery, and Columbus thread through promotion of the social good of space exploration, of ships crossing the starry sea. The Mariner and Viking missions evoked historical voyages of discovery that brought Europeans to the shores of unknown worlds. As the long-awaited inaugural Mars landing takes place in the fictional For All Mankind TV series, an intercom voice announces, “In 1620, a ship called the Mayflower traveled across the Atlantic Ocean in search of a new world. Some came to escape their past, others to follow their dreams.”

Alongside a series of hip vintage style recruitment posters, NASA exclaims on its website: “Be A Martian! Mars needs YOU! In the future, Mars will need all kinds of explorers, farmers, surveyors, teachers . . . but most of all YOU! Join us on the Journey to Mars as we explore with robots and send humans there one day. Be an explorer!”

Fifty-five years after the legendary Apollo generation, named for the Greek god riding his chariot across the sun, NASA has branded its next “Moon to Mars” era as “The Artemis Generation,” the lunar goddess and twin sister to Apollo. Setting up the first long-term human presence on the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars promises the ability to find water and fuel, to expand the logistics supply chain to enable resupply and refueling of deep space outposts.

In the promotional video “Why the Moon,” narrator Drew Barrymore (who not coincidentally had her screen debut in the 1982 movie E.T.) and NASA team members explain why returning to the Moon is the natural next step, and how the lessons learned from Artemis will pave the way to Mars and beyond, infused with a tone of upbeat certainty and excitement. “We are going.” “Science fiction turned reality.” “Our success will change the world.” “We are preparing for Mars.”

At the root of much of the Mars narrative are assumptions that equate exploration with progress and unquestioned good. A belief that the fundamental urge to explore is a defining, inherent human trait and innate drive.

Historically, the “Age of Discovery” inaugurated centuries of violent colonial exploitation of human life, labor, and the more-than-human world. Ferrying millions of tons of cargo may be an easier feat than reckoning with the weight of supremacist cultural baggage.

Mars is the only planet we know that is entirely inhabited by robots. Scientific motivators for sending humans to Mars in the near future assert that researchers on the planet will be more adaptable and efficient than rovers, capable of accomplishing more in less time. The Martian surface is “all past” as its time stands still, without plate tectonics or large-scale recycling of rocks. Planetary science professor Sarah Stewart Johnson describes, “The place we are visiting with spacecraft is almost the same world as it was 3 billion years ago … Perhaps echoes of the beginning of life, entombed deep in the planet’s ancient rocks.”

Mars has been an obsession for celestial cartographers for more than 150 years, starting as a tool to argue that Mars was inhabited. Famously, Percival Lowell’s maps bolstered a theory of intelligent life with a complex irrigation canal system and vegetation. Whereas the first maps assumed an existing populace, the newest generation of maps invite a populace. Anthropologist Lisa Messeri, in her study of “Mapping Mars in Silicon Valley,” notes, “The goal for today’s maps is not about alien habitation but to establish Mars as inviting to human explorers … to establish Mars as a destination, the ‘awaiting Red Planet.’”

Frame #5 TRANSCENDENCE

Not even the sky is a limit.

—TikTok star KELLIE GERARDI on the Virgin livestream during the 2021 Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin space launches

A 2015 Newsweek article posed the question, “Is Mars the escape hatch for the 1%?” A decade later, the fact that billonauts are among our loudest advocates for Mars suggests the answer is yes.

The fourth planet from the Sun is represented as a destination of freedom: from regulations, societal and terrestrial constraints, and the biological limits of the Earth itself. For years, critics have voiced concerns that billionaires’ space investments enable an escape from the climate chaos that the economic system, which enriched them, continues to fuel here.

Many of the most persistent voices for Mars colonization are philosophically libertarian. Earth is too bureaucratic, too rule-bound and oppressive, with its laws of gravity and government—an insult to the lofty evolutionary heights that necessitate pulling up anchor. There is nothing holding tech titans back on Mars, except for the issue that space is constantly trying to kill you, necessitating every type of technologically assisted tether to keep you alive.

Space colonization, like its parallel ascension fantasy, the Christian Rapture, has long involved a tension between the liberation of a chosen vanguard and the imminent destruction of the Earth, viewed as undesirable or doomed. Journalist Naomi Klein draws attention to ways that the blaring space dreams of the wealthiest men on Earth function as secularized Bible stories: “The most powerful people in the world are preparing for the end of the world, an end they themselves are frenetically accelerating.”

This framing of Mars aligns it with a broader cultural narrative of salvation through technology. Colonizing Mars fits neatly alongside transhumanist visions of transcending the limitations of human bodies, of “hacking death” through cryopreservation immortality, and “longtermist” views of a future when humans become digital intelligence that colonize the universe, thus preserving existence for billions of years. Journalist Gil Duran distilled this emergent Silicon Valley cult religion on a recent episode of his The Nerd Reich podcast as, “Replace the soul with code, heaven with Mars, and Jesus with billionaire saviors.”

What Is Outside The Frame

The old science-fiction dreams … are just a moral hazard that creates the illusion we can wreck Earth and still be okay. It’s totally not true.

—KIM STANLEY ROBINSON, author of the Mars trilogy

Taking these five frames together, we see the overlapping collage of the Mars sales pitch. A multiplanetary future for humanity is presented as necessary not only for our survival but as the vision that will innovate our industries, rekindle our adventurous pioneer spirit, and ultimately liberate (some of) us from being Earth-bound.

What is rendered obscure, marginal, or invisible by these visions? What inconvenient facts left outside the frame might subvert the overly convenient narrative contained within?

Much of the framing outlined above has left out a very significant factor: reality.

Dynamic duo Kelly and Zach Weinersmith, in their new popular science opus A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?, delve into well-researched, sobering detail about every aspect of life in space, including what they describe as the profound “suckitude” of space for human physiology. There is no systematic, generational research on how space impacts medical conditions or the viability of reproduction. Just one example of the incompatibility of space for our Earth-evolved bodies is the stunning rate at which astronauts lose bone density. Dying in novel ways is also outside the frame.

Outside the frame is the perennial question of funding these expeditions, from the time of Rev. Abernathy’s critiques of the Apollo moon landing expenditure, which found expression in Gil Scott-Heron’s iconic song, “Whitey on the Moon.” What is the moral calculus that justifies prioritizing a multi-trillion-dollar otherworldly project in the name of abstract “human progress,” in the face of immeasurable human suffering?

Assume enough people do make it to Mars to begin the terraforming that Occupy Mars folks love to conjure. Among the wave of scientific revelations about Mars is the discovery that the Martian surface is covered with perchlorate, a poisonous, corrosive dust that is lethal to humans to breathe in the parts per billion range.

No less a Mars zeitgeist-shaper than Kim Stanley Robinson, author of the seminal 1990s sci-fi Mars trilogy, which provided a foundational terraforming template, admits that the perchlorate discovery massively increases the difficulty of any hypothetical future. More fundamentally, Robinson raises the question of whether pursuing such unlikely outcomes as making Mars habitable is worth the effort when Earth civilization is currently destroying its own homeworld’s biosphere. Unlike the Planet B crowd, he strongly believes that Mars is “irrelevant” if Earth is doomed.

Which brings us to, perhaps, the most all-encompassing absence from the Mars sales pitch: Earth itself. Outside the frame is our profound interdependence with our terrestrial home and the astounding wild diversity of life forms who, like us, have been born in the embrace of our gravitational field. Space colonies will not save the millions of species at risk of extinction. The threat to biodiversity is one of the ecocidal consequences of an economic system driven by limitless growth. This ideology is exactly what has given us the very billionaires who seek to expand this worldview, unaltered, into space. Why would we believe it is possible to build resource-intensive life support systems on Mars when we haven’t been able to stop the rapid decline of life support systems on Earth?

As Carl Sagan poignantly expressed, “What shall we do with Mars? There are so many examples of human misuse of the Earth that even phrasing this question chills me.”

Touch Grass

Humanity needed a moon landing to realise that the much more exciting thing is the earth itself—but landing on it is not so easy.

—BRUNO LATOUR, philosopher and anthropologist of science and technology

“Grass by the Home” is a 1980s song beloved by Russian cosmonauts, which became famous when it was performed by the band Zemlyane (translated to “Earthlings”). Elevated to the status of official anthem by the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos, the lyrics sing: “We dream not about the roar of the spaceport/Not about this icy blue space/We dream of grass, grass by the home/Green, green grass.” “Touch grass” as a current meme implies that someone needs to reconnect with reality, get offline, and venture into the world outside.

The song’s sentiment was shared by some members of both Soviet and American crews, as Apollo astronaut Bill Anders reflected, “Here we came all this way to the Moon, and yet the most significant thing we’re seeing is our own home planet, the Earth.” Similarly, exoplanet researchers, who have catalogued thousands of planets searching for those in the habitable “Goldilocks Zone,” express a common refrain that “home is the most interesting thing.” As author Jaime Green describes, “The more you look for planets like Earth, the more you appreciate our own planet itself.”

Indeed, many who have traveled to space have had transformative experiences of awe, of looking back and being struck by the view of the Earth, a phenomenon known as the “Overview Effect.” Ninety-year-old William Shatner, known to millions as Captain Kirk from Star Trek, had an Overview Effect experience during his 2021 Blue Origin trip, gazing at Earth from the starry beyond. As he beheld the staggering biodiversity that took billions of years to evolve being destroyed, the fragility of our life-containing atmosphere, the nurturing warmth of our home in the “vicious coldness of space,” he was overcome with immense grief: “My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead it felt like a funeral.”

Here is revealed the true sleight of hand of the Mars pitch at this moment in history. We are encouraged to believe that human ingenuity and industry can turn uninhabitable Mars into a habitable Earth. This fantasy serves as a distraction from the reality that Earth is being rapidly turned into Mars.

This article originally appeared in https://www.projectcensored.org/marketing-mars/?doing_wp_cron=1749613476.6134579181671142578125.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Zara Zimbardo.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Allen Forrest.

From Nevada to Arkansas, companies are racing to dig more lithium out of the ground to meet the clean energy sector’s surging appetite. But this battery recycling facility, owned by Massachusetts-based Ascend Elements, is the first new lithium carbonate producer in the nation in years — and the only source of recycled lithium carbonate in North America. The company is finalizing upgrades to its Covington facility that will allow it to produce up to 3,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate per year beginning later this month. Right now, the only other domestic source of lithium carbonate is a small mine in Silver Peak, Nevada.

Since January, President Donald Trump has taken a sledgehammer to the Biden administration’s efforts to grow America’s clean energy industry. The Trump administration has frozen grants and loans, hollowed out key agencies, and used executive action to stall renewable energy projects and reverse climate policies — often in legally dubious ways. At the same time, citing economic and national security reasons, Trump has sought to advance efforts to produce more critical minerals like lithium in the United States. That is exactly what the emerging lithium-ion battery recycling industry seeks to do, which is why some industry insiders are optimistic about their future under Trump. 

Nevertheless, U.S. battery recyclers face uncertainty due to fast-changing tariff policies, the prospect that Biden-era tax credits could be repealed by Congress as it seeks to slash federal spending, and signs that the clean energy manufacturing boom is fading.

Battery recyclers are in “a limbo moment,” said Beatrice Browning, a recycling expert at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which conducts market research for companies in the lithium-ion battery supply chain. They’re “waiting to see what the next steps are.”

To transition off fossil fuels, the world needs a lot more big batteries that can power EVs and store renewable energy for use when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. That need is already causing demand for the metals inside batteries to surge. Recycling end-of-life batteries — from electric cars, e-bikes, cell phones, and more — can provide metals to help meet this demand while reducing the need for destructive mining. It’s already happening on a large scale in China, where most of the world’s lithium-ion battery manufacturing takes place and where recyclers benefit from supportive government policies and a steady stream of manufacturing scrap. 

When the Biden administration attempted to onshore clean energy manufacturing, U.S. battery recyclers announced major expansion plans, propelled by government financing and other incentives. Under former president Joe Biden, the U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, launched research and development initiatives to support battery recycling and awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to firms seeking to expand operations. The DOE’s Loan Program’s Office also offered to lend nearly $2.5 billion to two battery recycling companies.

The industry also benefited from tax credits established or enhanced by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the centerpiece of Biden’s climate agenda. In particular, the 45X advanced manufacturing production credit subsidizes domestic production of critical minerals, including those produced from recycled materials. For battery recyclers, the incentive “has a direct bottom-line impact,” according to Roger Lin, VP of government affairs at Ascend Elements.

The DOE didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment on the status of Biden-era grants and loans for battery recycling. But recyclers report that at least some federal support is continuing under Trump. 

In 2022, Ascend Elements was awarded a $316 million DOE grant to help it construct a second battery recycling plant in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. That grant, which will go toward building capacity to make battery cathode precursor materials from recycled metals, “is still active and still being executed on,” Lin told Grist, with minimal impact from the change in administration. Ascend Elements expects the plant to come online in late 2026.

American Battery Technology Company, a Reno, Nevada-based battery materials firm, told a similar story. In December, the company finalized a $144 million DOE contract to support the construction of its second battery recycling facility, which will extract and refine battery-grade metals from manufacturing scrap and end-of-life batteries. That grant remains active with “no changes” since Trump’s inauguration, CEO Ryan Melsert told Grist. 

Yet another battery recycler, Cirba Solutions, recently learned that a $200 million DOE grant to help it construct a new battery recycling plant in Columbia, South Carolina, is moving forward. At full capacity, this facility is expected to produce enough battery-grade metals to supply half a million EVs a year. Cirba Solutions is also still spending funds from two earlier DOE grants, including a $75 million grant to expand a battery processing plant in Lancaster, Ohio. 

“I think that we aligned very much to the priorities of the administration,” Danielle Spalding, VP of communications and public affairs at Cirba Solutions, told Grist. 

Those priorities include establishing the U.S. as “the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals,” and taking steps to “facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum possible extent,” according to executive orders signed by Trump in January and March. Because critical minerals are used in many high-tech devices, including military weapons, the Trump administration appears to believe America’s national security depends on controlling their supply chains. As battery recyclers were quick to note following Trump’s inauguration, their industry can help.

“Critical minerals are central to creating a resilient energy economy in the U.S., and resource recovery and recycling companies will continue to play an important role in providing another domestic source of these materials,” Ajay Kochhar, CEO of the battery recycling firm Li-Cycle, wrote in a blog post reacting to one of Trump’s executive orders on energy. 

Li-Cycle, which closed a $475 million loan with the DOE’s Loan Programs Office in November but is now facing possible bankruptcy, didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment.

While Biden’s approach to onshoring critical mineral production was rooted in various financial incentives, Trump has pursued the same goal using tariffs — and by attempting to fast-track new mines. Although economists have criticized Trump’s indiscriminate and unpredictable application of tariffs, some battery recyclers are cautiously optimistic they will benefit from increased trade restrictions. In particular, recyclers see the escalating trade war with China — including recent limits on exports of various critical minerals to the U.S. — as further evidence that new domestic sources of these resources are needed. (China is the world’s leading producer of most key battery metals.)

“There is a chance that limiting the amount that is being imported from China … could really strengthen” mineral production in other regions, including the U.S., Browning said.

Trade restrictions between the U.S. and key partners outside of China could be more harmful. Today, Browning says, U.S. recyclers often sell the black mass they produce to refiners in South Korea, which don’t produce enough domestically to meet their processing capacity and are paying a premium to secure material from abroad. Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on Korean imports in April, before placing them on a 90-day pause. If South Korea were to implement retaliatory tariffs in response, it could cut off a key revenue stream for the U.S. industry. However, recycling companies Grist spoke noted that there are currently no export bans or tariffs affecting their black mass, and emphasized their plans to build up local refining capacity. 

“The short answer is that we see the tariffs as an opportunity to focus on domestic manufacturing,” Spalding of Cirba Solutions said. 

While battery recyclers seem to align with Trump on critical minerals policy, and to some extent on trade, their interests diverge when it comes to energy policy. Without a clean energy manufacturing boom in the U.S., there would be far less need for battery recycling.

Today, nearly 40 percent of the material available to battery recyclers in the U.S. is production scrap from battery gigafactories, according to data from Benchmark. Another 15 percent consists of used EV batteries that have reached the end of their lives or been recalled, while grid storage and micromobility batteries (such as e-bike batteries) account for 14 percent. The remaining third of the material available for processing is portable batteries, like those in consumer electronics.

In the future, as more EVs reach the end of their lives, an even greater fraction of battery scrap will come from the clean energy sector. If a large number of planned battery and EV manufacturing facilities are canceled in the coming years — due to a repeal of Inflation Reduction Act tax incentives, a loss of federal funding, rising project costs, or perhaps all three — the recycling industry may have to scale back its ambitions, too. 

The budget bill that passed the House in May would undo a number of key Inflation Reduction Act provisions. Some clean energy tax credits, like the consumer EV tax credit, would be eliminated at the end of this year. The legislation was kinder to the 45X manufacturing credit, scheduling it to end in 2031 rather than the current phase-out date of 2032. But the bill could face significant changes in the Senate before heading to Trump’s desk, possibly by July 4. 

Despite uncertainty over the fate of IRA tax credits, Trump’s actions have already put a damper on U.S. manufacturing: Since January, firms have abandoned or delayed plans for $14 billion worth of U.S. clean energy projects, according to the clean tech advocacy group E2.

While the battery recyclers Grist spoke with are putting on a brave face under Trump’s second term, some are also looking to hedge their bets. As Ascend Elements ramps up lithium production in Georgia, it has lined up at least one buyer outside the battery supply chain. The battery industry accounts for nearly 90 percent of lithium demand globally, but the metal is also used in various industrial applications, including ceramics and glass making.

Integrating into the EV battery supply chain remains “the ultimate goal,” Lin told Grist. “But we are looking at other plans to ensure … the economic viability of the operation continues.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s second term is creating ‘a limbo moment’ for US battery recyclers on Jun 10, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Maddie Stone.

Ultimately, this is false. It is false, in the sense that: 1) the world economy is, on most counts, functioning and operating according to the logic of capitalism, namely, that 99.9999% of the world economy continues to be all about the maximization of profit, which also includes these internet fiefdoms. In the sense that the maximization of profit by any means necessary, for share-holders, continues to be the driving force of the system. Granted, in certain instances, profits may be derived from the central-banks through quantitative easing practices, i.e., the soaking up of easy money by giant corporations, who buy back their own shares, rather than by selling commodities to consumers. Notwithstanding, from the share-holders’ perspective, this is still profit, regardless where the capital surplus comes from. Subsequently, nowadays, profits can come from anywhere in all sorts of forms, whether it is from quantitative easing, accumulation by dispossession, rent, war, and/or from interest payments etc. Wherever it comes from, it is profit through and through, a surplus, which is then classified under the category of profit or revenue, regardless of its source. Hence, if it is a surplus, it is a profit, a revenue of some kind. In the sense that, in the age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, whatever an entity or entities can get away with in the marketplace and/or the sphere of production is ultimately valid, legitimate, and normal.

Therefore, despite what some academics’ argue, profit is still the central-operating-code of all these so-called internet fiefdoms, whether they are conscious of this fact or not. True, these digital platforms are about the cultivation and harvesting of personal information, but all this information-gathering is fundamentally about amassing profit, namely, super-profits in an anonymous and indirect manner. These digital platforms convert personal data into profit, whether by selling these data-sets to advertisers, or by improving their own technology to better stimulate individual customer purchases and services on their own specific platforms. As always, the point is capitalist revenue, i.e., profit-making by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible.

And finally, 2) whatever its make-up, the newly-risen, neo-feudal tech-aristocracy continues to subscribe heart and soul to the logic of capitalism. In the sense that its origins lie in the logic of capitalism, or more specifically, the logic of capitalism super-charged to its utmost neoliberal extremes. This new aristocracy is capitalist to the core. It seeks to capitalize on resources and people, by any means, in order to amass capital for itself at the expense of the workforce/population, as it always has throughout its history. And rent is a method of amassing capital. Consequently, this new aristocracy is not a technological aristocracy per se, it is a capitalist aristocracy, first and foremost. It is an aristocracy that uses the tools of machine-technology as a means to amass power, profit, and capital, for itself. That is, this aristocracy uses the tools of machine-technology to better align itself with the dictates of the logic of capitalism. For this aristocracy, technology is not an end-in-itself, but, a means to amass more power, profit, and capital, nothing more and nothing less. Thus, capital accumulation is still the end-game of all the financial maneuvers, all the algorithmic innovations, all the rent-extractions, and all the power-plays that these internet fiefdoms engage-in. The highest possible return on capital investment continues to be the bottom-line, regardless of where this return comes from, or what the theoreticians of techno-feudalism claim. Lest we forget that these internet fiefdoms do invest massively in research and development, more so than at any other time in history.

Subsequently, the software of the system encoded upon everything and everyone is still the logic of capitalism, while the hardware of the system is continually changing and mutating into all sorts of monstrous forms. And, naturally, the theoreticians of techno-feudalism want you to solely focus on the constantly mutating hardware of the capitalist-system, forgoing the hidden immutable software of the system, namely, the software driving the whole system. In the sense that it is only in this manner that the techno-feudal argument holds any water. Forget the software, only concentrate on the hardware, and ye shall believe, believe as an enchanted zealot in the opulence of the techno-feudal sci-fi fantasy and hypothesis.

Specifically, the economic theoreticians of techno-feudalism are those individuals who would look-upon the first generation terminator model, i.e., the T-800, from the first terminator film as the only authentic cyborg worthy of being called, a terminator. While, the second generation terminator model, i.e., the T-1000, from the second installment of the terminator films would not be a terminator in their eyes, but, something totally different, something that has completely transcended the definition of what a terminator is and what it constitutes. The T-1000 is not a terminator, if you follow the logic of techno-feudalism, because it does not behave, or look, as the original terminator does. The T-1000 is made of liquid metal, while the first generation T-800 is made of living tissue, covering its stainless steel skeleton. Thereby, they are two totally different incompatible entities. Indeed, the T-1000 is not a terminator, but an entity that is totally new and different, unrecognizable as a terminator in relation to the T-800.

And, indeed, the whole set of arguments about the validity of techno-feudalism revolve around such theoretical tricks and sleights of hand. That capitalism is no longer capitalism because it does not function and operate as capitalism once did in its distant past. Capitalism has evolved into something completely different, as the initial terminator, i.e., the T-800, has evolved into something completely different, the T-1000. What the theoreticians of techno-feudalism do not notice, or simply fail to mention, is that all the multi-varied versions of capitalism, as well as the multi-varied versions of terminators, share the same immutable software. They share the same central-operating-code, which is their defining immutable characteristic. Due to the fact that the T-800 and the T-1000 were algorithmically programmed to achieve the same end, to kill John Conner by any means necessary. This is what defined these cyborg-machines as terminators, not their make-up, their radically different hardware. Just as the old form of capitalism and its newer model, i.e., techno-capitalist-feudalism, share the same end, the same code, i.e., the maximization of profit, by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible. Despite the fact that both function and operate in radically different manners and have radically different hardware.

Ultimately, to achieve and maximize capital is the algorithmic thread that unites all prior forms of capitalism with all its newest model versions, since, surplus value from the central banks, or surplus value from the exploitation of laborers, or surplus value from rent, or wherever else, amounts to the same thing, profiteering at the expense of another, regardless how that profiteering is made, or where that profiteering comes from. As a matter of fact, the tired and antiquated feudal mechanism of rent extraction was appropriated by emerging capitalism, where it was upgraded, supercharged, and welded-tight to industrial capital, as its own.

In short, capitalist rent is a type of profiteering; capitalist profit is a type of profiteering. Rent is stolen unpaid work, i.e., surplus value; profit is stolen unpaid work, i.e., surplus value. And both rent and profit are fundamental types of capitalist revenue, namely, they are two sides of the same capital coin. And both are the embodiment of magnitudes of force and influence, capable of bending existence to the will of a capitalist entity. Finally, rent and profit are methods by which to accumulate capital, in the sense that profit and rent are both capital, as well as specific modes of capital accumulation. And both have been present in and across the system since the dawn of capitalism and even before that.

Notwithstanding, the theoreticians of techno-feudalism do not acknowledge this fact. For them, profit is profit only when 1) it is private, i.e., it is strictly made by private enterprises; and 2) it comes strictly from the sphere of commodity-production, i.e., the exploitation of workers in the production sphere. While, rent is rent when it is a fee commanded and paid for, pertaining to the use of a piece of private property, whatever that property is. Specifically, for these theoreticians, rent and profit do not intermingle and they do not embody the same substance, i.e., force and influence. For them, rent and profit are different because their modes of capital accumulation are different. As a result, the theoreticians of techno-feudalism skip over many fundamental economic facts, concerning the certainty that rent and profit are capital, and that rent and profit comprise their own individual methods of capital accumulation. That is, that the end-game of both profit and rent is the same, i.e., to accumulate as much capital as force and influence will allow. Like the T-800 and the T-1000, rent and profit have the same fundamental objective, the same central-operating-code, namely, to accrue the maximum amount of capital by any means necessary, as soon as possible! In the sense that both methods of capital accumulation have been subsumed and integrated into the accumulation processes of totalitarian-capitalism. Whereby, today, profit-making and rent-extraction function and operate in tandem at the behest of the logic of capitalism and the 1 percent.

And more importantly, the whole techno-feudalist theoretical framework and argument hinges on profit and rent being radically dissimilar and distinctly separated; when, in reality, they are in principle the same. They are both surplus value, forms of power, and profiteering modes of capital accumulation, modes by which to absorb and extract value from another, gratis. Rent is paid out of newly created surplus value; and profit is paid out of newly-created surplus value. All the same, the theoreticians of techno-feudalism pass over these fundamental economic facts in silence, concealing their inherent similarities and their primary importance as capitalist gain.

Above all, the theoreticians of techno-feudalism do not give credence to Mark Fisher’s notion that capitalism is “a monstrous, infinitely plastic entity, capable of metabolizing and absorbing anything with which it comes into contact”, akin to the T-1000 terminator.¹ The theoreticians of techno-feudalism do not acknowledge that capitalism can change its hardware in an infinity of forms, gothic, gruesome, and sadistic, whatever it needs to do; all the while still adhering to its immutable uncompromising software demanding endless capital accumulation. These techno-feudal theorists never mention the immutable software of capitalism, its central-operating-code, the same for the last 250 years. And just like the T-1000 terminator, capitalism will end and disappear only when its software, its central-operating-code, ends and disappears in the hellish crucible of molten metal, that is, the anarchist revolution.

For example, under the old form of capitalism we had yachts, but now, under the new form of capitalism, i.e., totalitarian-capitalism, or more importantly, techno-capitalist-feudalism, we have super-yachts. Similarly, under the old form of capitalism we had privately-owned backyard air-fields, but now, under the new form of capitalism, we have privately-owned backyard space launch centers. Of course, the theoreticians of techno-feudalism would have you believe that super-yachts, or privately-owned backyard space launch centers, are the product of a wholly different system that has abandoned the logic of capitalism. However, one can clearly see and comprehend that super-yachts and backyard space launch centers are just a logical progression of the logic of capitalism, supercharged to the Nth degree. One develops out of the other, thanks to a new fanatical form of neoliberalism, neoliberalism on methamphetamine, manically driving backwards towards feudalism redux, that is, FEUDALISM 2.0.

Indeed, even the billionaire caste is a grotesque abomination of the logic of capitalism, out of control and out of whack. In the sense that thousands must be rendered destitute and homeless in order to manufacture a single billionaire. And being Frankenstein monsters, these grotesque billionaire mutants of totalitarian-capitalism unhinged, will eventually have to be hunted down with pitchforks and blowtorches, if the multitude of peasant-workers are to overcome and abolish the horrors of techno-capitalist serfdom, once and for all.

As a result, capitalism is not dead, but, has only amplified itself to its utmost logical extreme. It has become totalitarian and super-exploitative. In the sense that the logic of capitalism still powers all the newly-risen fiefdoms of the era of techno-capitalist-feudalism. And just like the old form of capitalism, the new form of capitalism has a ruling caste, which, in most instances, is still ironically the same ruling caste that was in power during the reign of the old form of capitalism. And just like the old form of capitalism, the members of this new form of capitalism, comprising its so-called new ruling caste, continue to be the sole owners of the means and forces of production, while, the workforce/population continues to be dominated by a capitalist wage-system, like in the old days, when the old antiquated form of powdered-wig capitalism ruled supreme.

Today, just like in the past era of run-of-the-mill traditional-capitalism, peasant-workers only have their labor-power, or creative-power, to sell to the owner or owners of the means and forces of production. The only difference in-between the old form of capitalism and the new form of capitalism, i.e., the age of monopoly-capitalism and the age of super-monopoly, or techno-capitalist-feudalism,  is that today peasant-workers can be paid below subsistence levels, whereas before, they were not. In fact, workers now have to work multiple jobs and more hours to make ends meet, since they have no benefits and are paid largely below subsistence levels. Therefore, the logic or software of capitalism has not disappeared. And to say that it has is a gross exaggeration. In other words, the age of monopoly has simply given way to the age of super-monopoly, namely, the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism. Wherein, the logic of capitalism continues to thrive and multiply, ad nauseam. Because capitalism has always been dead, dead and congealed, namely, a congealed set of power-relations, which vampire-like live the more, the more creativity they suck, from all their unsuspecting, living peasant-workers.²

In sum, the specter of capitalism haunts techno-feudalism as software, as its hidden code lodged deep within its radically incompatible ever-mutating hardware. Thereby, the specter of capitalism haunts all the theoretical machinations and the minutia of techno-feudalism, since, techno-feudalism, or more accurately, techno-capitalist-feudalism, is the result of the capital/labor relationship at its most lopsided, oppressive, and technologically dominating. The capital/labor relationship continues to hold; it continues to hold at the center of techno-feudalism, or more accurately, techno-capitalist-feudalism. In the sense that the logic of capitalism pervades, envelops, infects, and poisons, all aspects of society and techno-feudalism, since, the logic of capitalism continues to be the foundation and the fundamental under-girder of society and techno-feudalism, a foundation that techno-feudalism refuses to acknowledge or even address, adequately. (Let us not forget that, like its predecessors, techno-feudalism continues the long history of the critique of capitalism by talking once again about the central concept of capitalism, i.e., CAPITAL, whether this is monopoly-capital, rentier-capital, digital-capital, communicative-capital, surveillance-capital, and/or the new all-terrifying poltergeist of cloud-capital). In short, techno-feudalism distorts the aberrant monstrosity of techno-capitalist-feudalism, the horror-show that is the despotic age of totalitarian-capitalism, whereby, super-monopoly and super-profits are multi-varied, ruthless, and fundamentally undisciplined.

As it happens, in the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, super-exploitation is 24/7. Whereupon, there is no escape or chance of relief, as the newly-minted post-industrial serfs, i.e., the 99 percent, are forever bound in all sorts of insidious Malthusian traps, financial Catch-22s, crippling debt etc., which have them all going around in circles in and across a hopeless set of bureaucratic labyrinths, all designed to keep them stationary and subservient upon the lower-stratums of the system. As a result, the ruminations of techno-feudalism are scientifically disingenuous. They skew the facts and the true reality of the billions of peasant-workers, toiling under the jackboot of capitalist exploitation, capitalist debt, capitalist rent, and a capitalist wage-system of piecemeal slavery. Subsequently, techno-feudalism is a disservice to workers. To drop the term “capitalist” from techno-capitalist-feudalism, only muddies the clear blue waters of the terminal stage of capitalist development, namely, the new dawning epoch of totalitarian-capitalism, that is, the new dystopian age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, run-amok.

Just because the old capitalist bourgeoisie has embraced digital algorithms and invasive surveillance technologies as its own, and has abstracted itself at a higher-level of socio-economic existence, away from the workforce/population, whereby, it now appears invisible and increasingly distant from the everyday lives of workers, does not mean the old capitalist bourgeoisie has melted away into thin air, or has been usurped by a new, strictly technological aristocracy. What has happened is that the old capitalist bourgeoisie has become a techno-capitalist-feudal-aristocracy, since, the logic of capitalism, capitalist profit, capitalist rent, and capitalist technological innovations, continue to inform and motivate this authoritarian feudo-capitalist aristocracy.

In the end, economic supremacy resides with the capitalists, since, they control the repressive-state-apparatuses, while the tech-lords do not. Therefore, these feudo-capitalist lords only exist by virtue of and by the good grace of traditional capitalists, who control the repressive-state-apparatuses. The tech-lords do not have their own repressive-state-apparatus, thereby, they will always remain secondary, merely a small part of the overall feudo-capitalist aristocracy, forever at the mercy of those who control the military, namely, all those blood thirsty repressive-state-apparatuses of the state-finance-corporate-aristocracy, the 1%.

In view of these damning facts, techno-feudalism is a bust, a wrong turn, a wrong-brained play on words, leading to a theoretical dead-end that only empowers capitalist supremacy at the expense of    workers’ liberation and self-management. It must be jettisoned. The fact of the matter is that the logic of capitalism continues to rule, because the peasant-workers, i.e., the anarcho-proletarians, the punks have yet to overthrow the capitalist mode of production, consumption, and distribution, from the active theater of world history. Thus, within the so-called evolutionary whimper of techno-feudalism, the logic of capitalism is thriving, laughing all the way to the bank. It will never go quietly and orderly into that good night. Capitalism will only go out with a bang, a loud resounding cataclysmic bang. As capitalism came into this world soaked in blood from head to toe; and it will only leave this world gushing blood, allover the globe.³ Because, devoid of the epic blast of rampant anarchist revolution, capitalism invariably marches-on as, and in the form of, techno-capitalist-feudalism. Ergo, in the dark age of TCF:

Resistance is feudal and the guillotine is forever!

ENDNOTES:

1 Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism (United Kingdom: Zero Books, 2009), p. 6.

2 Karl Marx, Capital (Volume One), Trans. Ben Fowkes, (London, Eng.: Penguin, 1990), p. 342.

3 Karl Marx, Capital (Volume One), p. 926.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Michel Luc Bellemare.

President Trump’s plan to fuse government power with private surveillance tech to build a centralized, national citizen database is the final step in transforming America from a constitutional republic into a digital dictatorship armed with algorithms and powered by unaccountable, all-seeing artificial intelligence.

This isn’t about national security. It’s about control.

According to news reports, the Trump administration is quietly collaborating with Palantir Technologies—the data-mining behemoth co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel—to construct a centralized, government-wide surveillance system that would consolidate biometric, behavioral, and geolocation data into a single, weaponized database of Americans’ private information.

This isn’t about protecting freedom. It’s about rendering freedom obsolete.

What we’re witnessing is the transformation of America into a digital prison—one where the inmates are told we’re free while every move, every word, every thought is monitored, recorded, and used to assign a “threat score” that determines our place in the new hierarchy of obedience.

The tools enabling this all-seeing surveillance regime are not new, but under Trump’s direction, they are being fused together in unprecedented ways, with Palantir at the center of this digital dragnet.

Palantir, long criticized for its role in powering ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids and predictive policing, is now poised to become the brain of Trump’s surveillance regime.

Under the guise of “data integration” and “public safety,” this public-private partnership would deploy AI-enhanced systems to comb through everything from facial recognition feeds and license plate readers to social media posts and cellphone metadata, cross-referencing it all to assess a person’s risk to the state.

This isn’t speculative. It’s already happening.

Palantir’s Gotham platform, used by law enforcement and military agencies, has long been the backbone of real-time tracking and predictive analysis. Now, with Trump’s backing, it threatens to become the central nervous system of a digitally enforced authoritarianism.

As Palantir itself admits, its mission is to “augment human decision-making.” In practice, that means replacing probable cause with probability scores, courtrooms with code, and due process with data pipelines.

In this new regime, your innocence will be irrelevant. The algorithm will decide who you are.

To understand the full danger of this moment, we must trace the long arc of government surveillance—from secret intelligence programs like COINTELPRO and the USA PATRIOT Act to today’s AI-driven digital dragnet embodied by data fusion centers.

Building on this foundation of historical abuse, the government has evolved its tactics, replacing human informants with algorithms and wiretaps with metadata, ushering in an age where pre-crime prediction is treated as prosecution.

Every smartphone ping, GPS coordinate, facial scan, online purchase, and social media like becomes part of your “digital exhaust”—a breadcrumb trail of metadata that the government now uses to build behavioral profiles. The FBI calls it “open-source intelligence.” But make no mistake: this is dragnet surveillance, and it is fundamentally unconstitutional.

Already, government agencies are mining this data to generate “pattern of life” analyses, flag “radicalized” individuals, and preemptively investigate those who merely share anti-government views.

This is not law enforcement. This is thought-policing by machine, the logical outcome of a system that criminalizes dissent and deputizes algorithms to do the targeting.

Nor is this entirely new.

For decades, the federal government has reportedly maintained a highly classified database known as Main Core, designed to collect and store information on Americans deemed potential threats to national security.

As Tim Shorrock reported for Salon, “One former intelligence official described Main Core as ‘an emergency internal security database system’ designed for use by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law.”

Trump’s embrace of Palantir, and its unparalleled ability to fuse surveillance feeds, social media metadata, public records, and AI-driven predictions, marks a dangerous evolution: a modern-day resurrection of Main Core, digitized, centralized, and fully automated.

What was once covert contingency planning is now becoming active policy.

What has emerged is a surveillance model more vast than anything dreamed up by past regimes—a digital panopticon in which every citizen is watched constantly, and every move is logged in a government database—not by humans, but by machines without conscience, without compassion, and without constitutional limits.

This is not science fiction. This is America—now.

As this technological tyranny expands, the foundational safeguards of the Constitution—those supposed bulwarks against arbitrary power—are quietly being nullified and its protections rendered meaningless.

What does the Fourth Amendment mean in a world where your entire life can be searched, sorted, and scored without a warrant? What does the First Amendment mean when expressing dissent gets you flagged as an extremist? What does the presumption of innocence mean when algorithms determine guilt?

The Constitution was written for humans, not for machine rule. It cannot compete with predictive analytics trained to bypass rights, sidestep accountability, and automate tyranny.

And that is the endgame: the automation of authoritarianism. An unblinking, AI-powered surveillance regime that renders due process obsolete and dissent fatal.

Still, it is not too late to resist—but doing so requires awareness, courage, and a willingness to confront the machinery of our own captivity.

Make no mistake: the government is not your friend in this. Neither are the corporations building this digital prison. They thrive on your data, your fear, and your silence.

To resist, we must first understand the weaponized AI tools being used against us.

We must demand transparency, enforce limits on data collection, ban predictive profiling, and dismantle the fusion centers feeding this machine.

We must treat AI surveillance with the same suspicion we once reserved for secret police. Because that is what AI-powered governance has become—secret police, only smarter, faster, and less accountable.

We don’t have much time.

Trump’s alliance with Palantir is a warning sign—not just of where we are, but of where we’re headed. A place where freedom is conditional, rights are revocable, and justice is decided by code.

The question is no longer whether we’re being watched—that is now a given—but whether we will meekly accept it. Will we dismantle this electronic concentration camp, or will we continue building the infrastructure of our own enslavement?

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if we trade liberty for convenience and privacy for security, we will find ourselves locked in a prison we helped build, and the bars won’t be made of steel. They will be made of data.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

Taieri MP Ingrid Leary reflected on her years in Fiji as a television journalist and media educator at a Fiji Centre function in Auckland celebrating Fourth Estate values and independence at the weekend.

It was a reunion with former journalism professor David Robie — they had worked together as a team at the University of the South Pacific amid media and political controversy leading up to the George Speight coup in May 2000.

Leary was the guest speaker at a gathering of human rights activists, development advocates, academics and journalists hosted at the Whānau Community Centre and Hub, the umbrella base for the Fiji Centre and Asia Pacific Media Network.

• READ MORE: Young and brave: In Pacific island paradise, journalism students cover a strange coup attempt for a course credit

She said she was delighted to meet “special people in David’s life” and to be speaking to a diverse group sharing “similar values of courage, freedom of expression, truth and tino rangatiratanga”.

“I want to start this talanoa on Friday, 19 May 2000 — 13 years almost to the day of the first recognised military coup in Fiji in 1987 — when failed businessman George Speight tore off his balaclava to reveal his identity.

She pointed out that there had actually been another “coup” 100 years earlier by Ratu Cakobau.

“Speight had seized Parliament holding the elected government at gunpoint, including the politician mother, Lavinia Padarath, of one of my best friends — Anna Padarath.

Hostage-taking report
“Within minutes, the news of the hostage-taking was flashed on Radio Fiji’s 10 am bulletin by a student journalist on secondment there — Tamani Nair. He was a student of David Robie’s.”

Nair had been dispatched to Parliament to find out what was happening and reported from a cassava patch.

“Fiji TV was trashed . . . and transmission pulled for 48 hours.

“The university shut down — including the student radio facilities, and journalism programme website — to avoid a similar fate, but the journalism school was able to keep broadcasting and publishing via a parallel website set up at the University of Technology Sydney.

“The pictures were harrowing, showing street protests turning violent and the barbaric behaviour of Speight’s henchmen towards dissenters.

“Thus began three months of heroic journalism by David’s student team — including through a period of martial law that began 10 days later and saw some of the most restrictive levels of censorship ever experienced in the South Pacific.”

Leary paid tribute to some some of the “brave satire” produced by senior Fiji Times reporters filling paper with “non-news” (such as haircuts, drinking kava) as act of defiance.

“My friend Anna Padarath returned from doing her masters in law in Australia on a scholarship to be closer to her Mum, whose hostage days within Parliament Grounds stretched into weeks and then months.

Invisible consequences
“Anna would never return to her studies — one of the many invisible consequences of this profoundly destructive era in Fiji’s complex history.

“Happily, she did go on to carve an incredible career as a women’s rights advocate.”

“Meanwhile David’s so-called ‘barefoot student journalists’ — who snuck into Parliament the back way by bushtrack — were having their stories read and broadcast globally.

“And those too shaken to even put their hands to keyboards on Day 1 emerged as journalism leaders who would go on to win prizes for their coverage.”

Speight was sentenced to life in prison, but was pardoned in 2024.

Leary said that was just one chapter in the remarkable career of David Robie who had been an editor, news director, foreign news editor and freelance writer with a number of different agencies and news organisations — including Agence France-Presse, Rand Daily Mail, The Auckland Star, Insight Magazine, and New Outlook Magazine — “a family member to some, friend to many, mentor to most”.

Reflecting on working with Dr Robie at USP, which she joined as television lecturer from Fiji Television, she said:

“At the time, being a younger person, I thought he was a little but crazy, because he was communicating with people all around the world when digital media was in its infancy in Fiji, always on email, always getting up on online platforms, and I didn’t appreciate the power of online media at the time.

“And it was incredible to watch.”

Ahead of his time
She said he was an innovator and ahead of his time.

Dr Robie viewed journalism as a tool for empowerment, aiming to provide communities with the information they needed to make informed decisions.

“We all know that David has been a champion of social justice and for decolonisation, and for the values of an independent Fourth Estate.”

She said she appreciated the freedom to develop independent media as an educator, adding that one of her highlights was producing the groundbreaking documentary Maire about Maire Bopp Du Pont, who was a student journalist at USP and advocate for the Pacific community living with HIV/AIDs community.

She later became a nuclear-free Pacific parliamentarian in Pape’ete.

Leary presented Dr Robie with a “speaking stick” carved from an apricot tree branch by the husband of a Labour stalwart based in Cromwell — the event doubled as his 80th birthday.

In response, Dr Robie said the occasion was a “golden opportunity” to thank many people who had encouraged and supported him over many years.

Massive upheaval
“We must have done something right,” he said about USP, “because in 2000, the year of George Speight’s coup, our students covered the massive upheaval which made headlines around the world when Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour-led coalition government was held at gunpoint for 56 days.

“The students courageously covered the coup with their website Pacific Journalism Online and their newspaper Wansolwara — “One Ocean”.  They won six Ossie Awards – unprecedented for a single university — in Australia that year and a standing ovation.”

He said there was a video on YouTube of their exploits called Frontline Reporters and one of the students, Christine Gounder, wrote an article for a Commonwealth Press Union magazine entitled, “From trainees to professionals. And all it took was a coup”.

Dr Robie said this Fiji experience was still one of the most standout experiences he had had as a journalist and educator.

Along with similar coverage of the 1997 Sandline mercenary crisis by his students at the University of Papua New Guinea.

He made some comments about the 1985 Rainbow Warrior voyage to Rongelap in the Marshall islands and the subsequent bombing by French secret agents in Auckland.

But he added “you can read all about this adventure in my new book” being published in a few weeks.

Biggest 21st century crisis
Dr Robie said the profession of journalism, truth telling and holding power to account, was vitally important to a healthy democracy.

Although media did not succeed in telling people what to think, it did play a vital role in what to think about. However, the media world was undergoing massive change and fragmentation.

“And public trust is declining in the face of fake news and disinformation,” he said

“I think we are at a crossroads in society, both locally and globally. Both journalism and democracy are under an unprecedented threat in my lifetime.

“When more than 230 journalists can be killed in 19 months in Gaza and there is barely a bleep from the global community, there is something savagely wrong.

“The Gazan journalists won the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize collectively last year with the judges saying, “As humanity, we have a huge debt to their courage and commitment to freedom of expression.”

“The carnage and genocide in Gaza is deeply disturbing, especially the failure of the world to act decisively to stop it. The fact that Israel can kill with impunity at least 54,000 people, mostly women and children, destroy hospitals and starve people to death and crush a people’s right to live is deeply shocking.

“This is the biggest crisis of the 21st century. We see this relentless slaughter go on livestreamed day after day and yet our media and politicians behave as if this is just ‘normal’. It is shameful, horrendous. Have we lost our humanity?

“Gaza has been our test. And we have failed.”

Other speakers included Whānau Hub co-founder Nik Naidu, one of the anti-coup Coalition for Democracy in Fiji (CDF) stalwarts; the Heritage New Zealand’s Antony Phillips; and Multimedia Investments and Evening Report director Selwyn Manning.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Last summer, ExxonMobil sponsored week-long camps to teach grade school students from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi about the virtues of these aquifers, specifically their ability to serve as carbon capture and sequestration wells, where oil, gas, and heavy industry can bury harmful emissions deep underground. In one exercise, students were given 20 minutes to build a model reservoir out of vegetable oil, Play-Doh, pasta, and uncooked beans. Whoever could keep the most vegetable oil (meant to represent liquified carbon dioxide) in their aquifer, won. 

This kind of down-home carbon capture boosterism is a relatively new development for the oil and gas giant. Over recent years, ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies have spent millions lobbying for government support of what they see as industry-friendly green technology, most prominently carbon capture and storage, which many scientists and environmental activists have argued is ineffective and distracts from eliminating fossil fuel operations in the first place. According to Exxon’s website, it’s evidence that they are leading “the biggest energy transition in history.” 

Now that Congress has turned its attention to rolling back government spending on renewable energy, it appears that most of the climate “solutions” being left off the chopping block are the ones favored by carbon-intensive companies like Exxon. Corporate tax breaks for carbon capture and storage, for instance, were one of the few things left untouched when House Republicans passed a budget bill on May 22 that effectively gutted the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, the Biden administration’s signature climate legislation. What remained of the IRA’s clean energy tax credits were incentives for nuclear, so-called clean fuels like ethanol, and carbon capture. When the IRA was passed in 2022, there was immediate backlash against the provisions for carbon capture. 

“Essentially, we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing a private sewer system for oil and gas,” said Sandra Steingraber, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Science and Environmental Health Network.

The tax credits for nuclear power plants, which produce energy without emitting greenhouse gases, are meant to spur what President Donald Trump hopes will be an “energy renaissance,” bolstered by a flurry of pro-nuclear executive orders he issued a day after the budget bill cleared the House. Projects will be able to use the tax credits if they begin construction by 2031; wind and solar companies, however, will lose access to tax credits unless they begin construction within 60 days of Trump signing the bill, and are fully up and running by 2028.

That the carbon capture tax credit was never in danger of being revoked is a testament to its importance to the oil and gas industry, said Jim Walsh, the policy director at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch. “The major beneficiaries of these tax credits are oil and gas companies and big agricultural interests.” 

The carbon capture tax credit was first established in 2008, but the subsidies were more than doubled when it was tacked on to the IRA in order to get former Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia’s vote. Companies now receive $60 for every ton of CO2 captured and used to drive oil out of the ground (a process known as “enhanced oil recovery”) and up to $85 for a ton of CO2 that is permanently stored. As roughly 60 percent of captured C02 in the United States is used for enhanced oil recovery, detractors see the tax credit as something of a devil’s bargain, a provision that props up an industry at taxpayer expense. 

How much carbon is actually captured by these projects is also a matter of debate. The tax credit requires companies that claim it to self-report how much CO2 they inject to the Internal Revenue Service. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, is in charge of tracking leaks. There are tax penalties if captured carbon ends up leaking, but those penalties only apply if the leaks occur in the first 3 years after injection. Holding companies accountable is made more complicated by the fact that tax returns are confidential, and Walsh cautions that there is very little communication between the EPA and the IRS. Oversight is “very, very minimal,” added Anika Juhn, an energy data analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a research firm.

“You can keep some really played out oil fields going for a long time, and you can get the public to pay for it,” said Carolyn Raffensberger, the executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, explaining the potential impact of the budget bill. “So the argument is, ‘This is a win for the climate, it’s a win for energy dominance.’ [But] it’s really a budget buster with no guardrails at all.” 

Existing carbon-capture facilities have been plagued by technical and financial issues. The country’s first commercial carbon capture plant in Decatur, Illinois, sprung two leaks last year directly under Lake Decatur, which is the town’s main source of drinking water. When concentrated CO2 hits water it turns into carbonic acid, which then leaches heavy metals from rocks within the aquifer and poisons the water. Although a certain level of public health concerns come with many emerging technologies, critics point out that all of this risk is being taken for a technology that has not been proven to work at scale, and may actually increase emissions by incentivizing more oil and gas production. It could also strain the existing electrical grid — outfitting a natural gas or coal plant with carbon capture equipment can suck up about 15 to 25 percent of the plant’s power. 

The tax credits exist “to pollute and confuse people,” said Mark Jacobsen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, who has argued that there is essentially no reasonable use for carbon capture. They “increase people’s [energy] costs and do nothing for the climate.”

But the technology does have its defenders among scientists. The 2022 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called an increase in carbon capture technology “unavoidable” if countries  want to reach net-zero emissions. Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, an umbrella organization of fossil fuel companies, unions, and environmental groups, contends that arguments like Jacobsen’s unnecessarily set the technology against renewables. “We need all the solutions in the toolkit,” she said. “We’re not saying don’t deploy these other technologies. We see this very much as a complementary and supportive piece in the broader decarbonization toolkit.” 

Stolark said that carbon capture didn’t make it out of the budget process entirely unscathed, as the bill specified that companies could no longer sell carbon capture tax credits. So-called “transferability” — the ability to sell these tax credits on the open market — has been invaluable to small energy startups that have struggled to secure financing in their early stages, according to Stolark. The Carbon Capture Coalition is urging lawmakers to restore transferability now that the bill has moved from the House to the Senate.

Still, the kinds of companies likely to claim carbon capture tax credits — often major players in oil and gas, ammonia, steel, and other heavy industries — are less likely to rely on transferability than more modest companies (often providers of renewable energy), whose smaller tax bills makes it harder for them to realize the value of their respective tax credits. 

“A lot of the factories, the power plants, the industrial facilities deploying within the next ten years or so, are expected to be these really big [facilities] with the big tax burdens,” said Dan O’Brien, a senior modeling analyst at Energy Innovations, a clean energy think tank based in San Francisco. “They’re not the type of smaller producers — like small solar companies — that are reliant on transferability in order to monetize the tax credit.” 

To some observers, keeping the carbon capture credit looks like a flagrant giveaway to the oil and gas industry. Juhn estimated that the credit could end up costing taxpayers more than $800 billion by 2040. Given the House bill’s aggressive cuts to social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Juhn finds the carbon capture credit offensive. “When we look at these other programs, where we’re nickel and diming benefits to folks that could really use them, what does that mean? It’s gross.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What’s likely to survive from Biden’s climate law? The controversial stuff. on May 30, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Rebecca Egan McCarthy.

If one company or small group of people manages to develop godlike digital superintelligence, they could take over the world. At least when there’s an evil dictator, that human is going to die. But for an AI, there would be no death. It would live forever. And then you’d have an immortal dictator from which we can never escape.

—Elon Musk

The Deep State is not going away. It’s just being replaced.

Replaced not by a charismatic autocrat or even a shadowy bureaucracy, but by artificial intelligence (AI)—unfeeling, unaccountable, and immortal.

As we stand on the brink of a new technological order, the machinery of power is quietly shifting into the hands of algorithms.

Under Donald Trump’s watch, that shift is being locked in for at least a generation.

Trump’s latest legislative initiative—a 10-year ban on AI regulation buried within the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—strips state and local governments of the ability to impose any guardrails on artificial intelligence until 2035.

Despite bipartisan warnings from 40 state attorneys general, the bill passed the House and awaits Senate approval. It is nothing less than a federal green light for AI to operate without oversight in every sphere of life, from law enforcement and employment to healthcare, education, and digital surveillance.

This is not innovation.

This is institutionalized automation of tyranny.

This is how, within a state of algorithmic governance, code quickly replaces constitutional law as the mechanism for control.

We are rapidly moving from a society ruled by laws and due process to one ruled by software.

Algorithmic governance refers to the use of machine learning and automated decision-making systems to carry out functions once reserved for human beings: policing, welfare eligibility, immigration vetting, job recruitment, credit scoring, and judicial risk assessments.

In this regime, the law is no longer interpreted. It is executed. Automatically. Mechanically. Without room for appeal, discretion, or human mercy.

These AI systems rely on historical data—data riddled with systemic bias and human error—to make predictions and trigger decisions. Predictive policing algorithms tell officers where to patrol and whom to stop. Facial recognition technology flags “suspects” based on photos scraped from social media. Risk assessment software assigns threat scores to citizens with no explanation, no oversight, and no redress.

These algorithms operate in black boxes, shielded by trade secrets and protected by national security exemptions. The public cannot inspect them. Courts cannot challenge them. Citizens cannot escape them.

The result? A population sorted, scored, and surveilled by machinery.

This is the practical result of the Trump administration’s deregulation agenda: AI systems given carte blanche to surveil, categorize, and criminalize the public without transparency or recourse.

And these aren’t theoretical dangers—they’re already happening.

Examples of unchecked AI and predictive policing show that precrime is already here.

Once you are scored and flagged by a machine, the outcome can be life-altering—as it was for Michael Williams, a 65-year-old man who spent nearly a year in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. Williams was behind the wheel when a passing car fired at his vehicle, killing his 25-year-old passenger, who had hitched a ride.

Despite no motive, no weapon, and no eyewitnesses, police charged Williams based on an AI-powered gunshot detection program called ShotSpotter. The system picked up a loud bang near the area and triangulated it to Williams’ vehicle. The charge was ultimately dropped for lack of evidence.

This is precrime in action. A prediction, not proof. An algorithm, not an eyewitness.

Programs like ShotSpotter are notorious for misclassifying noises like fireworks and construction as gunfire. Employees have even manually altered data to fit police narratives. And yet these systems are being combined with predictive policing software to generate risk maps, target individuals, and justify surveillance—all without transparency or accountability.

It doesn’t stop there.

AI is now flagging families for potential child neglect based on predictive models that pull data from Medicaid, mental health, jail, and housing records. These models disproportionately target poor and minority families. The algorithm assigns risk scores from 1 to 20. Families and their attorneys are never told what the scores are, or that they were used.

Imagine losing your child to the foster system because a secret algorithm said you might be a risk.

This is how AI redefines guilt.

The Trump administration’s approach to AI regulation reveals a deeper plan to deregulate democracy itself.

Rather than curbing these abuses, the Trump administration is accelerating them.

An executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” signed by President Trump in early 2025, revoked prior AI safeguards, eliminated bias audits, and instructed agencies to prioritize “innovation” over ethics. The order encourages every federal agency to adopt AI quickly, especially in areas like policing and surveillance.

Under the guise of “efficiency,” constitutional protections are being erased.

Trump’s 10-year moratorium on AI regulation is the logical next step. It dismantles the last line of defense—state-level resistance—and ensures a uniform national policy of algorithmic dominance.

The result is a system in which government no longer governs. It processes.

The federal government’s AI expansion is building a surveillance state that no human authority can restrain.

Welcome to Surveillance State 2.0, the Immortal Machine.

Over 1700 uses of AI have already been reported across federal agencies, with hundreds directly impacting safety and rights. Many agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services, are deploying AI for decision-making without public input or oversight.

This is what the technocrats call an “algocracy”—rule by algorithm.

In an algocracy, unelected developers and corporate contractors hold more power over your life than elected officials.

Your health, freedom, mobility, and privacy are subject to automated scoring systems you can’t see and can’t appeal.

And unlike even the most entrenched human dictators, these systems do not die. They do not forget. They are not swayed by mercy or reason. They do not stand for re-election.

They persist.

When AI governs by prediction, due process disappears in a haze of machine logic.

The most chilling effect of this digital regime is the death of due process.

What court can you appeal to when an algorithm has labeled you a danger? What lawyer can cross-examine a predictive model? What jury can weigh the reasoning of a neural net trained on flawed data?

You are guilty because the machine says so. And the machine is never wrong.

When due process dissolves into data processing, the burden of proof flips. The presumption of innocence evaporates. Citizens are forced to prove they are not threats, not risks, not enemies.

And most of the time, they don’t even know they’ve been flagged.

This erosion of due process is not just a legal failure—it is a philosophical one, reducing individuals to data points in systems that no longer recognize their humanity.

Writer and visionary Rod Serling warned of this very outcome more than half a century ago: a world where technology, masquerading as progress under the guise of order and logic, becomes the instrument of tyranny.

That future is no longer fiction. What Serling imagined is now reality.

The time to resist is now, before freedom becomes obsolete.

To those who call the shots in the halls of government, “we the people” are merely the means to an end.

“We the people”—who think, who reason, who take a stand, who resist, who demand to be treated with dignity and care, who believe in freedom and justice for all—have become obsolete, undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that, in the words of Serling, “has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom.”

In this sense, we are all Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”

“The Obsolete Man,” a story arc about the erasure of individual worth by a mechanized state, underscores the danger of rendering humans irrelevant in a system of cold automation and speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here’s the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete.

As Serling noted in his original script for “The Obsolete Man,” “Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete.”

Like Serling’s totalitarian state, our future will be defined by whether we conform to a dehumanizing machine order—or fight back before the immortal dictator becomes absolute.

We now face a fork in the road: resist the rise of the immortal dictator or submit to the reign of the machine.

This is not a battle against technology, but a battle against the unchecked, unregulated, and undemocratic use of technology to control people.

We must demand algorithmic transparency, data ownership rights, and legal recourse against automated decisions. We need a Digital Bill of Rights that guarantees:

• The right to know how algorithms affect us.
• The right to challenge and appeal automated decisions.
• The right to privacy and data security.
• The right to be free from automated surveillance and predictive policing.
• The right to be forgotten.

Otherwise, AI becomes the ultimate enforcer of a surveillance state from which there is no escape.

As Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, warned: “We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about. Your digital identity will live forever… because there’s no delete button.”

An immortal dictator, indeed.

Let us be clear: the threat is not just to our privacy, but to democracy itself.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the time to fight back is now—before the code becomes law, and freedom becomes a memory.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

…Those who control the water, control the (fill in the blank, but hint hint, ‘world’)

…Those who control the money, control the (fill in the blank, but hint hint, ‘world’)

…Those who control the media, control the (fill in the blank, but hint hint, ‘world’)

…Those who control outer space, control the (fill in the blank, but hint hint, ‘world’)

…Those who control the data, control the (fill in the blank, but hint hint, ‘world’)

Throwing in that “Big data” fishnet just a decade ago was the big new addition to the scientific method: Try to find even the most vague or minimally-recognized studies, and then let the computer develop the patterns.

Ahh, was it David Quammen or some of the other thousands of sources I have utilized over a 45 year period that exposed me to that rare but highly interesting factoid that a woman’s daily diary entrees while living in Costa Rica allowed science to research why the birthrate had fallen and the survival rate had plummented for the golden toad.

She catalogued the changing cloud and mist and fog cover in her homeland, and over a thirty year period, she meticulously recorded all number of tidbits of observation, including that reduction in the clouds hitting the treeline.

Do the Google AI search, and nothing pops up.

It’s pure lies, these AI generated responses: Quoting below.

While the story of a woman’s diary specifically detailing the golden toad’s decline and its link to reduced mist in Costa Rica might be fictional or anecdotal, the core issue of the golden toad’s extinction and its relation to changing cloud forest conditions is well-documented.

Here’s a breakdown of how changes in mist and fog likely contributed to the golden toad’s disappearance:

1. Golden Toads and Their Cloud Forest Habitat:

• The golden toad was endemic to a small, high-altitude region within the Monteverde Cloud Forest in Costa Rica, an environment known for its constant mist, high humidity, and a rainy season.
• These specific conditions were crucial for the golden toad’s breeding cycle and survival.

2. Climate Change and Reduced Mist:

• Climate change has altered weather patterns globally, and the Monteverde Cloud Forest was not spared.
• Researchers have observed a decrease in mist and moisture levels in the cloud forest, potentially due to rising temperatures and shifting cloud patterns.
• This reduction in mist could have made the environment drier, impacting the golden toad’s delicate skin and potentially leading to dehydration.

3. Impact on Breeding:

• Golden toads relied on rainwater pools for breeding.
• Reduced mist and rainfall likely led to the drying up of these crucial breeding pools, hindering the toad’s ability to reproduce successfully.

4. The Chytrid Fungus:

• Changes in climate, including drier conditions, could have created a more favorable environment for the chytrid fungus, a deadly pathogen that affects amphibians.
• This fungus attacks the skin of frogs and toads, disrupting their ability to absorb water and electrolytes, ultimately leading to death.

In Summary:

While a diary account remains unsubstantiated, the scientific consensus points towards climate change, leading to a reduction in mist and rainfall, as a significant factor in the golden toad’s extinction. These altered environmental conditions likely impacted the toad’s ability to breed and may have increased its vulnerability to the deadly chytrid fungus.

*****

So, my own Substacks (I have three under pseudonyms) have varying levels of so-called rant and railing and deep deep disregard for most authorities. A few hundred subscribers, and very few are paid ones.

Because I do these “news” headline “essays,” my own news feeds have been corrupted with many times the opposite sort of sources I would go to for reliable information — Israeli rags, USA mainstream, European mainstream, defense/offensive professional journals, Bloomberg and Fortune, et al.

What happens, though, is a reverse osmosis sort of play on the hourly news that gets fed to me via Bing, Yahoo, AP, UPI, CNN, and the list goes on.

It’s not exactly a deep and sophisticated exercise that might end up on Dissident Voice, but I’ll attempt one now:

1. Forgone conclusions, and this is the techno-fascist world controlling the narrative and that narrative is controlled by the oligarchs and the virus of a shifting baseline disorder and rampant disregard for a precautionary principle and the value of looking at intended and unintended (rare) negative effects of these titans of capital and their Brave Banal Evil Doers, the scientists, engineers, fabricators, technologists, et al.

Exhibit A (infinity is really that number):

Looks and sounds like a geek, such a nice sweet looking banal sort of fellow?

• Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis says in the next 5-10 years, AI will disturb more jobs
• He urged teens to become code ninjas to deal with the AI-driven world
• He also said that the youngest generation, Gen Alpha, must start experimenting with AI as soon as possible

As the world dashes into an AI-driven future, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis has a clear message for teens: learn now or be left behind. Hassabis leads Google DeepMind, the advanced research lab behind the company’s most high-end AI developments, including the Gemini chatbot. The lab is also spearheading Google’s efforts toward achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI) — a yet-unrealised form of AI capable of human-level reasoning. At the recent Google I/O developer conference, Hassabis said DeepMind is likely less than a decade away from building AGI. As he works in such an environment, he certainly knows what form AI will take in the near future. (India Today, of all rags I get in my feeds)

There are many many paywalls now, so anything from the NYT, well, I have to do end-arounds sometimes to read the entire pieces, but headlines and sub-headlines do the trick:

At Amazon, Some Coders Say Their Jobs Have Begun to Resemble Warehouse Work

Pushed to use artificial intelligence, software developers at the e-commerce giant say they must work faster and have less time to think. Others welcome the shift.

Go to Reddit on this one headline and you get all sorts of opinions and personal experiences with codes.

I’ve written much about Amazon, and I even organized with SEIU against Amazon’s warehouse unsafe warehouse conditions and their anti-union stance.

But the geeks and all those soccer moms and geek dads want their children not to marry cowboys but to marry coders and software engineers, or drone impresarios: A “17-year-old designed a cheaper, more efficient drone. The Department of Defense just awarded him $23,000 for it.”

Dual Use, man, dual use which is always Capitalist Abuse and Military Murder Hardware: Cooper Taylor, 17, aims to revolutionize the drone industry with a new design.

Taylor designed a motor-tilting mechanism to lower manufacturing cost and increase efficiency.

Taylor has spent the last year optimizing a type of drone that’s being used more and more in agriculture, disaster relief, wildlife conservation, search-and-rescue efforts, and medical deliveries.

All drone technology is for murdering, in the end.

And what fuels these death machines, these genocide facilitators? Geeks in high school robotics Olympics.

A breathtaking flyover of nearly every United States Air Force fighter and bomber jet soared during a Florida air show Saturday, stunning footage of the historic aerial display showed.

Seven of the top military aircraft, called the “Freedom Flyover,” united as “one unstoppable force” for thousands of people to take in over Memorial Day weekend at the Hyundai Air and Sea Show in Miami Beach.

*****

Somehow it ALWAYS comes down for me from these feeds back to the Jewish State of Murdering Raping Starving Polluting Poisoning Occupied Palestine:

As thousands of Israeli nationalists and religious Jews on Monday marked Jerusalem Day, which celebrates Israel’s 1967 capture of east Jerusalem, some chanted “Death to Arabs” while marching through Muslim neighborhoods. Protesters, including an Israeli member of parliament, also reportedly stormed a compound belonging to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

[Oh, you can call these Jews in Israel Right-wing Nationalists, or pro-settler extermists, but they are in the Jewish State of Israel, and they are Jewish. Calling them Jewish is not anti-semitic, and leaving out the term “zionist” is not an error of omission.]

Last year’s procession, which came during the first year of the war in Gaza, saw ultranationalist Israelis attack a Palestinian journalist in the Old City and call for violence against Palestinians. Four years ago, the march helped set off an 11-day war in Gaza.

Tour buses carrying young ultranationalist Jews lined up near entrances to the Old City, bringing hundreds from outside Jerusalem, including settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Police said they had detained a number of individuals, without specifying, and “acted swiftly to prevent violence, confrontations, and provocations.”

*****

And, the IOF, Israeli Occupation Forces, well, they do teach many US police departments on “crowd suppression,” pressure point holds, subbing peaceful protestors, and strong-arming old ladies and teens.

And, as always, NBC, or whichever mainstream and corporate media outfit, will always suppress the reality — Some fear excessive use of force will rise as the DOJ drops oversight of police departments.

George Floyd, Michael Brown?

“It is important to not overstate what consent decrees do,” said Jin Hee Lee with the Legal Defense Fund, referring to the power of federal courts to enforce orders. “They are very important and oftentimes necessary to force police departments to change their policies, to change their practices,” she added. “But consent decrees were never the end all, be all.”

*****

Then you get this Jewish Fervor, and who the hell wants to defend the Poison Ivy School, but you have to under the Rapist in Chief Trump and his henchman, Stephen Miller:

At the Harvard Kennedy School, the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Harvard’s eligibility to enroll international students — temporarily blocked in court — could eliminate nearly 60 percent of the student body.

*****

Until the last half-decade, the majestic lesser flamingo had four African breeding sites: two salt pans in Botswana and Namibia, a soda lake in Tanzania, and an artificial dam outside South Africa’s historic diamond-mining town of Kimberley.

Now it only has three.

And then, I get tons of wildlife and climate news: “Lesser flamingos lose one of their only four African breeding sites to sewage.” Emblematic at how messed up the polluting Homo consumopethicus is. Sewage. Shit.

This sort of stuff, all these headlines, all these stories, seemingly disconnected, unrelated in theme, well, the common theme is clear — Capitalism is a Cancer Supported by Economic Wars and Genocide and a Mafia that is Global in Its Reach. Is that a good enough connecting headline?

*****

Thank goodness that I have writers for Substack who put it all into perspective, how this world is up shit creek illustrated by the War on People in Palestine.

The Poem “Nine,” from Palestine Will Be Free Substack:

I tended my garden with great care —
Olives, thyme, dates, sage, and rosemary there.
Well before fajr and long after isha’s call,
No effort was spared in looking after them all.

From tiny seeds to flowers in full bloom,
I watched them glow in sun’s majestic light.
And as the first buds of the olives came to life,
Every glance, every day was an endless delight.

Wearied days would vanish at their sight
Each bloom I touched made my mornings bright
I would count my blessings: one, two, three, four…
Up to ten — then countless more.

Then came the fire that scorched it all —
Thyme, dates, sage, and rosemary gone.
One gnarly olive barely hangs by a thread;
My waking moments are soaked in tears, eyes red.

Now with every breath, a prayer escapes:
Protect my olive — please keep it safe.
It’s the last remnant of a heart so full, a life well lived,
In service of my garden, my people, and God the Esteemed.

You blessed Yaqub with a garden vast,
Only to separate him from Yusuf, the rose of his heart.
Yaqub complained, yearned, and wept till blindness veiled his eyes
You, the Merciful, answered his prayers and restored old ties.

So bless me, as You did Yaqub in the end —
Restore the coolness of my eyes, O Ibrahim’s Friend.
“For I too have the gift of song which gives me courage to complain,
But ah! ‘tis none but God Himself whom I, in sorrow, must arraign!”

Your infinite wisdom is beyond my grasp,
So, to Your rope of hope I must clasp.
“The lessons of patience I teach my heart,
As though to night’s separation I show a false part.”

*****

Thank goodness for International 360, with a whole lot of stories aggregated-curated: Only Total Collapse Will Rouse Humanity from Its Suicidal Sleepwalk

From BettMedia:

Only Total Collapse Will Rouse Humanity from Its Suicidal Sleepwalk

Editorial Comment:

I have been issuing warnings since the genocide began and every nation and institution failed to stop it. Not one invoked the appropriate legal mechanisms designed for such a crisis that would have ended abuse of veto, ousted Israel from the United Nations and imposed sanctions on the genocidal entity. I am pleased to see more activists understanding the extent of manipulation and deception we have all been subjected to.

Previously I said,

• There is no hope for the world to be found in any government, institution or movement that can normalize ties with or fail to stop a genocidal oppressor.
• There can be no faith in leaders that place interests above moral principles.
• There is no salvation to be found standing with those too cowardly to act in the face of murderous criminality.
• The hope of humanity rests solely on the shoulders of each awakening individual and on movements in the grassroots bases who have never lost touch with reality and are willing to defend life at all costs.

Karim has brilliantly and succinctly presented the many facets of our present dilemma in the article below.

Once we abandon fantasy and begin with these truths, realistic solutions and avenues of dissent, resistance and revolution can constellate and finally manifest.

A.V.

BettBeat Media

As Gaza’s children burn while the world watches, it becomes clear: only climate catastrophe, nuclear armageddon, or World War III may force humanity to abandon Western capitalism’s suicidal path.

The brutal death march of global capitalism does not pause for our lamentations. It grinds forward with mechanistic certainty, reducing human bodies to raw material and human aspirations to market commodities. We stand now at the precipice of a darkness so profound that our collective imagination fails to grasp its dimensions.

Gaza Exposed the Multipolar Fantasy

Let us dispense with comforting illusions. The mythologies we have constructed about saviors – whether BRICS nations, ‘multipolar world orders’, institutions of international law, or benevolent statesmen – have disintegrated before our eyes.

As Gaza burns and its children scream under collapsing concrete, we witness Russia making backroom deals with the architects of genocide. As Palestinian bodies pile in makeshift morgues, China issues empty declarations at the United Nations while its trade with the genocidal regime continues uninterrupted.

These are not the actions of counterweights to empire. They are the maneuvers of players within the same global system, differing perhaps in position but not in fundamental nature. They have shown themselves to be integral components of the very machinery we hoped they would dismantle.

We have watched, with desperate hope, the Palestinians stand against overwhelming military force, the Lebanese resisting occupation, Ibrahim Traore challenging neocolonial structures, Syrians and Yemenis enduring apocalyptic bombardment.

We projected onto them our desperate yearning for liberation from the imperialist hellscape spreading like wildfire across our planet. But they cannot do it alone, and our delegation of hope to others is itself a form of moral abdication.

The Frightening Truth is: It Really Comes Down to Us

The terrible truth we must confront is this: the responsibility is ours. The revolution required is not national but global, because the capitalist system has metastasized globally.

It has burrowed deep into the institutional structures of every society, captured the regulatory mechanisms that might constrain it, corrupted the informational systems that might expose it, and weaponized the technological systems that might liberate us.

Consider the grotesque spectacle of our current moment: we watch genocide in real-time on social media platforms owned by billionaires who fund that same genocide, we march in permitted protests that change nothing, we sign petitions that disappear into administrative voids. Meanwhile, the machinery of death continues unabated, and the architects of suffering retire to coastal mansions and mountain retreats after receiving fifty standing ovations for speeches that are nothing more than celebrations of mass murder.

The ruling classes have constructed a system of control so comprehensive, so technologically sophisticated, and so psychologically insidious that most cannot even perceive the depth of their enslavement. The surveillance apparatus tracks our movements and predicts our thoughts. The military-industrial complex develops weapons of terrifying precision to eliminate those who resist too effectively. The propaganda system manufactures consent with algorithmic efficiency.

All Wish to Sit at the Blood-Soaked Table of Imperialism

As vanessa beeley and Fiorella Isabel so meticulously lay out for us, Putin, for all his anti-Western rhetoric, demonstrates through his actions that he seeks merely better terms within the imperial arrangement, not its dissolution. His government works in tacit coordination with Israel while claiming to stand against Western hegemony. This is not resistance; it is negotiation for a better position at the blood-soaked table of imperialism.

And what of China? Does it dream of global equality? Let’s rephrase, do ruling elites anywhere envision a future where they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the peasants in the villages they dominate? History speaks to us with terrible clarity. The powerful do not relinquish power voluntarily. Systems of exploitation do not reform themselves out of existence. The capitalist machine — whether neoliberal or state capitalism — will not decommission itself out of ethical awakening.

We have already weathered global catastrophes that should have taught us these lessons. World War I reduced a generation of young men to shredded flesh in muddy trenches, yet we learned nothing. World War II revealed the industrial-scale horror humans could inflict upon one another, yet we learned nothing. The grinding machinery reassembled itself, adapted, and continued its relentless accumulation.

World War III

The terrifying conclusion becomes unavoidable: only the total breakdown of global society will create the conditions for fundamental transformation. This is not a wish but a recognition of historical pattern. The entrenchment is too deep, the control too complete, the psychological captivity too thorough for anything less than systemic collapse to break the spell.

What form will this breakdown take? Perhaps nuclear winter that eliminates most of humanity. Perhaps the collapse of ecological systems that sustain human life. Perhaps the return of fascistic brutality in World War III as soldiers march through our streets, rounding up our women and children to violate their dignity and take away their innocence while the men disappear into torture camps. The specific manifestation matters less than the certainty of its arrival if our course remains unchanged.

This is the darkness we must stare into without flinching. Humanity appears incapable of changing direction without first experiencing the catastrophic consequences of its current trajectory. Even high-definition genocide—burning children and prisoner rapes streamed directly to our iPhones—fails to move us to effective action. We seem determined to learn only through even more extreme suffering, to change only when our current path becomes literally impossible to continue.

Resistance

Yet within this terrible recognition lies a seed of possibility. If we understand the machinery of our destruction with unflinching clarity, if we abandon the comfortable myths that absolve us of responsibility, if we recognize that no external force will save us from ourselves – perhaps then we might begin the work of genuine resistance.

Not the performative — flag-waving, song-singing, tweet-sharing — resistance that leaves power structures intact, but the fundamental reimagining of human society. Not the delegation of hope to distant leaders, but the reclamation of our collective agency. Not the comfortable protest that returns home for dinner, but the sustained commitment to dismantling systems of death.

The machinery of global capitalism does not pause for our lamentations, but neither is it invulnerable to our determined opposition. The question remains whether we will summon the courage to oppose it before the breakdown comes, or whether we will continue sleepwalking until we awaken amid the ruins.

– Karim

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Haeder.

Papua New Guinea’s state broadcaster NBC wants shortwave radio reintroduced to achieve the government’s goal of 100 percent broadcast coverage by 2030.

Last week, the broadcaster hosted a workshop on the reintroduction of shortwave radio transmission, bringing together key government agencies and other stakeholders.

NBC had previously a shortwave signal, but due to poor maintenance and other factors, the system failed.

• READ MORE: Other PNG media reports

Its managing director Kora Nou spoke with RNZ Pacific about the merits of a return to shortwave.

Kora Nou: We had shortwave at NBC about 20 or so years ago, and it reached almost the length and breadth of the country.

So fast forward 20, we are going to celebrate our 50th anniversary. Our network has a lot more room for improvement at the moment, that’s why there’s the thinking to revisit shortwave again after all this time.

Don Wiseman: It’s a pretty cheap medium, as we here at RNZ Pacific know, but not too many people are involved with shortwave anymore. In terms of the anniversary in September, you’re not going to have things up and running by then, are you?

KN: It’s still early days. We haven’t fully committed, but we are actively pursuing it to see the viability of it.

We’ve visited one or two manufacturers that are still doing it. We’ve seen some that are still on, still been manufactured, and also issues surrounding receivers. So there’s still hard thinking behind it.

We still have to do our homework as well. So still early days and we’ve got the minister who’s asked us to explore this and then give him the pros and cons of it.

DW: Who would you get backing from? You’d need backing from international donors, wouldn’t you?

KN: We will put a business case into it, and then see where we go from there, including where the funding comes from — from government or we talk to our development partners.

There’s a lot of thinking and work still involved before we get there, but we’ve been asked to fast track the advice that we can give to government.

DW: How important do you think it is for everyone in the country to be able to hear the national broadcaster?

KN: It’s important, not only being the national broadcaster, but [with] the service it provides to our people.

We’ve got FM, which is good with good quality sound. But the question is, how many does it reach? It’s pretty critical in terms of broadcasting services to our people, and 50 years on, where are we? It’s that kind of consideration.

I think the bigger contention is to reintroduce software transmission. But how does it compare or how can we enhance it through the improved technology that we have nowadays as well? That’s where we are right now.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

A leading Cook Islands environmental lobby group is hoping that the Cook Islands government will speak out against the recent executive order from US President Donald Trump aimed at fast-tracking seabed mining.

Te Ipukarea Society (TIS) says the arrogance of US president Trump to think that he could break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters was “astounding”, and an action of a “bully”.

Trump signed the America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources order late last month, directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to allow deep sea mining permits.

• READ MORE: Trump’s push on deep sea mining leaves Nauru’s commercial ambitions ‘out in cold’
• Other seabed mining reports

The order states: “It is the policy of the US to advance United States leadership in seabed mineral development.”

NOAA has been directed to, within 60 days, “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.”

It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in the US and international waters.

In addition, a Canadian mining company — The Metals Company — has indicated that they have applied for a permit from Trump’s administration to start commercially mining in international waters.

The mining company had been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

‘Arrogance of Trump’
Te Ipukarea Society’s technical director Kelvin Passfield told Cook Islands News: “The arrogance of Donald Trump to think that he can break international law by authorising deep seabed mining in international waters is astounding.

“The United States cannot pick and choose which aspects of the United Nations Law of the Sea it will follow, and which ones it will ignore. This is the action of a bully,” he said.

“It is reckless and completely dismissive of the international rule of law. At the moment we have 169 countries, plus the European Union, all recognising international law under the International Seabed Authority.

“For one country to start making new international rules for themselves is a dangerous notion, especially if it leads to other States thinking they too can also breach international law with no consequences,” he said.

TIS president June Hosking said the fact that a part of the Pacific (CCZ) was carved up and shared between nations all over the world was yet another example of “blatantly disregarding or overriding indigenous rights”.

“I can understand why something had to be done to protect the high seas from rogues having a ‘free for all’, but it should have been Pacific indigenous and first nations groups, within and bordering the Pacific, who decided what happened to the high seas.

“That’s the first nations groups, not for example, the USA as it is today.”

South American countries worried
Hosking highlighted that at the March International Seabed Authority (ISA) assembly she attended it was obvious that South American countries were worried.

“Many have called for a moratorium. Portugal rightly pointed out that we were all there, at great cost, just for a commercial activity. The delegate said, ‘We must ask ourselves how does this really benefit all of humankind?’

Looking at The Metals Company’s interests to commercially mine in international waters, Hosking said, “I couldn’t help being annoyed that all this talk assumes mining will happen.

“ISA was formed at a time when things were assumed about the deep sea e.g. it’s just a desert down there, nothing was known for sure, we didn’t speak of climate crisis, waste crisis and other crises now evident.

“The ISA mandate is ‘to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects that may arise from deep seabed related activities.

“We know much more (but still not enough) to consider that effective protection of the marine environment may require it to be declared a ‘no go zone’, to be left untouched for the good of humankind,” she added.

Meanwhile, technical director Passfield also added, “The audacity of The Metals Company (TMC) to think they can flaunt international law in order to get an illegal mining licence from the United States to start seabed mining in international waters is a sad reflection of the morality of Gerard Barron and others in charge of TMC.

‘What stops other countries?’
“If the USA is allowed to authorise mining in international waters under a domestic US law, what is stopping any other country in the world from enacting legislation and doing the same?”

He said that while the Metals Company may be frustrated at the amount of time that the International Seabed Authority is taking to finalise mining rules for deep seabed mining, “we are sure they fully understand that this is for good reason. The potentially disastrous impacts of mining our deep ocean seabed need to be better understood, and this takes time.”

He said that technology and infrastructure to mine is not in place yet.

“We need to take as much time as we need to ensure that if mining proceeds, it does not cause serious damage to our ocean. Their attempts to rush the process are selfish, greedy, and driven purely by a desire to profit at any cost to the environment.

“We hope that the Cook Islands Government speaks out against this abuse of international law by the United States.” Cook Islands News has reached out to the Office of the Prime Minister and Seabed Minerals Authority (SBMA) for comment.

Republished from the Cook Islands News with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

30 April 1975. Saigon Fell, Vietnam Rose. The story of Vietnam after the US fled the country is not a fairy tale, it is not a one-dimensional parable of resurrection, of liberation from oppression, of joy for all — but there is a great deal to celebrate.

After over a century of brutal colonial oppression by the French, the Japanese, and the Americans and their various minions, the people of Vietnam won victory in one of the great liberation struggles of history.

It became a source of inspiration and of hope for millions of people oppressed by imperial powers in Central & South America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

• READ MORE: Part 1: The fall of Saigon 1975: Fifty years of repeating what was forgotten
• The fall of Saigon 1975: Part 2: The Quiet mutiny and the US army falls apart

Civil war – a war among several
The civil war in Vietnam, coterminous with the war against the Western powers, pitted communists and anti-communists in a long and pitiless struggle.

Within that were various strands — North versus South, southern communists and nationalists against pro-Western forces, and so on. As various political economists have pointed out, all wars are in some way class wars too — pitting the elites against ordinary people.

As has happened repeatedly throughout history, once one or more great power becomes involved in a civil war it is subsumed within that colonial war. The South’s President Ngô Đình Diệm, for example, was assassinated on orders of the Americans.

By 1969, US aid accounted for 80 percent of South Vietnam’s government budget; they effectively owned the South and literally called the shots.

US punishes its victims
This month, 50 years after the Vietnamese achieved independence from their colonial overlords, US President Donald Trump declared April 2 “Liberation Day” and imposed some of the heaviest tariffs on Vietnam because they didn’t buy enough US goods!

As economist Joseph Stiglitz pointed out, they don’t yet have enough aggregate demand for the kind of goods the US produces. That might have something to do with the decades it has taken to rebuild their lives and economy from the Armageddon inflicted on them by the US, Australia, New Zealand and other unindicted war criminals.

Straight after they fled, the US declared themselves the victims of the Vietnamese and imposed punitive sanctions on liberated Vietnam for decades — punishing their victims.

Under Gerald Ford (1974–1977), Jimmy Carter (1977–1981), Ronald Reagan (1981–1989), George H.W. Bush (1989–1993) right up to Bill Clinton (1993–2001), the US enforced the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917.

The US froze the assets of Vietnam at the very time it was trying to recover from the wholesale devastation of the country.

Tens of millions of much-needed dollars were captured in US banks, enforced by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The US also took advantage of its muscle to veto IMF and World Bank loans to Vietnam.

Countries like Australia and New Zealand, to their eternal shame, took part in both the war, the war crimes, and imposing sanctions and other punitive measures subsequently.

The ‘Boat People’ refugee crisis
While millions celebrated the victory in 1975, millions of others were fearful. The period of national unification and economic recovery was painful, typically repressive — when one militarised regime replaces another.

This triggered flight: firstly among urban elites — military officers, government workers, and professionals who were most closely-linked to the US-run regime.

You can blame the Commies for the ensuing refugee crisis but by strangling the Vietnamese economy, refusing to return Vietnamese assets held in the US, imposing an effective blockade on the economy via sanctions, the US deepened the crisis, which saw over two million flee the country between 1975 and the 1980s.

More than 250,000 desperate people died at sea.

Đổi Mới: the move to a socialist-market economy
In 1986, to energise the economy, the government moved away from a command economy and launched the đổi mới reforms which created a hybrid socialist-market economy.

They had taken a leaf out of the Chinese playbook, which under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping (1978 –1989), had moved towards a market economy through its “Reform and Opening Up” policies.  Vietnam saw the “economic miracle” of its near neighbour and its leaders sought something similar.

Vietnam’s economy boomed and GDP grew from $18.1 billion in 1984 to $469 billion by 2024, with a per capita GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) of $15,470 (up from about $300 per capita in the 1970s).

After a sluggish start, literacy rates soared to 96.1 percent by 2023, and life expectancy reached 73.7 years, only a few short of the USA.  GDP growth is around 7 percent, according to the OECD.

An unequal society
Persistent inequality suggests the socialist vision has partially faded. A rural-urban divide and a rich-poor divide underlines ongoing injustices around quality of life and access to services but Vietnam’s Gini coefficient — a measure of income inequality — puts it only slightly more “unequal” as a society than New Zealand or Germany.

Corruption is also an issue in the country.

Press controls and political repression
As in China, political power resides with the Party. Freedom of expression — highlighted by press repression — is severely limited in Vietnam and nothing to celebrate.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) rates Vietnam as 174th out of 180 countries for press freedom and regularly excoriates its strongmen as press “predators”.  In its country profile, RSF says of Vietnam: “Independent reporters and bloggers are often jailed, making Vietnam the world’s third largest jailer of journalists”.

Vietnam is forging its own destiny
What is well worth celebrating, however, is that Vietnam successfully got the imperial powers off its back and out of its country. It is well-placed to play an increasingly prosperous and positive role in the emerging multipolar world.

It is part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the ASEAN network, and borders China, giving Vietnam the opportunity to weather any storms coming from the continent of America.

Vietnam today is united and free and millions of ordinary people have achieved security, health, education and prosperity vastly better than their parents and grandparents’ generations were able to.

In the end the honour and glory go to the Vietnamese people.

I’ll give the last word to Ho Chi Minh, the great leader of the Vietnamese people who reached out to the United States, and sought alliance not conflict. He was rebuffed by the super-power which had a different agenda.

On September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi’s Ba Dinh square:

“‘All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’

“This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

“… A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eight years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.

“For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country — and in fact is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilise all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.”

And, my god, they did.

To conclude, a short poem attributed to Ho Chi Minh:

“After the rain, good weather.

“In the wink of an eye,

the universe throws off its muddy clothes.”

Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Photo Source: Office of Speaker Mike Johnson – Public Domain

Donald Trump and Elon Musk are making corruption and graft the main business of the US government. They have fired all the cops who might try to rein them in and attacked any of the judges, politicians, or reporters who object to them stealing everything in sight.

In this vein, it was entertaining to see reports that Elon Musk has plans to bid on, and presumably get, the contract for building Donald Trump’s “Iron Dome” system for the United States. Before discussing Elon Musk’s latest scheme for getting richer, it is worth noting that there is no obvious need for an Iron Dome-type system in the United States.

Donald Trump may not have noticed, but we have not had a problem of missiles raining down on the United States from other countries. But that’s okay in Donald Trump’s MAGAland. We also didn’t have a problem of pet-eating migrants in Springfield, Ohio, but that didn’t stop Trump and Vance from putting this “crisis” at the center of their campaign.

Donald Trump’s solutions don’t have to bear any relationship to real world problems. He assumes that his supporters will be just fine with spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a weapon system we don’t need, and at least for Republican members of Congress, he is probably right. Needless to say, the “Department of Government Efficiency” won’t be bothered by this waste.

But the potential waste here is even more than it first appears. In Musk’s scheme he won’t be selling the US government the Iron Dome system, he will be “licensing” it. That would mean that Musk maintains ownership of the system, allowing him to sell it to others, and just charges us an annual fee for its use.

There are obvious political issues with this scheme. For example, will Musk shut it down if we have a government that is not sufficiently far-right for his tastes? Suppose the government decides to let trans athletes compete in high school sports; will Musk take away its missile defense system?

But the issues go beyond just political considerations. There is a serious economic issue at stake. There is not currently a mass market for continent-wide anti-missile systems. If Trump decides to pay for the development of one, it will give it developer access to a potentially very valuable technology. It is hard to see how anyone with any business sense at all would hand that asset over to Elon Musk or anyone else.

There are actually some precedents for this sort of transfer of valuable ownership rights. The most famous is when IBM contracted with Bill Gates to design an operating system for its computers in 1981.

At that time IBM was by far the world’s leader in producing personal computers and the computer industry more generally. Microsoft was still a relatively small start-up. But because IBM allowed Gates to maintain ownership of the operating system, Microsoft quickly catapulted past IBM in profitability and market value. It is unlikely Microsoft ever would have become one of the largest companies in the world, if IBM had made ownership of the system a condition of its deal with Microsoft.

To take a more recent example, after the COVID pandemic hit the United States, the government initiated “Operation Warp Speed” to develop vaccines and treatments for the disease. One of the first deals arranged by the program was with Moderna to develop a mRNA vaccine to protect against COVID. Under the contract, the government paid for the research needed to develop the vaccine; it then paid for the clinical trials needed to establish its safety and effectiveness.

However, despite paying the bulk of its development and testing costs, the government handed control over the vaccine to Moderna, which subsequently made tens of billions of dollars selling it in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Instead of making the vaccine a generic that would likely sell for around $5 a shot, Moderna was charging up to $130 a shot for its boosters. Yeah, that deal was signed by Donald Trump.

So, paying for the development of technology, and then giving it away, is not something new for Trump, but the sums involved are likely to be at least an order of magnitude higher for the missile defense system designed by Musk’s team. The economy and financial markets have looked very shaky lately with Donald Trump’s stop/go tariffs, as well as his mass firings and cancellations of government contracts. But there is still at least one investment that is secure in MAGA America: a payment to Donald Trump.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

The post Iron Dome Technology: Elon Musk’s License to Steal Taxpayers’ Dollars appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Dean Baker.

It quickly dawned on Blessing that the laptop recognized he had installed a battery made by a third party, and rejected it. It’s a classic example of a practice known as parts pairing, where manufacturers use software to control how — and with whose parts — their devices are fixed.

“To me, that is a garbage business practice,” Blessing told Grist. “Yes, it’s legal for them to do it, but that is truly trash.” After the failed battery swap, Blessing’s wife wound up getting a new computer.

The business practice that led her to do so may not be legal for much longer. Blessing is a Republican state senator representing Ohio’s 8th Senate district, which includes much of the area surrounding Cincinnati. In April, Blessing introduced a “right-to-repair” bill that grants consumers legal access to the parts, tools, and documents they need to fix a wide range of devices while banning restrictive practices like parts pairing. If Blessing’s bill succeeds, the Buckeye State will become the latest to enshrine the right to repair into law, after similar legislative victories in Colorado, Oregon, California, Minnesota, and New York.

That would mark an important political inflection point for the right-to-repair movement. While most of the states that have passed repair laws so far are Democratic strongholds, bills have been introduced in all 50 as of February. The adoption of a right-to-repair law in deep red Ohio — where Republicans control the state House, Senate, and the governor’s office, and Donald Trump won the last presidential election by more than 10 percentage points — would further underscore the broad, bipartisan popularity of being allowed to fix the stuff you own.

“If something breaks that you can’t fix, that’s just as big of a pain if you live in New York as it is in Nebraska,” Nathan Proctor, who heads the right-to-repair campaign at the U.S. Public Research Interest Group, told Grist. 

Expanded access to repair has the potential to reduce carbon emissions and pollution. A significant fraction of the emissions and air and water pollutants associated with electronic devices occur during manufacturing. Extending the lifespan of those gadgets can have major environmental benefits: The U.S. Public Research Interest Group has calculated that if Americans’ computers lasted just one year longer on average, it would have the same climate benefit as taking over a quarter million cars off the roads for a year. By reducing the pressure to buy replacement devices, repair also helps alleviate demand for the world’s finite stores of critical minerals, which are used not only in consumer electronics but also in clean energy technologies.  

Blessing gladly acknowledges the environmental benefits of expanded repair access, but it isn’t the main reason the issue matters to him. He describes himself as “a very free-market guy” who doesn’t like the idea of big businesses being allowed to monopolize markets. He’s concerned that’s exactly what has happened in the electronics repair space, where it is common for manufacturers to restrict access to spare parts and repair manuals, steering consumers back to them to get their gadgets fixed — or, if the manufacturer doesn’t offer a particular repair, replaced.

“It’s good for a business to be able to monopolize repair,” Blessing said. “But it is most certainly not pro-free market. It’s not pro-competition.”

Blessing is now sponsoring a right-to-repair bill, called the Digital Fair Repair Act, for the third legislative session in a row. While earlier iterations of the bill never made it out of committee, he feels optimistic about the legislation’s prospects this year, in light of growing support for the right to repair across civil society and the business community. In the past, manufacturers like Apple and Microsoft have vehemently lobbied against right-to-repair bills, but these and other corporations are changing their tune as the movement gains steam.

“I think there’s an appetite to get something done,” Blessing told Grist, adding that more and more device manufacturers “want to see something that puts this to rest.”

Repair monopolies don’t just restrict market competition. They also limit a person’s freedom to do what they want with their property. That’s the reason Brian Seitz, a Republican state congressman representing Taney County in southwestern Missouri, is sponsoring a motorcycle right-to-repair bill for the third time this year.  

Seitz first grew interested in the right to repair about four years ago, when a group of motorcyclists in his district told him they weren’t able to fix their bikes because they were unable to access necessary diagnostic codes. A spokesperson for the American Motorcyclist Association confirmed to Grist that lack of access to repair-relevant data is “a concern for our membership.” Some manufacturers are moving away from on-board diagnostic ports where owners can plug in and access the information they need to make fixes, the spokesperson said.

“The person who drives a motorcycle is a certain type of individual,” Seitz said. “They’re free spirits. They love the open road. And they brought to my attention that they weren’t allowed to repair their vehicles. And I couldn’t believe it.”

It’s still early days for Seitz’s bill, which has been referred to the Missouri House Economic Development Committee but does not have a hearing scheduled yet. But a version of the bill passed the House during the last legislative session, and Seitz expects it will pass again.

“Whether or not there’s time to get it done in the Senate, that’s yet to be determined,” he said. The bill died in the Missouri Senate during the last legislative session.

A spokesperson for Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe declined to comment on Seitz’s bill. But if it were to pass both chambers and receive Kehoe’s signature this year, it would be the first motorcycle-specific right-to-repair law in the country. (A 2014 agreement establishing a nationwide right-to-repair in the auto industry explicitly excluded motorcycles.) Seitz believes many of his fellow conservatives would be “very much in favor” of that outcome.

“This is a freedom and liberty issue,” Seitz added. 

Personal liberty is also at the heart of a recent white paper on the right to repair by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, or TPPF, an influential conservative think tank. The paper lays out the legal case for Texas to adopt a comprehensive right-to-repair law “to restore control, agency, and property rights for Texans.” Since publishing the paper, TPPF staffers have advocated for the right to repair in op-eds and closed-door meetings with state policymakers. 

“Our interest in the right to repair is rooted in a concrete fundamental belief in the absolute nature of property rights and how property rights are somewhat skirted by corporations who restrict the right to repair,” Greyson Gee, a technology policy analyst with the TPPF who co-authored the white paper, told Grist.

In February, Giovanni Capriglione, a Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives and the chairman of the state legislature’s Innovation and Technology Caucus, introduced an electronics right-to-repair bill that the TPPF provided input on. In March, Senator Bob Hall introduced a companion bill in the Senate. 

Early drafts of these bills include some carve-outs that repair advocates have criticized elsewhere, including an exemption for electronics used exclusively by businesses or the government, and a stipulation that manufacturers do not need to release circuit boards on the theory that they could be used to counterfeit devices. The Texas bills also contain an “alternative relief” provision that allows manufacturers to reimburse consumers, or offer them a replacement device, instead of providing repair materials. (Ohio’s bill, by contrast, mandates that manufacturers provide board-level components necessary to effect repairs, and it does not allow them to offer refunds instead of complying.)

Gee says the TPPF has been working with repair advocacy organizations and the bill sponsor to strengthen the bill’s language and is “encouraged by the real possibility of establishing a statutory right to repair in Texas.” 

“​​Chairman Capriglione is one of the strongest pro-consumer advocates in the Texas House, and we will continue to work with his office as this bill advances [to] ensure there is a codified right to repair in the state,” Gee added. Capriglione, who represents part of the Fort Worth area, didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment.

Elsewhere around the country, lawmakers across the political spectrum are advancing other right-to-repair bills this year. In Washington state, a bill covering consumer electronics and household appliances passed the state House in March by a near-unanimous vote of 94 to 1, underscoring the breadth of bipartisan support for independent repair. In April, the Senate passed its version of the bill 48-1. The House must now vote to concur with changes that were made in the Senate, after which the bill heads to the governor’s desk. 

“This legislation has always been bipartisan,” Democratic state representative Mia Gregerson, who sponsored the bill, told Grist. “The ability to fix our devices that have already been paid for is something we can all get behind.” In her five years working on right-to-repair bills in the state, Gregerson said, she has negotiated with Microsoft, Google, and environmental groups to attempt to address consumer and business needs while reducing electronic waste.

Conservative politicians and pundits also acknowledge the environmental benefits of the right to repair, despite focusing on personal liberty and the economy in their messaging. In its white paper arguing for a right-to-repair law in Texas, the TPPF highlights the potential for such legislation to eliminate e-waste, citing United Nations research that ties the rapid growth of this trash stream to limited repair and recycling options.

“Ultimately, the bill itself has to be constitutional. It has to be up to snuff legally,” Gee said. “But it’s certainly an advantage, the environmental impact that this bill would have.” 

Blessing, from Ohio, agreed. Right to repair will “absolutely mean less electronics in our landfills, among other things,” he told Grist. “I don’t want to diminish that at all.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The environmental policy backed by free-market Republicans on Apr 18, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Maddie Stone.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A Wisconsin teenager accused of murdering two family members and plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump was inspired by Terrorgram, a white supremacist network that operated on the Telegram messaging and social media platform for half a decade, according to federal court records.

The Terrorgram community, which has been linked to around three dozen criminal cases around the globe, including at least three mass shootings, was profiled last month in stories and a documentary produced by ProPublica and FRONTLINE.

The court documents allege that Nikita Casap, a 17-year-old from Waukesha, Wisconsin, wrote a three-page manifesto calling for the assassination of Trump in order to “foment a political revolution in the United States and ‘save the white race’ from ‘Jewish controlled politicians.’”

In his manifesto, Casap allegedly encouraged people to read the writings of Juraj Krajčík, a longtime Terrogram figure who murdered two people in an attack on an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, Slovakia, in 2022, according to the court records. Casap also allegedly recommended two publications produced by the Terrorgram Collective, a secretive group that produced alleged hit lists, videos and written publications — including instructions for building bombs and sabotaging critical infrastructure — and distributed them throughout the Terrorgram ecosystem.

Launched in 2019, Terrorgram was a constellation of scores of Telegram channels and chat groups focused on inciting acts of white supremacist terrorism and anti-government sabotage. At the network’s peak, some Terrorgram channels drew thousands of followers. Over the past six months, however, the network has been disrupted as authorities in Canada, the U.S. and Europe have arrested key Terrorgram influencers and community members.

But the violence hasn’t stopped.

Casap in February allegedly shot and killed his mother, Tatiana Casap, and stepfather, Donald Mayer; stole their property; and fled in their Volkswagen Atlas, Waukesha County prosecutors say. He was arrested in Kansas. Prosecutors have charged the teen with two counts of first-degree homicide, as well as identity theft and other theft charges. He is expected to be arraigned on May 7, according to court records.

A witness told local investigators that Casap “was in touch with a male in Russia through the Telegram app and they were planning to overthrow the U.S. government and assassinate President Trump,” according to charging documents in the Wisconsin case.

The newly unsealed federal court filings indicate that the FBI is investigating Casap in connection to the alleged assassination plot.

The bureau declined to comment on the matter.

Last fall, federal prosecutors accused two Americans of acting as leaders of the Terrorgram Collective and charged them with soliciting the murder of federal officials and a host of other terrorism-related offenses. The U.S. State Department has officially designated the Terrorgram Collective as a terrorist organization, as have officials in the United Kingdom and Australia. The two Americans have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

“Do absolutely anything you can that will lead to the collapse of America or any country you live in,” Casap allegedly wrote in his manifesto, according to an FBI affidavit. “This is the only way we can save the White race.”

The teen’s writings and online postings that are cited in the affidavit indicate that he is a believer in militant accelerationism, a concept that has become increasingly popular with neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists over the past decade. Militant accelerationists aim to speed the collapse of modern society through acts of spectacular violence; from the ruins of today’s democracies, they aim to build all-white ethno-states organized on fascist principles.

Matthew Kriner, executive director of the Institute for Countering Digital Extremism, a nonprofit think tank, called the alleged Casap plot unique. “It’s the first time we’re explicitly seeing an individual tie an accelerationist act or plot with the president of the United States as a means of collapsing society,” Kriner said. “I think what we have here is a fairly clear-cut case of an individual who is being groomed to take drastic terrorist action in an accelerationist manner.”

Casap’s public defender could not be reached for comment.

A Telegram spokesperson said, “Telegram supports the peaceful exchange of ideas; however, calls for violence are strictly prohibited by our Terms of Service and are removed proactively as well as in response to user reports."

A ProPublica and FRONTLINE review shows that Casap was recently active in at least five extremist Telegram channels or chat groups, including a Russian-language neo-Nazi chat in which posters uploaded detailed instructions for crafting explosives, poisons and improvised firearms. He was also a member of a chat group with more than 4,300 participants run by the Misanthropic Division, a global neo-Nazi organization.

Casap, according to the federal documents, also sought out information online about the Order of Nine Angles, a cult that blends Satanic concepts and Nazi ideology and has increasingly turned to Telegram to recruit and proselytize.

“This is a clear example of how Terrorgram continues to influence murder,” said Jennefer Harper, a researcher who studies online extremism. “Nikita was influenced online by an assortment of ideologies and groups that intersect with the Terrorgram ecosphere.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by A.C. Thompson, ProPublica and FRONTLINE, and James Bandler, ProPublica.

Purge is the word symbol of Athena – Athens

But there is no drive-through.

I park and walk inside. There are few twenty-somethings sitting around in offices, but no tellers. Just an automated ATM, who one of the twenty-somethings tells me can take my deposit. But a maintenance worker has the ATM door swung open, working on it. So, I don’t get to make a deposit.

I resolve to make the deposit the next day, instead.

Then, my roomie rings me and tells me to pick up a few things at the grocery. I’m no fan of Wally World, but it’s the most convenient stop. I park, run in, and grab a few groceries. I go to the check out, and it’s a lot like the bank I stopped at. It’s not tellerless—it’s checkerless. It’s all automated.

This doesn’t amuse me.

The more I think about it, the worse it gets. And, worse still, I do some research.

Talk about a bill of goods.

A decade or two back, “outsourcing” was all the rage. Our jobs were being sent overseas and we were livid. Now, blaming immigrants is in vogue.

But the numbers are funny and don’t really add up. And you don’t have to look real hard to figure it out. According to the internet machine, 4.5% of American jobs are outsourced each year. Also, according to the internet machine, immigrants make up 19% of the American workforce (one in five jobs).

Neither percentage is anything to dismiss—they just miss the point.

Our politicians and political pundits use figures like these to obscure the real issue … it’s all sleight of hand nonsense. And it’s a bummer, really, for so many of us, because we’re Pavlovian about terms like “outsourcing” and “immigrants”—as if we live for ill-informed finger-pointing. These economic bogeymen have been drummed into us for decades. Half of you are probably slobbering, now. But, please, dab your taco hole with your shirtsleeve and bear with me.

Outsourcing and immigrants really only infringe on an already diminished share of the scraps. According to the internet machine, automation has replaced 70% of Middle-Class jobs in the United States since 1980—and a related economic corollary is worse. Also, according to the internet machine, automation has driven down Middle-Class wages 70% since 1980. AND THESE AREN’T OBSCURE FACTS. They’re proffered front and center by a search engine’s AI shortcut!?

Put that in your mouse and scroll it.

It’s not just mouth-breathers that need to unite. It’s all of us. It’s anyone that may need a breather. It’s anyone that needs to breathe at all. Because what’s replacing most of us doesn’t.

President Dildo J. Trump’s claims about immigrants and bringing manufacturing jobs back to America are bald-faced lies, because most of those jobs were lost to robotics, computer processing, etc., and they’re never coming back. Immigrants and outsourcing are obviously easier targets than automation or AI, but still. This should scare you, reader. This should terrify you.

Immigrants and outsourcing are perfect red herrings, for sure, but neither—as proto-punk, rock-and-rolling band The Trashmen once sublimely put it—“bird is the word.”

“Purge” is the word.

Obsolescence is the word.

Human obsolescence.

And it’s coming to a universal wage station near you.

This is what technology hath wrought.

Vocationally speaking, human jobs have been being tossed in the trash for decades. It probably started innocently enough with something like gas station attendants. But don’t kid yourselves.

We are no longer surfing the web—the web is surfing us.

And the wave is about to break.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by E.R. Bills.

But the very thing that makes them such an amazing climate solution is also their biggest challenge. A common refrigerant called R-410A pumps through their innards so they can warm and cool homes and offices and anything else. But that refrigerant is also liquid irony, as it can escape as a greenhouse gas over 2,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. (This is known as its “global warming potential,” or how much energy a ton of the gas absorbs over a given amount of time compared to the same amount of CO2.) Leaks can happen during the installation, operation, and disposal of heat pumps. 

But this year the industry is rolling out alternative refrigerant formulations like R-454B and R-32, which have around 75 percent less global warming potential. That’s in response to Environmental Protection Agency rules mandating that, starting this year, heat pump refrigerants have a global warming potential of no more than 700. Manufacturers are looking even farther ahead at the possibility of using propane, or even CO2, as the next generation of more atmospherically friendly refrigerants.

“The whole industry is going to be transitioning away from R-410A, so that’s good,” said Jeff Stewart, the refrigeration chief engineer for residential heating, ventilation, and air conditioning at Trane Technologies, which makes heat pumps and gas furnaces. “We’re getting lower global warming potential. The problem is, it still has some, right? So there’s concern about ‘OK, is that low enough to really help the environment?’”

To be clear, heat pumps do not release greenhouse gases at anywhere near the scale of burning natural gas to heat homes, so their environmental impact is way smaller. “Even if we lost all the refrigerant, it still actually has a much smaller effect just having a heat pump and not burning gas,” said Matthew Knoll, co-founder and chief technology officer at California-based Quilt, which builds heat pump systems for homes. “I would actually want to make sure that doesn’t hamper the rapid adoption of heat pumps.”

But why does a heat pump need refrigerant? Well, to transfer heat. By changing the state of the liquid to a gas, then compressing it, the appliance absorbs heat from even very cold outdoor air and moves it indoors. Then in the summer, the process reverses to work like a traditional air conditioner.

The potential for refrigerant leaks is much smaller if the heat pump is properly manufactured, installed, and maintained. When a manufacturer switches refrigerants, the basic operation of the heat pump stays the same. But some formulations operate at different pressures, meaning they’ll need slightly different sized components and perhaps stronger materials. “It’s all the same fundamental principles,” said Vince Romanin, CEO of San Francisco-based Gradient, which makes heat pumps that slip over window sills. “But it does take a re-engineering and a recertification of all of these components.”

While Trane has transitioned to R-454B, Gradient and other companies are adopting R-32, which has a global warming potential of 675 and brings it in line with the new regulations. Gradient says that with engineering improvements, like hermetic sealing that makes it harder for refrigerants to escape, and by properly recycling its appliances, it can reduce the climate footprint of heat pumps by 95 percent. “Our math shows R-32, plus good refrigerant management, those two things combined solve almost all of the refrigerant problem,” said Romanin. “Because of that data, Gradient believes the industry should stay on R-32 until we’re ready for natural refrigerants.”

Those include CO2, butane, and propane. CO2 has a global warming potential of just 1, but it works at much higher pressures, which requires thicker tubes and compressors. It’s also less efficient in hot weather, meaning it’s not the best option for a heat pump in cooling mode in the summer.

Propane, on the other hand, excels in different conditions and operates at a lower pressure than the refrigerants it would replace. It also has a global warming potential of just 3. Propane is flammable, of course, but heat pumps can run it safely by separating sources of ignition, like electrical components, from the refrigerant compartments. “It is kind of perfect for heat pumps,” said Richard Gerbe, board member and technical advisor at Italy-based Aermec, another maker of heat pumps.

That’s why Europe is already switching to propane, and why the U.S. may soon follow, Gerbe said. A typical heat pump will run about 10 pounds of propane, less than what’s found in a barbeque tank. Gas furnaces and stoves, by contrast, are constantly fed with flammable natural gas that can leak, potentially leading to explosions or carbon monoxide poisoning. “If you’ve got a comfort level with a gas stove in your house,” Gerbe said, “this is significantly less of a source.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The quest to fix the irony at the heart of every heat pump on Apr 4, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Matt Simon.

This will touch on something that is unusual about how I use programming languages in general. The common practice in the industry is one that involves very slow feedback loops, these things we call compile-test cycles: edit, compile, test. I tend to use programming languages that are much more interactive. This is the family of programming languages that come down to us from the communities of LISP and SmallTalk, primarily. In these languages, you’re engaged in a conversation with the computer — your program is running the whole time, you’re modifying it while it’s running, and you can inspect the state within the program to see what’s happening.

This is particularly good for exploratory programming, but also for art making. I can have a sketch running that is using a generative system I’ve created to produce some kind of visual effect. I could think, “What if this parameter were slightly different?” and instead of building a bespoke control panel to do that, I can execute a tiny snippet of code inside my editor that changes what’s happening in the program, so I’m still working in the same medium and I don’t need to switch to a different tool.

I might start with a blank canvas with a loop running that is redrawing something, but it doesn’t know what it’s redrawing yet. Then I will gradually add elements, and those elements may have some innate structure. They may be drawn from nature in some way. Often, in my work, I will start with some natural system I found intriguing, and I’ll think, “What would have to happen geometrically to create a thing that has a form like that?” Then I’ll try to build a system where I’m planting the seed, but the growth happens within the simulation.

I also do a lot of work that is inspired by different periods of art. Maybe there will be something Bauhaus-inspired; I’ll look at a pattern Kandinsky drew by hand and think, “What if I wanted an infinite number of those that were all as good as the one he did by hand? What would I need to tell the computer for it to know [how to do that]?” In that sense, my artwork is often at that meta level. I’m less interested in the single-object output than I am interested in the underlying system that makes things of that nature possible.

Your background is traditionally technical. How has that influenced your identity or your sense of aesthetics as an artist?

I don’t regard scientists and artists as fundamentally different kinds of people. In fact, I regard them as more alike than they are different.

The sort of division you see among people in modern American culture is, to me, a cultural artifact; it’s just an accident of education. I would say the same thing about athletics. The jocks versus geeks division is an entirely synthetic thing that arose in post-1950s America and spread in a diseased way to other parts of the world. There’s nothing about being good at using your nervous system to move your body through space that would make you bad at using your nervous system to reason about geometry.

Based on some early tests that show an aptitude or a proficiency, we’ve narrowly focused people into what we think is going to be the box in which they will perform, when we should be spending more time cultivating what people are innately and immediately good at but also filling in the rest of the profile. So if you’re somebody who finds mathematics easy but is intimidated by the idea of drawing classes, then you should be doing that. These things are all aspects of humanity, and it’s a mistake to leave any of them behind.

In your 2019 ClojuTRE talk on computational creativity, you gave a brief survey of historical definitions of creativity. After absorbing all of those, where do you net out? What grand unified theory of creativity do you subscribe to?

I think it’s the fundamental aspect that makes us human beings. Creative problem-solving is the thing that we do better [than any other species]. Communication is the other thing that we do better, which allows us to do creative problem-solving in groups. If you want to know why we’ve spread over the entire world and lived in every kind of ecosystem successfully, it’s because we’ve been able to creatively solve problems along the way. Without that, I don’t think we’re really people. Leaving aside your creative drives as an individual is a mistake, because it’s leaving aside your birthright as a human.

A question in the AI discourse right now is whether AI will ever be able to create the way a human does. Large language models can create reasonable facsimiles of mediocre writing and drawing, but that sort of path-breaking creative synthesis still seems to be uniquely human. As someone who has been in this field for a long time, what do you think is coming in terms of the influence of AI?

To touch on the first part of what you said, about mediocrity: when you have a big statistical model that is essentially taking the sum and then the average of the internet, whether it’s in words or pictures, then you can expect the output to be [average] by definition. Now, you can steer these models to get you somewhat surprising outputs, and that’s cool. I have some friends who train their own models and build complex workflows to come up with things that are very nice in terms of the outputs they achieve. For me, mostly, if I’m using a prompt to an LLM to generate an image, I can get an output that looks okay to good, because I word good and I have enough taste to pick the images that I think are okay. But after I’ve done that, I don’t feel like I’ve done anything, because I don’t feel like there’s any of me in the output.

I think a lot of where our good stuff comes from is actually from how the act of making the art changes us as individuals. Ages ago, I went to art school at night while I was doing a startup in Silicon Valley. I’d been a lifelong musician, and playing music my whole life meant that I heard everything differently. When I hear the leaves rustling, I hear the rhythm of the leaves rolling along the ground. When I hear the whistle on my kettle, I know what pitch it is. So I thought, “I’ll go to art school, and maybe it will change the way I see.” And of course it did. There’s no way you can learn to draw in charcoal and capture light and shadow without it changing the way you see everything for the rest of your life.

What if we take away the need to do any of those things to produce those outputs? Then we get an entire generation of people who do not transform themselves into having a higher level of perception. What does that do for our ability to discriminate between what is just AI slop and what is actually something amazing and beautiful? It’s leaving behind part of our birthright as humans, to outsource some of the best stuff we have going to the machines, even if the machines can do it.

Also, the more stuff there is, the more sifting has to be done to find the good stuff. Making a machine for the unlimited production of mediocre junk means that the signal-to-noise ratio is getting worse all the time, and I dislike this vigorously.

On the other hand, I think these technologies can become the components of amazing engineering solutions later on. An example of this, not in the artistic context, is that I took some LLMs and I attached them to a query apparatus for WikiData, the database version of Wikipedia. I was able to use the LLM to get the data into the system from natural language. Then I do a query against this fact database, and then I take the series of dry facts that it returns and have it reformatted as nice, flowing prose. So I get something that you can get into and out of with human language that doesn’t hallucinate any details, and this is actually immediately useful.

I think many things of that nature are coming. Artistic tools where the trained model is more like a paintbrush and less like an outsourced cheap artist are going to be extremely powerful. In cinema, I think we’ll see the cost of making movies drop to one-one-hundredth of the time and one-one-hundredth of the cost using these kinds of tools, because CGI is such an important part of film production already. In this sense, when the good tools come out of it, you will see actual artists be able to do more and better.

Have you been able to find a balance between the things you do to pay the bills and the things you do to satisfy an artistic impulse? Do you find the same amount of creativity and joy in your work at Applied Sciences as you do in the art you make?

Here, I have to start by saying that I’m in a position of ridiculous privilege. I came of age at a time when the things I liked to do for fun were among the most lucrative things you could do for a living.

Throughout my career, I have been able to work on only things I’m interested in and be paid very well for them, both on the science and programming side and also on the art side. Obviously, I make more money from the tech stuff than the art stuff. But in years when I’m more active, like in 2020, I made enough that I could have made a living in Berlin just from the art side. This is possible. It’s difficult and it requires a lot of luck, but it is possible. So I’m in the weird position where I don’t have to choose between the things I love and the things that pay the bills because everything I get paid for is also something I love. And I recognize the tremendous privilege of that statement.

What do you think it takes to do that, beyond luck? Are there things a person can do to be more likely to have that kind of outcome?

Having a very active daily practice, and never letting it get away from you, is incredibly important. Björk has a fantastic quote about not letting yourself get gummed up and only releasing something every seven years because it puts you out of the flow of creating: “Don’t hold your breath for five or seven years and not release anything, and then you’ve just got clogged up with way too much stuff… You lose contact to the part of you, your subconscious, that’s writing songs all the time, and the part of you that’s showing it to the world… That’s more important, to sustain that flow, than to wait until things are perfect.”

Whatever it is that you do, you have to really do it. If you have a choice between doing it for three hours on Sunday or doing it for 15 minutes a day for the rest of the week, do it 15 minutes a day, because what you do every day is what your brain is working on when you’re not paying attention. Your subconscious is making progress on the things you do constantly. There’s a bowdlerization of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that gets quoted a lot, which is that excellence is just a function of habit. It’s what you do repeatedly. Lean into it. Do the work.

And — this is the bad news, because many programmers or artists are not necessarily interested in standing up on a chair and shouting about themselves in public—if you do beautiful work and nobody sees it, you’re not going to have a good career. You have to find a way to surface what you’re doing.

If it were five to 10 years ago, I would say to get a Twitter account, communicate with the kinds of people who are interested in the kind of thing you do, post all of this work that you’re doing as your daily practice, and you will be noticed. Today, it’s a more complicated situation. Some arsonists have set fire to Twitter and it’s now full of smoke and dead bodies, so very few people you would want to find your work will go to that place. I think we’re in an interregnum where there isn’t a good public space to demonstrate excellence for most arts. But it is important that you find a way to do that, or you will likely go unnoticed.

I also wanted to ask you about your time AT&T Research, formerly Bell Labs. Bell Labs has a mythical place in tech lore. It was a hotbed of innovation and a Schelling point for practically every computer science pioneer you’ve ever heard of. Did that still penetrate the company’s DNA when you were there?

It was definitely a unique environment. First, as in any such situation, it was the people. You had a large concentration of brilliant people all in one place. That’s always a good thing.

The facility where I worked, the Claude Shannon Lab, was in a leafy suburb in New Jersey. We would go down to eat in the cafeteria, and there were floor-to-ceiling glass windows, and we would see deer outside. In my wing, the people in the other offices were Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++, and David Korn, who created KornShell. I used to ride in his minivan from downtown Manhattan, because there were a bunch of us who preferred to live in the city. So the vibe had mostly to do with the people, and then the facility itself being the perfect leafy campus environment, but tuned for grown-ups — well, eternally Peter Pan grown-ups.

We did some great work there, even though when I worked there it was after the heyday. Unix was invented around the time I was born, so I missed out on all those great things. But I know most of those people because I was very young when I got started in the industry, and they weren’t dead yet. Some of them are still walking around. So I have all the stories, I’m happy to report. The vibe, I think, was still similar, but obviously the level of work, while good, wasn’t as world-shaking as it was earlier in the 20th century.

Why do you think that was? Was it a function of something changing in the way the work was supported?

There were a couple of things. One is that the way research was supported changed. Here we come back to that idea of patronage. Both artists and scientists have in common that they do their best work when they are left alone and allowed to chase their own curiosity and their own aesthetics and their own feelings. The appetite and the surplus to allow that has decreased year on year since the middle of the 20th century.

There was a period where this was really celebrated, and it was considered a good use of funds to have people do things that may pay you back nothing but also may give you a whole different world. You would fund it with some faith in the fact that if the people are talented enough, something good will come out of it.

After the Reagan–Thatcher revolution, that became less of a thing. Ideologically, everything shifted to this idea that you should have a return-on-investment angle on what happens. And because you can’t predict the outcome of research, it is effectively impossible to have a return on investment attitude towards it.

A great example of this is the iPhone. The capacitive touch display was invented 25 years before that at Bell Labs by somebody who was just chasing their own interest. If that person hadn’t had the opportunity to plant those seeds, then Apple could not have reaped the benefits later. Right now, I feel like we’ve really shifted towards reaping, and left sowing to be somebody else’s problem. This will continue to harm us in the future, because if we keep doing basically the same things over and over again, we won’t have any new seed corn.

There are certainly little pockets where that focus on something other than ROI still exists. But I agree. It feels like everyone recognizes the value of something like Bell Labs, yet very few people have the risk appetite or long-term thinking to fund that anymore.

It’s not just the absence of a Bell Labs sort of thing. There are other social opportunities available that are not followed. For example, I was talking to some people who will remain nameless but who are very high in an organization that makes a popular search engine and browser. I wanted them to fund some improvements to a text editor called Emacs that I’ve been using for nearly 40 years. With a good team working on it and with some actual financial support, a lot could be improved. Around half of their employees use Emacs, so it seemed like it would even pay them back, in some sense. But they told me that the most their enormous, many-billions-a-year company could possibly [contribute] was funding for some student [project].

This kind of thing is insane. These are public goods that they consume, but they don’t see it as their responsibility to help support that commons. This is a problem with open-source software in general — it is insufficiently supported. It’s shared infrastructure, and shared infrastructure requires shared support.

If you could reshape the way the internet has evolved, where would you start?

I would try to prioritize [changing] some of the infantilizing drives of current products. It is very fashionable at the moment to believe that if a person can’t use something immediately on first seeing it, then it should be thrown away, because people are stupid and have no patience. This is a prevalent way of thinking about user interfaces. But if you look at the user interface of the violin, it’s terrible for quite a while. You have to put in some effort before you can do anything useful with the violin. But then you can do something that you simply cannot do with a tiny children’s xylophone. There are effects you can achieve if you’re willing to put in the work.

I feel like there’s a large area to explore of slightly more difficult things that have a higher ceiling. I believe you should raise the floor as much as you can, but you shouldn’t do it by lowering the ceiling.

I would like to make it more possible for people to, for example, automate things on their own; end user programming is the technical term for this. In a system like HyperCard, this was very effective. People could build systems to run their entire business inside of this very cool piece of software that you ran on a Macintosh. I don’t see a modern thing that is as good. There’s more we can do to democratize the programmatic aspects of owning a computer so that people have more power as individuals.

There have to be these open-box systems where you can play with the parts. Otherwise, you’re strictly a consumer. On Instagram, that’s exactly how I feel. I post my artwork there, but that’s the limit of what I can do. Someone else has decided the limits of my world. And I resent that.

At the end of your talk on creative computation, you give some recommendations for programmers who want to get in touch with their creative side: take an art course, meditate, take psychedelic mushrooms. I assume those recommendations still hold, but what else would you recommend to anybody who wants to connect with their creativity?

The important thing, and I tried to stress it in that talk, is that you can approach things as a reasoning and reasonable agent who is putting one fact in front of another and trying to be very orderly and systematic. That is an important way of being. But there’s another way of approaching things, which is to open yourself up to your own intuition and to feel your way through things. That’s no less important a way of being. You have to have both to be a complete human being. So whether a person is a programmer who isn’t as in touch with their intuition, or they’re an artist who is not as in touch with their ability to be analytical, I feel that whichever side you’re coming from, you should be trying to fill in the part at which you are the weakest so that you can be a more complete person.

For a lot of people, getting in touch with the intuitive side also has to do with the body itself, because many people are very disembodied. So, going to a yoga class, taking up meditation, doing things that allow you to realize that you are an embodied creature, and then starting to listen to how your body is feeling. Having a daily practice of checking in with yourself can automatically and immediately start to open you up to being able to do creative things. If you combine that with the daily practice of journaling or drawing or something else that allows you to focus those feelings and externalize them in some way, very quickly you’ll discover you have an artistic side you never knew was there.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Rebecca Hiscott.

I really like hacking the system, making space where there isn’t space for marginalized voices. I’ve noticed how we have to exist [in multitudes], and the digital space allows that. It’s [where] more femme, or queer, and even neurodivergent perspectives intersect.

Something that I’ve been trying to encapsulate through HERVISIONS is the outsider, the underdog. People that are undermined. I feel like I am constantly undermined in my ability because I’m a woman of color from a low socioeconomic background. My lived experience informs my practice. I want to be able to help other people like me. I’ve been doing HERVISIONS for nearly 10 years now.

Wow, congratulations.

Thank you. [*laughs*] Yeah, it’s still not sustainable. I really want to become more…

Self-sufficient? Would that mean that you’re bringing in another voice?

I guess it’s more about the infrastructure. I’ve been working project to project.

A lot of creatives, in order to carve out space for themselves in an inaccessible industry, start up their own platforms, and they start with a lot of vim and energy. But then you realize that monetary support is few and far between.

Exactly.

It runs you down. It’s one of those things where, when you don’t have the building blocks, you start getting insular. But it’s still a living archive of the process that you went through to get where you are now.

You’re right. You start to become insular, and you start to equate success with your own value, and that becomes really problematic… It’s not conducive to any sustainability, personally or as a business model. So I don’t want to keep doing HERVISIONS the way that I have been. I’ve been thinking, “What can I do that’s manageable and that I enjoy?”

You don’t do this full time, right?

I’m teaching now, associate lecturing at Camberwell University of The Arts, for their Computational Arts MA.

What is it like passing that knowledge down?

You always surprise yourself on what comes out. What if a student comes to me and I don’t know what to say?

I think it’s okay to say you don’t know.

Exactly. There’s always something you can connect to. There’s different styles of teaching. Sometimes it is critique-based, other times it’s workshopping… I’m still finding my teaching practice. Alternative education is really, really important.

Alt Ed is the most important, to be honest. You have to be adaptable and elastic. Do you teach anything practical in that class?

Good question. Because I’m coming from a more curatorial background—even though I’ve worked with digital tools for world-building with live-action, post-animation, or post-internet aesthetic effects—tools move so quickly. My curatorial practice has been one of collaboration, and intersecting with artistic mediums and practices that are still being developed. In Computational Arts there’s a lot of gaming engines, creative coding…

What’s creative coding?

Using Python or JavaScript, or p5.js. Anything digital is going to have some sort of code. If you can get into the backend and hack it, you can adapt [and] be creative with how you’re coding it. Now you can also use AI tools like ChatGPT to tell you the code. But you get into this really tricky area of ethics versus creativity versus accessibility versus resources… I feel like I’m constantly ping-ponging between that.

Are you talking about AI when you’re talking about ethics?

Well, all of it. If you’re using things like Spark AR, which is now closed and which was owned by Meta—Meta are just trying to capitalize on the way that we use the tool, our data, the artworks, the work that’s produced. The production of that work is still owned by them. They want to be able to have access to the collective consciousness, ultimately, and then teach AI how to replicate.

There is a lot of anxiety about phasing out anything organic. I definitely want to talk about the environmental impact of tech, but I wanted to go back to the queering of tech, and neurodivergence. How can tech can be made ready for people with learning disabilities, given that they are pushed to the peripheries in a lot of standard education contexts?

My theory is that the tech actually feeds into neurodivergence through the attention economy. So, how do we move away from that? You have to foster these tools to be able to create offline environments for people to connect in real time, in real life. Legacy Russell talks in Glitch Feminism about AFK: Away From Keyboard reality. There is this hybridity of having to exist offline… Artists Caroline Sinders and Romy Gad el Rab are doing a residency at the Delfina Foundation about mental health and how we can create digital interfaces to be more supportive of different needs and abilities.

For me, I have dyslexia and I get very anxious when I see something and the interface doesn’t match how my brain can read it.

Exactly. You’re like, “Oh my god. Where do I even look?”

When I was at university and I did the dyslexic test, at the end they tested filters to see what color I read best in. I read best in pink, actually.

[*laughs*] That is cool!

I think most people respond to color, but hyper-capitalist cities just pull all the color out of everything, and when you go to somewhere like Mexico, or Cuba, and there’s color everywhere, you are automatically more jubilant and excited… A lot of coding spaces are black background and white text, or yellow text, or whatever.

That’s why the integration of NLP, Natural Language Programs, [are important]. Technology is developing now beyond just the formulas of binary codes. Romy Gad, the psychologist and artist, works with people that have addictions to technology. People can know the standard thing—”It’s bad for your mental health because you’re going to get addicted to dopamine”—but we don’t know the actual ins and outs of that, in [our] buzzword culture.

We simplify down to, “A + B = bad.” But we don’t actually know how to tackle or move past it. So artists, social thinkers, and psychologists are important to collaborate with. What have you learned about collaborating? What makes for a harmonious environment for positive collaboration?

Collaboration is a practice in itself. You have to play to your strengths. And by practice, I mean there needs to be an understanding that it has to be a mutual benefit for everyone involved. Also, being realistic of the outcomes is so important.

I think being realistic is [about] making manageable phases and not seeing everything as a finite outcome. You can try to have more bite-sized approaches to things. You can say, “We’re just going to prototype this, and then if it works, then we can develop it further.”

Is there anything that you would avoid when collaborating? Something you’ve maybe learned that’s gone wrong?

My expectations. It’s what you impose on yourself, and the people that you’re working with. Also I think the parameters, or the frameworks of what the collaborations are, or what everyone’s role is should be, should be clear from the beginning.

Things can just run away with themselves. I really try to impose some sort of structure of what’s important, or the expectations within roles, and making sure that everyone understands their roles. But also openness around how those roles can shift; allowing for a little bit of that is also part of the magic. It’s like creative contingency, knowing that that’s what happens. Things don’t go the way you started. So being able to foresee that contingency, but seeing it as a positive.

I’ve definitely learned that when I’m under pressure, I’m not always the nicest person. I try to face that in myself and be honest with other people.

I think it’s hard when you’re coming from a place of having to drive these things. When you’re like, “But if I don’t do this, no one else is going to do it. It’s my responsibility to do this, to get this done, and I have to pull people in.” If you’re the project lead, it comes from wanting everything to be perfect. But what I’ve learned is expecting a “no,” or expecting things to not be as you want, is a practice as well. Having that discipline to be able to step back. That is really learning about yourself.

Do you have a favorite digital work or physical piece of yours?

The project I did with the William Morris Gallery, “Wild Wired!,” felt very much like, “Ah, everything makes sense.” It was a site-specific digital intervention about rethinking the future of Langthorne Park in Leytonstone. It was a way to activate the local communities and introduce some sort of artwork connected to the William Morris Gallery’s Radical Landscapes exhibition. It was a project that combined community engagement, artist-led workshops, and digital technologies. We produced a site-specific, mobile-friendly game that you could access right in the park. It was accessible through scanning banners in the park. We were thinking about the park as a body—which was inspired by Taoism—and thinking about the medicinal properties of the plants in the park, and how they would impact our speculative future organs. We had different workshops where we asked artists, the community, and local residents to think about speculative organs. They did collages and we did writing and photography exercises.

These methods of world-building were then intertwined into a narrative, which then was produced into a body of work—which was the game, a 3D-printed artwork, an interactive website, and a moving image piece. That was really a huge amount of work.

It felt like everything clicked together for me. There were a lot of milestones within that project and there were a lot of production difficulties in terms of things not working the way we wanted, and that’s always what happens in technology. So it was just constantly problem solving.

That’s also a good skill you have to be able to hone whenever you’re doing these types of things: being a problem solver. My last point is about the environment. I think and hope that more people are coppin’ onto the environmental cost of tech, in terms of how much water usage there is to cool all these database storage centers down… Basically, without water, there wouldn’t be any tech. But how can we care more for the environment? What are your feelings about that?

I think this idea of reclaiming space and rewilding is an interesting way to think about it. The thing is, technical devices use a lot of mined minerals and components from the earth that we need for our smartphones. There’s a lot of reliance on nature, and how do we manage that? Gosh, I wish I had the answer.

AI is really, really, really environmentally unfriendly, but then also crypto, blockchain… There was a lot of fuss about NFTs not being ethical or environmentally friendly—which, yes, there is a massive usage of energy that blockchain takes. But the proportion of that which the creative industries use, in relation to other industries that use blockchain, is also a very small amount. I feel like there needs to be more transparency [from larger] capitalist companies.

I feel like artists, or creatives are just such little cogs in the system.

I think, though, that 10,000 small cogs make up a ton. We do have a part to play.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Georgina Johnson.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Allen Forrest.

Redwood was founded in 2017 by former Tesla executive JB Straubel and says it processes about three-quarters of all lithium-ion batteries recycled in the United States. It is among a growing number of operations that shred the packs that power modern life into what is called “black mass,” then recoup upwards of 95 percent of the lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other minerals they contain. Every ounce they recover is an ounce that doesn’t need to be dug from the ground.

Recycling could significantly reduce the need to extract virgin material, a process that is riddled with human rights and environmental concerns, such as the reliance on open pit mines in developing countries. Even beyond those worries, the Earth contains a finite source of minerals, and skyrocketing demand will squeeze supplies. The world currently extracts about 180,000 metric tons of lithium each year — and demand is expected to hit nearly 10 times that by 2050, as adoption of electric vehicles, battery storage, and other technology needed for a green transition surges. At those levels, there are only enough known reserves to last about 15 years. The projected runway for cobalt is even shorter.

Before hitting these theoretical limits, though, demand for the metals is likely to outstrip the world’s ability to economically and ethically mine them, said Beatrice Browning, an expert on battery recycling at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which tracks the industry. “Recycling is going to plug that gap,” she told Grist. 

Given these trends, the most remarkable thing about Redwood isn’t that it exists, but that it didn’t exist sooner. As the United States belatedly embraces the economic, national security, and environmental benefits that domestic battery recycling offers, it is trying to claw back market share from counties like South Korea, Japan, and especially China, which has a decades-long head start.
“There is this race in terms of EV recycling that people are trying to capitalize on,” said Brian Cunningham, program manager for battery research and development at the Department of Energy. “Everybody understands that, in the long term, developing these robust supply chains is going to be incredibly reliant on battery recycling.”

Straubel’s recycling journey began while he was still the chief technology officer at Tesla, which he co-founded with Elon Musk, and three others, in 2003. One of his roles was establishing the company’s first domestic battery manufacturing facility, Gigafactory Nevada. Material for Tesla’s batteries came from mines around the world, and Straubel understood that the trend would accelerate alongside demand for EVs, which has quintupled in number in the U.S. since 2020. He also knew that, in the years ahead, a growing number of electric vehicles would reach the end of their lives. According to consulting firm Circular Energy Storage, the world’s supply of retired batteries is expected to grow tenfold by 2030.

“[We] need to be planning ahead and really keeping an eye toward what that future looks like, to be ready to recycle every one of those batteries,” Straubel said in 2023. “The worst thing we could do is go to all this destruction and trouble to mine it, refine it, build the product and then throw it away.”

Last year, Redwood says it recycled 20 gigawatt-hours of lithium-ion batteries, or the equivalent of about a quarter-million EVs, generating $200 million in revenue. In addition to its headquarters in Carson City, Nevada, Redwood is building a campus in South Carolina. It isn’t alone in looking to expand. Ascend Elements, Cirba Solutions, Blue Whale Materials, and Li-Cycle are among a number of recyclers operating, or planning to operate, facilities in at least nine states across the country. More than 50 startups worldwide have attracted billions in investment in recent years. (Much of this outlay was driven by Biden-era legislation that Republicans are considering repealing, though it remains unclear just what such action might mean for spending already planned or underway.)

Despite the boom, the reuse revolution won’t come quickly.

Benchmark projects that recycled lithium and cobalt will account for a bit more than one-quarter of the global supply of those metals by 2040. A closed system in which battery manufacturers use only recycled material is considerably further off, because any increase in the number of old packs available to recycle will be outstripped by the need for new ones.

Global demand for EV batteries, for example, is growing by about 24 percent per year and won’t level off until sometime after 2040 — the point at which Benchmark’s forecast ends and growth is still forecast at 6 percent per year. The battery powering an EV can last well over a decade or more, so there will be a lag before the supply of recycled material catches up to demand.

Even today, the world’s recycling capacity outpaces the supply of batteries available to recycle, leaving everyone clambering to find more. That has meant waiting for EV batteries to reach the end of their lives, and attempting to recycle the small batteries in everyday gadgets that are often trashed. The dearth of material available for recycling is often attributed to the idea that only 5 percent of lithium batteries make it to companies like Redwood Materials. But the provenance of that number, cited everywhere from the Department of Energy and Ames National Laboratory to The New York Times and Grist, is murky. 

“If you ever ask, ‘Where did that 5 percent number come from?’ no one can really track back to the data,” said Bryant Polzin, a process engineer at Argonne National Laboratory. Like other Department of Energy employees or affiliates quoted in this story, he spoke to Grist before President Trump was inaugurated. “I think it was just kind of a game of telephone.”

Argonne’s research pegs the recycling rate for all lithium-ion batteries originating in the U.S. at 54 percent — 10 percent domestically and 44 percent in China — though it notes that data reliability remains an issue. Even that number, though, falls considerably short of what’s possible: 99 percent of lead acid batteries, like those used to start cars, in the United States are recycled, according to the Battery Council International trade association.

Redwood works with many automakers, including Toyota, BMW and Volkswagen, to gather EV batteries, and goes into the field to collect others from automotive repair shops, salvage yards, and the like. Policy tweaks could help recyclers acquire more. In California, for example, a state working group recommended more clearly delineating when various entities in the supply chain — from the battery supplier and auto manufacturer to a dismantler or refurbisher — are  responsible for ensuring a battery is recovered, reused, or recycled. This, the report said, could reduce the risk of “stranded” resources. 

So far, though, this seems to be a rare occurance. The much bigger hindrance to EV recycling in the U.S. is simply that there aren’t enough old batteries to meet the demand for new ones. As that waiting game unfolds, recycling those often discarded as household waste could help bridge the gap.

Small lithium-ion batteries power everything from phones and electric toothbrushes to toys. By Benchmark’s estimate, about 5 percent of virgin lithium is used in consumer devices, but when they die, many of them are squirreled away in a drawer or trashed.

“A lot of household stuff does get chucked in the waste, and they’re not getting recycled,” said Andy Latham, the founder of Salvage Wire, a consulting firm focused on automotive battery recycling. Beyond being wasteful, dropping old batteries in the trash can be dangerous; scores of garbage trucks in cities from New York to Oregon have caught fire in recent years due to improperly disposed e-waste. 

Data on just how much lithium is simply thrown away or hoarded remains elusive. But Latham says, in the short-term, batteries in portable electronics are “probably just as much, if not more of a factor” as those in EVs when it comes to advancing recycling. Redwood Materials, for one, is hoovering up as many as it can. It works with nonprofits and others to funnel them to its Nevada campus and hopes to establish drop-off locations at big-box retailers, similar to can and bottle collection in some states. 

“Collection is definitely the biggest challenge,” said Alexis Georgeson, Redwood Materials’ vice president of government relations and policy. “It’s really a problem of how you get consumers to clean out their junk drawers.” 

Until more people do that, recyclers count on a somewhat ironic source of material: Scraps from factories that make new batteries. One of Redwood’s primary feedstocks are the bits and pieces left over during the manufacturing process in places like Tesla’s Gigafactory, Georgeson said. Benchmark estimates that such leftovers represent about 84 percent of the material all battery recyclers use today.

The authors of the Argonne paper underscored how vital this material is: “If no scrap was available,” they wrote, “the development of the U.S. recycling industry might be significantly delayed.”

As more EVs hit the end of the road, consumer electronics are collected in greater numbers, and battery manufacturing yields less scrap as it grows more efficient, the composition of the material will adjust. New battery technologies could also have an impact, with emerging solid-state batteries, for example, expected to create more production waste in the short term but less in the long term. But few doubt recycling will be a thriving business that could help the country cut carbon emissions and decrease its dependency on places like China, Chile, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for increasingly vital minerals. It’s a future that American policymakers are trying to shape, hasten, and prepare for. 

Although under threat from President Donald Trump’s administration, both the Biden-era bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, explicitly aim to bring battery manufacturing to the United States. They provided billions of dollars in grants and tax credits to incentivize building out domestic capacity (often in Republican congressional districts). The consumer-facing EV tax credit also requires that manufacturers source a minimum amount of both minerals and components locally. The government has been investing hundreds of millions of dollars in battery recycling as well, including Department of Energy support for everything from collection systems for small electronics to research into improving recycling technology. 

“The work that we are funding is to really make those processes more efficient and economical,” said Jake Herb, technology development manager at the agency’s Vehicle Technologies Office. One success story is Ascend Elements, which Department of Energy funding helped grow from a Worcester Polytechnic Institute startup into a major player in the domestic industry. The department offered to loan Redwood Materials $2 billion to expand its factory, though the company declined the additional investment and says it has not accepted any federal funding. A robust domestic industry ensures that“we’re able to reclaim more materials [and] keep more of those materials domestic in the U.S,” Herb said.

Several challenges remain as the country sprints toward that goal.

One hurdle is figuring out when recycling is the best option. Argonne National Laboratory’s “battery material use hierarchy” puts recycling near the bottom of its list of possible outcomes. It’s better to find alternate uses for batteries, especially those from EVs, like refurbishing them for use in another car or directing them to less intensive applications, such as for energy storage. 

“It would provide a much more economical solution to consumers,” said Vince Edivan, executive director of the Automotive Recyclers Association. 

Still, this so-called “second life” market remains nascent in the U.S. Edivan says automakers could boost it by making it easier for salvage yards to assess a battery’s condition to determine whether it can be reused or should be recycled. They often consider that information proprietary, he said. “We’re shredding perfectly good batteries because we don’t know the state of health.”

Battery recycling comes with another danger as well: fire. Dismantling and recovering batteries involves highly volatile processes. Last fall, a recycling plant in Missouri sparked a blaze that led many residents to evacuate. Thousands of dead fish washed up downstream of the plant. 

It’s somewhat hazy who is supposed to regulate this rapidly growing industry. The Environmental Protection Agency considers lithium-ion batteries hazardous waste, which dictates how they should and shouldn’t be disposed of, but doesn’t directly address recycling. In 2021, Argonne signed on to help develop lithium recycling standards, though the status of that effort remains unclear. The task will likely fall to a patchwork of federal, state, and local authorities, which must keep the public both safe and confident in a process that will be critical to the country’s — and the climate’s — future.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to creating a full-cycle loop in the United States is that before any reclaimed material can be used in a battery, it must be refined into an intermediary product, such as cathode, which makes up approximately 40 percent of a battery’s value. “You can’t send lithium to a Gigafactory,” said Georgeson. “It is like sending sand to a computer factory.”

At the moment, no one is making cathode in the U.S. at scale — manufacturers are buying it from Asia. Redwood, Ascend Elements, and others are ramping up cathode facilities that should be online in the coming years (Panasonic plans to use Redwood cathode at its new battery plant in Kansas). But, for now, they are frequently selling their raw material abroad. 

Georgeson sees federal policy as key to helping, or hindering, efforts to plug the cathode hole in the supply chain. One impediment has been a Treasury Department ruling that allows cathode sourced from allied countries to also qualify for the EV tax credit. That, she said, has pushed billions in business and investments to countries like South Korea instead of the United States. 

It remains unclear exactly how the new administration will impact the industry, but President Trump could certainly upend it. If Congress rolls back the IRA’s investment and production tax credits, it could significantly handicap America’s burgeoning recycling buildout. On the other hand, tariffs, particularly aimed at China, could tip the economic scales toward American producers and recyclers by making imported batteries and their components more expensive.

Redwood, for one, is optimistic that its goal of onshoring both battery recycling and cathode production aligns with Trump’s goals of putting “America first.” Straubel has said that the Trump administration could do a lot to encourage a more robust domestic supply chain, including making the battery origin requirements of the EV tax credit more stringent — rather than scrapping the incentive entirely. 

Getting the policy wrong, the company argues, will put the U.S. at the mercy of others in a future where battery recycling will only become more critical. 

Blanca Begert contributed reporting to this story.

Read the full mining issue

A guide to the 4 minerals shaping the world’s energy future

Chile’s lithium boom promises jobs and money — but threatens a critical water source

Most critical minerals are on Indigenous lands. Will miners respect tribal sovereignty?

The energy transition could turn Greenland into a mining mecca. Would it be for better or for worse?

Digging for minerals in the Pacific’s graveyard: the $20 trillion fight over who controls the seabed

Mining is an environmental and human rights nightmare. Battery recycling can ease that.

Tradeoffs of the green transition: Is mining critical minerals better than extracting fossil fuels?

Why Biden and Trump both support this federal mineral mapping projecty

The weirdest ways scientists are mining for critical minerals, from water to weeds

In the race to find critical minerals, there’s a ‘gold mine’ literally at our shoreline

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Mining is an environmental and human rights nightmare. Battery recycling can ease that. on Mar 26, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Tik Root.

Developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, during the first Trump administration, Earth MRI aims to comprehensively map the nation’s underground deposits of “critical minerals” — an ever-growing list of elements and compounds considered vital for national security and the economy. In 2021, Earth MRI received a massive funding boost through the bipartisan infrastructure law, accelerating federal scientists’ efforts to figure out which parts of the country are rich in minerals used in clean energy technologies, semiconductors, and high-tech weaponry. While the Trump administration has moved aggressively to reverse most of former President Joe Biden’s climate policies, it appears to agree with the prior administration’s desire to locate — and, eventually, mine — more of these resources. 

Many Biden-era climate and energy initiatives remain in limbo following the Trump administration’s freeze on the disbursement of grant funding and mass firing of federal employees — but Earth MRI got an early greenlight to resume operations.

“This is a program that has survived both the Trump and Biden administrations,” Peter Cook, a critical minerals policy expert at The Breakthrough Institute, an environmental solutions research organization, told Grist. “They’re both definitely interested in critical minerals.” 

Minerals like lithium, graphite, and the group of 17 metallic elements known as rare earths are essential for a wide range of technologies, including those at the heart of the clean energy transition. The lithium-ion batteries that store renewable energy and power EVs can contain lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and more. Electric vehicle motors and some wind turbine generators contain magnets that require the rare earth element neodymium, and often smaller amounts of dysprosium and terbium. Certain solar panels require gallium, germanium, indium, and tellurium. The clean energy sector’s appetite for these metals is expected to surge as the energy transition accelerates: A recent report by The Breakthrough Institute found that EVs alone may account for two-thirds of future national demand of many key minerals. At the same time, critical minerals are vital for high-tech military technologies, advanced semiconductors, and more. 

Despite these diverse needs, U.S. output of many minerals is limited. A 2020 report by the Commerce Department found that of an initial list of 35 critical minerals, America’s supply of 31 of them came mostly or entirely from foreign sources. Production of many critical minerals is dominated by China, which is engaged in a trade war with the United States that has involved tariffs and export restrictions on several metals. For some particularly scarce metals like gallium, used in advanced semiconductors, the U.S. has no domestic production at all. 

While Biden saw domestic mineral supply chains as a key pillar of a U.S. clean energy manufacturing economy, Donald Trump’s interest in critical minerals appears more related to their military uses and national security implications. That interest can be seen in everything from a foreign policy focused on mining deals to a domestic agenda that includes cutting bureaucratic red tape to fuel additional mineral extraction. While Earth MRI hasn’t garnered the same level of attention as, say, Trump’s desire to buy Greenland for its rare earth resources or bargain with Ukraine for its minerals in exchange for military aid, the existence of the program reflects a long-standing focus on shoring up U.S. mineral supplies.

The USGS established Earth MRI in 2019, following a Trump executive order that called on federal agencies to address vulnerabilities in the nation’s critical mineral supply chains. Initially, the program had a modest annual budget of about $11 million, which USGS scientists, in partnership with state geological surveys around the country, used to launch a national critical minerals mapping campaign that included a mix of airborne surveys and on-the-ground fieldwork. But the bipartisan infrastructure law, or BIL, allowed Earth MRI to kick into overdrive, with a $320 million funding boost spread over five years. In 2022, the program’s yearly budget jumped to $75 million, a level at which it will remain through 2026. 

“We’re transforming the data landscape, and we’re transforming it in a big and consistent way through the sustained funding,” Earth MRI science coordinator Jamey Jones told Grist in an interview.

Earth MRI’s recent list of achievements is impressive. 

When the BIL passed into law in late 2021, scientists had collected high-quality geophysical data across only about 10 percent of the United States; by late 2024, that figure had jumped to nearly 25 percent. In the past two years alone, Jones said, Earth MRI scientists have conducted airborne magnetic surveys — which measure variations in Earth’s magnetic field to detect different subsurface rock types and identify features like faults — across an area twice the size of Montana. Late last year, Earth MRI and NASA completed the world’s largest high-quality hyperspectral survey over California, Nevada, and Arizona. Hyperspectral surveys, which measure reflected sunlight outside the range of human vision, can be used in arid regions to produce detailed mineral maps of the Earth’s surface. This year and next, NASA and Earth MRI will expand the survey to include parts of Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Oregon.

In addition to mapping minerals still in the ground, Earth MRI is taking a closer look at ones that have already been extracted. In 2023, the program’s scientists accelerated their efforts to explore the critical mineral content of mine waste located in tailings ponds and rock piles around the country. Mine waste is considered a potentially valuable source of many important metals and minerals, but they have never been systematically studied. Thanks to BIL funding, Jones says that the USGS recently completed the first-ever comprehensive national inventory of abandoned mine lands, which it anticipates publishing later this year. In partnership with state geological surveys, Earth MRI is now in the process of dispatching researchers to abandoned mine sites to collect samples of waste rock that can be analyzed in the lab to assess their critical mineral content. “Eventually, we hope to produce a national assessment of critical mineral resources in mine waste,” Jones said.

The data Earth MRI is collecting does not indicate which exact spots in the ground are the most attractive to mine. Rather, it supplies just enough information “to attract the private sector into an area” to conduct more detailed exploratory work, said Simon Jowitt, who directs the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and is Earth MRI’s primary point of contact for the state. The effort involved in collecting this preliminary, or “pre-competitive,” data often has an outsized economic benefit, Jowitt says. Research in other countries shows that for every dollar governments spend on it, tens to hundreds of dollars are returned to the economy through private investment in exploration and mining.

“If we want to have more mineral exploration, more secure domestic supply chains of metals and minerals, then we need to have these data,” Jowitt added.

Mining proposals often attract intense public opposition, due to fears about damage to ecosystems and water supplies. But both Trump and Biden — as well as members of Congress on both sides of the aisle — appear to support more of it. While it’s still too early to say how much of an impact Earth MRI will have on domestic mining — it often takes a decade or more to permit or build a mine even after all the exploratory work is complete — there are signs that private industry is taking a keen interest in its data. For instance, Jones said an exploration company in Nevada told the agency that it has discovered new lithium deposits based on geochemical data Earth MRI released.

Even as Trump has sought to kneecap other federal agencies and projects, funding for Earth MRI never appeared to be in serious jeopardy. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that called for “terminating the Green New Deal” by pausing the disbursement of all funds appropriated through the BIL and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — a move that multiple judges have found to be illegal. But the same order directed the interior secretary to “prioritize efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic mapping of the United States, with a focus on locating previously unknown deposits of critical minerals.” 

“I think it was pretty quickly recognized that the priorities [of the order] would outweigh the freeze,” Jones said. After a four-week pause, the Trump administration restored Earth MRI’s funding on February 18. And this month, Trump issued another executive order calling for agency heads to identify “as many sites as possible” on federal land that may be suitable for critical minerals mining and invoking the Defense Production Act to accelerate mineral development.

While the mapping program is moving full steam ahead for now, it remains to be seen what will become of it once BIL funding sunsets after 2026. Barring an additional infusion of cash from Congress, Jones says the most likely scenario is that the program’s budget will return to its pre-2022 baseline of about $11 million a year — a roughly 75 percent cut.

Jowitt, the Nevada state geologist, says he’d “like to be optimistic” that Congress will authorize additional funds for Earth MRI so that scientists can continue to fill in the gaps in the nation’s geologic maps. But considering the Trump administration’s recent efforts to dramatically shrink federal spending, he isn’t sure what will happen.

One thing is clear: There will be more work left to do after the BIL coffers are emptied. By 2027, “we can tell you exactly how much [geological data] coverage will have increased in the country for all of our different techniques,” Jones said. “And none of those numbers add up to 100 percent. Our job will not be complete.”

Read the full mining issue

A guide to the 4 minerals shaping the world’s energy future

Chile’s lithium boom promises jobs and money — but threatens a critical water source

Most critical minerals are on Indigenous lands. Will miners respect tribal sovereignty?

The energy transition could turn Greenland into a mining mecca. Would it be for better or for worse?

Digging for minerals in the Pacific’s graveyard: the $20 trillion fight over who controls the seabed

Mining is an environmental and human rights nightmare. Battery recycling can ease that.

Tradeoffs of the green transition: Is mining critical minerals better than extracting fossil fuels?

Why Biden and Trump both support this federal mineral mapping projecty

The weirdest ways scientists are mining for critical minerals, from water to weeds

In the race to find critical minerals, there’s a ‘gold mine’ literally at our shoreline

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why Biden and Trump both support this federal mineral mapping project on Mar 26, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Maddie Stone.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Early last year, Matthew Allison could be found at the Space Banana dance club, awkwardly swaying to his own beat. Clutching the cheapest house beer, he’d greet people with a bear hug, a broad grin and his familiar, “Yo, bro!” salutations.

Allison, then a 37-year-old convenience store worker and Saturday-night DJ, seemed to like everyone he met in Boise, Idaho’s small electronic dance music scene. And most people seemed to like him back.

He was so gentle, former friends remember, that for a time he eschewed honey so as not to cause harm to bees.

He was “a little goofy,” a former friend, Tyler Whitt, recalled. “But bro goofy.”

But that lovable persona hid a more sinister core. When he was behind his computer screen, Allison used the handle BTC, short for BanThisChannel, he told ProPublica and FRONTLINE. On the social media and messaging platform Telegram, authorities say, Allison was a key figure in a network of white supremacist and neo-Nazi chat groups and channels known as Terrorgram.

There, Allison held court, promoting himself as “the most infamous and prolific propagandist of our time.”

Hyperbole aside, BTC was infamous. Extremism researchers in the U.S. and in Europe studied his posts but did not know who he was. Leftist activists sought to expose him. And law enforcement authorities tried to identify and jail him.

Last September, he was finally arrested.

Prosecutors allege that Allison was one of the leaders in the Terrorgram Collective, a secretive group that produced propaganda and instructions for terrorists, and disseminated that information through the Terrorgram ecosystem.

They say Allison used the Telegram platform to solicit “attacks on government infrastructure, such as government buildings and energy facilities,” to encourage the assassination of “‘high-value targets’ — like politicians and government officials” with a “hit list,” and to help produce and distribute a Terrorgram Collective publication that featured instructions for making “Napalm, thermite, chlorine gas, pipe bombs, and dirty bombs.”

This story is part of a collaborative investigation from ProPublica and FRONTLINE that includes an upcoming documentary, “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” which premieres March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

Authorities also contend in court filings that Allison had fantasies about committing gruesome violence and sexual assault, and that he may have been planning to act on them.

Allison has pleaded not guilty.

For about five years, the Terrorgram network operated largely unchallenged on Telegram, which has nearly one billion users. The Dubai-based company did little to prevent influencers like Allison from circulating their propaganda and encouraging isolated young men to kill, a ProPublica and FRONTLINE investigation found.

The news organizations obtained a trove of now-deleted Telegram chats and channel logs and used them to trace Allison’s activity and influence in the Terrorgram network.

Telegram has declined repeated requests to make its executives available for interviews but said in a statement, “When the Terrorgram name first surfaced years ago, we began removing groups and channels that used variations on the Terrorgram name. Calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.”

In the annals of white supremacist content online, Allison’s work stood out. “It was some of the most inflammatory propaganda that I had seen,” said Jennefer Harper, a researcher who has amassed a large archive of neo-Nazi materials from Telegram. Allison was also prolific. “This propaganda was being posted 24/7! The account wasn’t taking a break, it was like, ‘Don’t you have anything else to do in your life?’”

He specialized in what he called documentaries, and over more than five years, he said, he made and posted around 120 videos. There were images of riots, burning cities and Black people brutalizing white people. There was GoPro footage of massacres filmed by white killers as they murdered people of color.

Allison and the other Terrorgram leaders found a receptive audience for their propaganda. Some of their fans got off their phones and took action: scoping out high-profile targets and even killing people. ProPublica and FRONTLINE used the chat logs, court records and other sources to connect 35 criminal cases to the Terrorgram network. Each case involved an individual who posted in Terrorgram chats, followed Terrorgram accounts or was a member of an organized group whose leaders participated in the Terrorgram community.

Prosecutors have linked Allison and his co-defendant, Dallas Humber, to a trio of mass shootings that killed a total of six people and wounded a dozen others, and to a stabbing incident that injured five, according to the indictment and a subsequent brief.

In early 2024, Allison’s work caught the attention of a young man from New Jersey named Andrew Takhistov.

Takhistov was in a Terrorgram group chat in which someone had posted several Allison videos, including a 51-second clip showing how to disable overhead electrical lines, according to court records. In another post, Takhistov indicated that he’d seen one of Allison’s most infamous propaganda videos.

By that summer, Takhistov, then 18, was planning his own infrastructure attacks, scheming to disable two electrical substations in New Jersey using the technique featured in Allison’s video, according to prosecutors. In court records, they say Takhistov was a fan of one of the Terrorgram Collective’s terrorism how-to guides, which Allison allegedly helped produce.

On Sept. 9, 2024, the Biden administration’s Justice Department announced the arrests and indictments of Allison and Humber, his alleged co-conspirator.

“Today’s arrests are a warning that committing hate-fueled crimes in the darkest corners of the internet will not hide you, and soliciting terrorist attacks from behind a screen will not protect you,” declared then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in a statement. “The United States Department of Justice will find you, and we will hold you accountable.”

Allison and Humber were each charged with 15 felony counts, including soliciting hate crimes, soliciting the murder of federal officials and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Arrested in Boise, Allison was extradited to California, where Humber is also facing trial. They both pleaded not guilty.

Humber, visited in jail by a ProPublica and FRONTLINE reporter, said she would not talk to journalists. Her lawyer declined to comment.

Allison, against the advice of his own lawyer, granted two interviews. Looking pale and gaunt and dressed in jailhouse orange, Allison proudly acknowledged being BTC but denied he was a terrorist or that he had incited others to violence.

He called the indictment “bullshit,” claimed to be a video “artist” and indicated that he intended to fight the case on First Amendment grounds.

Allison said the alleged hit list of targets for assassination was merely a doxing list, a response to efforts by anti-fascist groups “to dox me” and anyone who claimed “to be pro-white.” He insisted he didn’t hate anyone.

His lawyers, in a bail motion, said the indictment was misleading. They argued that there was no evidence that Allison was a leader of a transnational terrorist organization. He was, they wrote, just a participant in chats that “‘are mostly a chaotic mix of hyperbole and posts without any recognized leader.”

Watch video ➜

After Allison’s arrest, an FBI agent made his way to rural Perry, Missouri, to see Matthew’s father, John Allison, who lives in the basement of a rambling and drafty decommissioned church he’s renovating.

“Matthew was a perfect child,” John Allison remembers saying before closing the door on the agent. The father said the agent seemed interested only in incriminating information, so he refused to cooperate.

The first of four children, Matthew had sandy blond hair and blue eyes. Early on, he showed musical promise. Like Mozart in the movie “Amadeus,” John Allison recalls, Matthew could play the piano upside down.

The boy wasn’t raised to hate, his father told ProPublica and FRONTLINE in an interview.

But from the time he was 10 years old, the younger Allison took an interest in gruesome violence, prosecutors say. Matthew’s brother told federal agents that the boy enjoyed watching “graphic violent material,” including videos and images of “beheadings,” according to a prosecution brief. His legal team declined to comment on the allegation.

After high school in Perris, California, Matthew got an offer to attend a local college. He decided instead to follow his best friend to Idaho.

Allison’s lawyers said in a court filing that he spent 17 of the last 19 years in Boise, a relatively liberal city in a state that has become a haven for antigovernment and white supremacist activists.

He worked a variety of low-wage service jobs and did a lot of couch surfing, his friends say.

In 2013, Allison got a job working the night shift at a downtown coffee shop and bakery. His boss and co-worker remember him as quiet, polite and professional. He was in a long-term romance with a male co-worker and seemed very much in love.

“I always thought it was a very cohesive relationship,” said Tyler Armstrong, who worked at the bakery with both men. “They were together all the time. We’d all get together, smoke weed and just hang out.”

In Boise’s electronic dance music scene, Allison found a welcoming, inclusive community. He hosted parties where he would DJ, playing progressive house music.

He lived in a Spartan apartment. He didn’t have a car, or even a driver’s license. He told friends he wanted to stay under the radar.

Over the years, he lived in several upscale buildings, including The Fowler, a midrise that boasts a well-appointed fitness center and stunning views of the downtown.

While some acquaintances wondered how he afforded the rent on low-wage service jobs, four friends say that Allison had an illicit side hustle. As Tyler Whitt, one of his friends, put it, “He was an excellent plug” — a drug dealer.

Allison sold cocaine packaged in signature blue-tinted vials, according to Whitt and three other people who purchased drugs from him. Allison denied that he sold cocaine in an interview with FRONTLINE and ProPublica, and he has not been charged with any drug-related offenses.

In 2018, unbeknownst to his dance party friends, Allison was trying to break through on social media as an anonymous conservative influencer.

His early videos on YouTube under the Ban This Channel handle served up standard conservative fare. He peppered the videos with Tucker Carlson clips and used titles such as “The Russian Collusion Lie” and “Lies About Trump Exposed.” Most of the videos landed without notice.

Allison kept cranking out videos. They got more racist, homophobic and antisemitic. Eventually, after he posted the Nazi Party anthem, YouTube banished him from the platform.

His tilt to extremism came amid trouble in his personal life. Allison and his long-term boyfriend broke up, leaving him angry and depressed, according to Armstrong. And his younger brother in Nevada was imprisoned on drug charges, court records show.

In 2020, Allison abruptly left Idaho. He quit his job as a laborer for a flooring company, citing a family emergency. For a time, he lived in Nevada, taking care of his brother’s children.

Allison also lived with his father and stepmother in Utah for nearly six months, but he spent most of the time holed up in his room on his computer, his father said.

“That was a hard day,” Matthew Allison said after one 10-plus-hour session. His father stared at him, baffled.

Allison asked his father to help him start a website to host his content, which included videos he’d made from old Nazi propaganda footage, John Allison said.

“No, I’m not going to be a party to that,” he said he told his son.

Allison soon found another home for his content: Telegram.

Pete Simi, a sociology professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, has spent much of his career studying violent extremist groups and has closely tracked their migrations to Telegram.

It was sometime in 2021, during the pandemic, when Simi first became aware of BTC.

Simi had just been admitted to a private Telegram chat group.

The administrator of the chat hadn’t been willing to let Simi join until he provided proof of his whiteness. He’d thought his middle-aged skin might raise suspicion, so he’d shared a photo of his adult son’s forearm.

As soon as he entered the chat, someone shared a six-minute video called “Last Battle.” Simi downloaded a copy.

Simi had studied a lot of neo-Nazi propaganda — some of it crude and ineffective. But this video stood out, though the overall message was familiar: It told the story of a nation being destroyed by drag queens, immigrant invaders, Black criminals, interracial marriage and a “Jewish communist takeover.”

What was compelling about this video, Simi thought, was the way it blended violent imagery, ominous music and storytelling to impart a sense of fear and white victimhood. The only salvation, the video suggested, was for heterosexual white people to stand together and arm themselves.

“VOTING WILL NOT REMOVE THEM,” reads text on the screen. “THEY WANT YOU DEAD.”

“I would say ‘Last Battle’ would be one of the more effective videos I’ve seen,” Simi said.

Simi started teaching the video in class as an example of propaganda that would be compelling to many alienated young men.

Allison, as BTC, became a Terrorgram Collective leader in 2022 after a previous leader was arrested, according to prosecutors.

He allegedly distributed lengthy digital how-to guides for making explosives and attacking critical infrastructure, as well as audiobooks of murderers’ manifestos. Prosecutors say he helped create a hit list of perceived enemies — politicians, executives and academics — presented as red-and-black trading cards with assault weapon logos, which included headshots, addresses and photos of the targets’ homes.

One of his major contributions was the 24-minute movie “White Terror,” which he told ProPublica and FRONTLINE that he edited. It was an homage to 105 white men and women who committed acts of terrorism. Humber narrates the script in a remorseless monotone, describing the victims with slurs and praising the terrorists as “saints,” an honorific the Terrorgram influencers bestowed upon white supremacist murderers.

As Allison’s content became more extreme, Telegram started to take down his channels. Each time, the channel just popped back up with a slightly modified name. In December 2021, he bragged in a post that 50 of the channels he had started had been banned by Telegram.

Using data from the social media analysis platform Open Measures and other sources, ProPublica and FRONTLINE identified more than 20 channels in the Terrorgram ecosystem that were run by Allison.

The channels were “widely shared and promoted by other members of the Terrorgram scene,” said Pierre Vaux, a London-based researcher who has studied Terrorgram extensively. Vaux said that Allison also belonged to 120 chat groups and posted in them prolifically. “He’s a superspreader,” said Vaux.

In October 2022, a Slovakian teen who had spent years being indoctrinated on Telegram opened fire on an LGBTQ+ bar in the city of Bratislava, killing two people and wounding a third.

The shooter had been in direct contact with Terrorgram influencers, and according to U.S. prosecutors, sent his manifesto to Allison before the attack.

Another Telegram account Allison ran called BowlTurdsCoinInvesting shared the manifesto. In posts, Allison referred to the victims using a slur for gay people and called the manifesto “fucking amazing.”

Telegram shut the channel down.

But Allison quickly resurfaced — this time as BigTittyChica. He reposted an audiobook version of the Bratislava shooter’s manifesto.

Around this time, Humber sent Allison more news that she found encouraging. She had been communicating with a Terrorgram fan who was contemplating a school shooting targeting people of color, prosecutors said in court filings. About a month later, the user acted, killing four and wounding 11 at an elementary and middle school in Aracruz, Brazil.

Terrorgram consecrated another saint.

Allison’s legal team has suggested that the government may have misinterpreted the communications between Allison and the Slovakian killer. The evidence, they said, did “not show direct messages between Mr. Allison and the shooter but rather are messages that the shooter sent to Telegram group chats that were later forwarded between Mr. Allison’s purported two phones.”

Watch video ➜

While the real world and online lives of Allison might seem irreconcilable — a gay man who allegedly led a neo-Nazi terror group and advocated the murder of gays and lesbians — Simi, the Chapman University professor, has seen such cases before. It illustrates, he said, “the propensity that all of us have for leading contradictory lives. We have a great capacity for compartmentalizing as humans.”

Simi once interviewed a gay man who was also a member of Hammerskin Nation, a violent, hypermasculine Nazi skinhead gang whose members despise LGBTQ+ people. Ultimately, the cognitive dissonance became too great and the man quit the white supremacist movement.

There are other more recent examples. Taylor Ashley Parker-Dipeppe concealed his transgender identity from fellow members of the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division, a violently homophobic group. His gender identity was revealed in court after he pleaded guilty in 2021 to conspiracy and stalking charges related to threats against journalists and activists.

Allison’s friends had no inkling that the man they partied with was celebrating the murder of gay people on Telegram. But one friend, Tyler Armstrong, recalled a troubling moment in 2020. He stumbled on a Snapchat post in which Allison repeated a white supremacist meme about high crime rates in the Black community.

When Armstrong asked how Allison, as a gay man, could demonize another vulnerable population, Allison replied, “Don’t get me started on the LGBTQ” community, according to Armstrong. Allison denied the exchange to FRONTLINE and ProPublica.

“Sup bro. do house parties exist anymore?”

It was February 2024, and Allison was texting a friend, trying to score DJ gigs. He’d been working a ton lately at a convenience store job he hated and only partying Saturday nights. “Anyone else tapped in to the scene who would know what’s up?” he asked. “I’m killing it djing and got all the gear.”

Meanwhile on Telegram, Allison was putting the final touches on a movie trilogy, which he said documented “one man’s process of radicalization every step of the way.”

In July, Allison filled out an online application for a part-time job at a popular downtown Boise breakfast spot just a short bike ride from his apartment.

“Hi there, my name’s Matt. I have relevant job experience in baking, making New York style bagels from scratch,” he wrote. “I’m a friendly, clean cut, sociable, reliable, and highly organized hard worker.”

He was hired and began working immediately.

That same month, federal agents arrested Takhistov, the New Jersey man who had watched Allison’s videos and read the Terrorgram Collective manual.

Prosecutors say Takhistov was working with another extremist to disable electrical power stations. What he didn’t know was that his co-conspirator was an undercover investigator. Takhistov was charged with soliciting another individual to destroy energy facilities. In building their case, investigators obtained his chat history, including more than 2,500 files.

Court records do not make it clear whether Takhistov has entered a plea. His attorney declined to comment.

The feds were getting closer. But if Allison was worried about the arrest of this young Terrorgram fan, he didn’t let on at work.

Over the next weeks at his new job, Allison was polite, professional and friendly. He told his father it was the best job he’d ever had.

On Friday, Sept. 6, armed federal agents confronted Allison as he prepared to bike to work.

He did not resist. And for two hours he spoke to investigators, waiving access to a lawyer. Allison admitted to making artwork for one Terrorgram production and to participating in a large number of Telegram channels with white supremacists, according to court records. He explained that he was just sharing “propaganda” and “documenting” his “understanding of the world.”

He repeatedly demanded: “What part of any of this was illegal?”

But investigators found more reasons for concern. In his backpack, agents found zip ties, duct tape, ammunition, a firearm, a knife, lockpicking equipment, two phones and a thumbdrive, court documents say.

In his apartment, they discovered an assault rifle, two laptops and a “go bag” with $1,500 cash, a black balaclava and the kind of skull mask favored by members of Atomwaffen Division, court records show.

Federal authorities also searched his storage unit, where they found disturbing handwritten letters titled “Commit Homicide” and “Post-Mortem Disembowelment” that contained graphic fantasies about murdering a baby and her mother, followed by the post-mortem rape and dissection of the woman’s body, according to the court filings. Prosecutors do not allege that he committed these crimes.

At a detention hearing, Allison’s defense claimed the writings were old song lyrics from his high school death metal band, Putrid Flesh.

In a motion for bail, Allison’s lawyers argued that he was not a threat to anyone and that his speech was protected under the First Amendment.

The judge denied Allison bail.

Late last year in Boise, the two Tylers who partied with Allison — Tyler Whitt and Tyler Armstrong — sat down to process the confounding double life of their former friend.

But first they watched “White Terror,” the BTC production that coldly celebrates terrorist killers with a mix of gruesome violence and dehumanizing language. Both men said the video left them in shock.

“That’s somebody who spent a lot of time thinking and giving in to all this hate in his heart,” Armstrong said. “And I’m like, Where does that come from?”

Whitt, who is gay, said he was still struggling to understand. “That’s got to be a totally broken person,” he said. “It was like hating everybody else is more important than loving one part of himself.”

But Whitt said he had no sympathy for his former friend and hopes Allison will spend the rest of his life in prison.

“I’m glad they got him.”

Tom Jennings, Annie Wong and Karina Meier of FRONTLINE contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by .

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This story is part of a collaborative investigation from ProPublica and FRONTLINE that includes an upcoming documentary, “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” which premieres March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

A new investigative collaboration from FRONTLINE and ProPublica explores a transnational online network of extremists accused of inciting acts of white supremacist terrorism on the messaging platform Telegram. They called themselves Terrorgram — and called their leadership the Terrorgram Collective.

From an award-winning team led by reporters A.C. Thompson and James Bandler and acclaimed filmmakers Thomas Jennings and Annie Wong, “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” continues years of groundbreaking reporting on violent extremism and online radicalization from ProPublica and FRONTLINE.

“Drawing on a trove of archived posts, our reporting shows how Telegram and other lightly regulated platforms became a gathering place for ‘militant accelerationists’ — neo-Nazis who want to use terror and violence to bring down governments and create new, white ethnostates,” says Thompson, who has been reporting on the evolution of violent extremism in the U.S. for years and, with this project, expands his focus worldwide.

“These people on the messaging and social media app Telegram were trying to stir other people to commit acts of incredible violence and to spark a race war,” says Bandler. “What we’ve seen through the Terrorgram story is that there are consequences to unfettered free speech, to having influencers out there advocating violence or mass murder.”

Telegram said in a statement that it has always screened postings for problematic content and that “calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.”

“The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” also probes how authorities in several countries would eventually arrest around a dozen people allegedly tied to the Terrorgram Collective.

“Are these arrests the end of Terrorgram? You may have a collapse specifically of this particular network, but is that the end? Absolutely not,” sociologist Pete Simi says in the documentary. “There will be new Terrorgrams that take its place by another name, and we will continue to see this kind of extremism propagated through platforms of various sorts, not just Telegram.”

More than a year in the making, the 90-minute documentary is part of a multiplatform effort that also includes a series of stories from ProPublica.

“The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” premieres Tuesday, March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by ProPublica and PBS's Frontline.

Music has always been part of my life and it was something that I started at a very young age and I came out to California to follow my career in music, as well as writing and film. I signed with Capital coming right out of college and started touring and we were opening up with Nine Inch Nails and Frontline Assembly and all these big industrial bands, and Skinny Puppy remixed one of our songs. It was amazing because we went on tour and we’re doing North American tours with all these great musicians. And from city to city, we were playing video games at the back of the tour bus, mainly Street Fighter and these other games. Now, come full circle, 30 years later, I’m directing Street Fighter.

Music was the inroads for me to not only learn about the industry coming out of school, but also as a creator and as a storyteller. And tragically, about 12, 13 years ago, we had a fire here and it wiped out my whole music studio. It wiped out my equipment, all my synthesizers and samplers. We lost about a thousand music masters. Some of my albums were being re-released with Sony, who picked up our music catalog.

So I had to restart my career. And in the middle of that, I had started writing Frost Road, and Frost Road was actually going to be a story that I was going to develop as a motion picture. And I had been boarding out the movie with Trevor Goring and then started to paint some of the images with Christopher Shy because we had worked on some graphic novels together.

My career in music really forced me to evolve as a storyteller to then move into these other mediums. And that’s why I’m here today is that I’m still going back to my music and hoping to release a new album. And a lot of my music is still in heavy rotation around the world, but I’m hoping that I can use my love of music to better inform myself as a storyteller in film and television and obviously for my books that are coming up.

It’s almost like a Phoenix allegory: a bit of your previous creative life having to die, outside of your control, and then helping to fuel the fire, so to speak, of the next stages of your career. I have to ask about Street Fighter. Who did you main on Street Fighter? Who do you like to play?

I mean, for me, it was always Honda just because of the 100-hand slap—that was an age-old joke with us. When we were on tour, we had an incident where we were going across the Canadian border. They don’t really like musicians going back and forth over to Canada. They came on the bus at four in the morning and Michael, one of the guys in my band, was sleeping below us and they were asking us for our name and our country of origin and we were having to have our tour manager hand over our passports. Michael had no idea that this was a very upset customs agent that was boarding our bus and had already evicted the other band, Frontline Assembly. So the guy asked me my name and country of origin and I responded, and then he asked Michael, and Michael was sound asleep and had no idea what was going on.

So our tour manager, Lane, kicked him because he was on the bottom bunk. We were in these bunks of these tour buses, and he kicked him and Michael’s two arms suddenly came out. We’d been playing Street Fighter, like non-stop, and Honda was always the most insane because of his 100-hand slap. And suddenly these two arms came out from the curtains in the bunk on the bottom and he just starts letting loose 100-hand slap on the customs agent thinking it was one of us on the band. The agent, he was this older African American guy, and he looks down and crosses his arms and shakes his head… Lane knew we were about to be completely hauled off the jail because they really didn’t want us there, and he just shakes his head and walks off the bus.

You’ve worked across a large number of mediums and disciplines from video games to movies and now graphic novels. How do you handle the context switching between those mediums? What are some skills or learnings that you’ve had to grow over time and what are things that you’re still working on?

It’s been a journey to move between these different disciplines and integrate them into all the stories that we love. I think as a storyteller, you have to tell the right story for the right medium. Sometimes that’s a linear medium, like a movie or a television show where it’s a passive experience where the audience is watching and has a suspension of disbelief as they’re watching you. Whereas in a video game, it’s an interactive experience and the story and the context doesn’t progress unless the audience engages with it, which is very similar to a book. A graphic novel or a comic book is the same way. The story really doesn’t progress unless you turn the page and you follow the dialogue and the characters at your own pace.

I feel, as a storyteller, you really need to look at the characters and the world that you’re telling and what aspect works for the medium that you’re working on. So if you’re working in virtual reality, it’s a much different experience because you’re having to guide the audience through an experience and knowing where to look and where to experience. In a book, obviously, your focus is on your characters and the progression of the story and what part of the story works that way.

I think I’ve had the privilege to get to work in so many different mediums because I love telling stories from music to comics to film, and it’s a different experience. If I’m doing a viral campaign for a movie and I’m doing hidden footage with a scavenger hunt and an alternate reality game, that’s a much different experience than trying to do a combat battle chatter on Call of Duty. It’s a very collaborative industry and you’re working with other creators. So not only do you have to respect your own creative goals, but also how that integrates with what the other creators you’re working with and collaborating with have in mind, and also what the audience likes because a lot of these projects take years to develop. The technology and the platforms are changing so fast that you have to look ahead to what storytelling is going to be like in two years from now and how you do that.

With the advent of AI integrating as tools and other things that are challenging creators, both in a good and a bad way, it puts the onus on us to up our game to be better at our craft and understand how we can use these tools so they don’t overpower and take over our industry.

I want to touch on the idea of continuing to collaborate, because especially in graphic novels, you’re working with illustrators and letterers and colorists and movie people. There’s a whole production line of folks and things change rapidly. I’m sure, at some point, you’ve come in with an idea or been passionate about something and have had to change that or relinquish the idea altogether. Can you talk about any challenges liks this, or how you’ve adopted some of those changes in format or technology?

When I started, I didn’t rknow how to evolve from music and video games into film. Even though the game industry, from a financial standpoint, is more successful and more engaging in the sense of larger format and other things, I was really fascinated by not only working in motion pictures, but I had also grown up with comics and graphic novels. Arkham Asylum had been one of my favorite books—you had this hand-painted book, where every panel was painted. That and Heavy Metal and a lot of these things were early influences for me and so I envisioned that if I was going to work on my own projects, that everything had to be painted.

When I first started trying to write, I didn’t know what the first step was as a creator. I had a great story. I knew I was on the right path with the story, but I didn’t know how to tell it.

I had gone to San Diego Comic-Con after meeting with dozens of artists around and online, and I would start walking down Artist Alley and not only finding artwork that inspired me and was based on the images that I had in my head, but also meeting these artists and collaborating to see what it’s like to working with other people. It’s funny because the first artists I met are now some of the largest in the industry, and it was amazing because they were all in their early days of their career.

My first book was in three acts, and so I figured Meavy Metal style, I would work with three different artists and collaborate. I had three different styles in mind. One of the artists I met with was Christopher Shy. He had been doing stuff for White Wolf. He’d been doing some of their comics in the video games, but he had never done a graphic novel. His artwork was just stunning, though, and it looked exactly like what I had in my head. It was painted. It was dreamy. It had this painterly kind of feel. It had a lot of depth. The funny thing was that Christopher and I became instant friends and I realized that this is someone I could collaborate with. We were both, in a sense, generalists. Instead of just focusing on only one craft, we all loved storytelling on a variety of different mediums.

That was really the first experience for me collaborating with an artist who could do so many different things and explore how to tell a story this way. The lettering, the painting, the composition of the shots, the writing… collaborating on that became an interesting journey. I still worked and brought in other writers to help me, and other artists to help do finishing and other things, but it really came down to this core collaboration. It’s a challenge because you’re trying to tell a sequential story in either a comic or a graphic novel where you’re not only trying to explain the dialogue and the mood and the tone, but the composition has to really further that narrative.

The thing Christopher and both learned, I think, was that it was intriguing to be able to bring people in with the visuals, but then how do we hook people on the story and the world and the characters that we’re doing? One of the most beneficial and rewarding parts of this collaboration I’ve had with Christopher now for 20 years is that we’ve been able to tell these impactful stories and use his artwork as the medium to do that, but also to create characters in these worlds that will hopefully translate into games and film.

I want to talk more about the education you do. I know it’s a big part of the campaign that’s running and it’s also part of your overall approach to giving back to the creative community. You help others develop skills for technical acting and performance capture. What has teaching others taught you about yourself?

Looking back on my career, I think I’ve had the benefit, the privilege, and the honor to work with so many amazing, talented performers and other writers and creators. I feel that all of us are learning constantly. I’m learning.

I mean, this is my first real Kickstarter on my own after what I did with Wesley Snipes and Adam Lawson on Exiled. And this is a whole new learning process for me. I feel that all of us are at different stages of bettering ourselves and our careers.

Part of my personal belief is that it’s important to share the knowledge we gain and the networking and the mentorship and to give it back to other creators. I’m not saying that I have the only way or the best way to do things. In fact, I’ve probably made more mistakes than I can imagine. But I feel that you need to make mistakes to learn. And, I mean, just because someone tells you something, it doesn’t always apply to your life in a way that you might be able to find usable or relatable, but I do like to experience things for myself with the guidance of someone who’s been through it.

Even on this campaign, Jimmy Palmiotti, who’s an amazing writer and a creator who’s had many successful campaigns, mentored me on the Kickstarter community and how to do things in a way that we’re giving back to other creators. And Chris Yates who’s now part of our team here, we’ve collaborated on a lot of ideas of saying, “How do we share all the knowledge that we’ve been accumulating to pull together these successful projects and campaigns and share that back with the community?” For this one in particular, we felt that since it’s a new intellectual property and many people might not be familiar with it, just making a poster or a t-shirt or a statue or something else is nice, but that we have other things we can give back to the community in a bigger way.

Some of the things that we haven’t announced yet as part of the campaign are going to happen as we hit certain stretch goals. We’re actually going to be funding other creators on Kickstarter. We’re going to be working very closely with the community to identify campaigns we believe in and help not just mentor them, but also to contribute towards those campaigns.

One of the other things that we really want to do as industry professionals is share knowledge. Some of the reward tiers you’re going to see as part of this campaign might not be for fans, but more for creators who are looking to grow their careers. We’re going to have master classes and private panels and mentoring sessions and portfolio reviews and recorded panels and meet-and-greets and other opportunities, even at things like San Diego Comic Con where creators and fans get a chance to meet with us and talk with us and ask us questions. They might not normally have that opportunity, other than on social media or public events and that kind of thing.

We felt Kickstarter was an amazing platform to not only launch an IP like Frost Road, but then to also share behind the scenes about how we’re going to continue to do it. As Frost Road is successful, we’re hoping to do many more campaigns—I feel that Kickstarter, in particular as a platform, empowers creators to explore their own creative ideas and not have the pressure of funding. It’s really getting the feedback and the interaction with the audience.

There are examples of what we’ve done already with performance capture and teaching actors in the video game industry how to move into the game industry. We teach them about the business and the performance side and the technical side. I think a lot of creators are looking at things like: How do I get my own graphic novel or comic book off the ground? How do I take an idea that I want to make into a movie and where do I start? I think a lot of that is something we really see as an opportunity through Kickstarter to give back to that community in a variety of ways.

**It’s admirable to be able to use your own time and platform to be to create opportunities for other people. You don’t know who you’re going to meet or how you’ll influence somebody else’s work or life. **

You’ve worked on a large number of properties. Are there any white whales out there that you haven’t touched yet that you’re looking to your teeth into?

As a creator, you’re always inspired by other creators and other people. This campaign is going to be the start of some special things, not just in publishing and film and games. I really see that creators across the world are disenfranchised right now—distribution is fairly broken. I don’t mean just the gatekeepers of people that fund and allow people to do their work, but the way distribution itself works is getting archaic in a sense that the way we buy books, the way we get our television shows, the way we see films, the way we interact with content is through very few gatekeepers. The way that distribution works is not very favorable or equitable to creators.

I feel that it’s stacked against the creators to not only create the content, but then to understand the business and understand how to get their work see. And, even if they do do that, then to still participate and be sustainable. My white whale, as a creator, is to really start working on the platforms and the distribution that not only help give a voice to creators, but allow them to participate in the success of what they’re putting in, all the work and sweat equity and time that we put in that we’d love. It would be unfortunate for other people to profit off of that and not see the benefits of that.

I really feel that through my journey as a creator and experiencing things firsthand, that I’ve been able to identify the pain points that many creators like myself go through—the frustrations that we see, the other people that take credit and profit from our work. I feel that my work in the game industry and technology platforms and the projects that I’ve been working on over the past several years are putting me in a position where I can give back not just on the knowledge and the education, but also the technology and the ability to help develop platforms that would be more equitable for creators and allow them to participate both creatively and financially. That’s my big hope behind all of this.

I know that all sounds lofty and big and utopian, but it really is the truth. I think that’s why I keep coming back to Kickstarter. Kickstarter’s an amazing platform in itself, one that’s empowering creators to participate and put out their work and find their community. On a larger scale, ongoing distribution for whatever the medium might be is going to be the next evolution of that. I feel that Kickstarter is going to be a foundational part of what we’re going to do to help people launch their IP and then hopefully continue to find a way to participate in the fruits of their labor.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Sam Kusek.

The post Shared Ethnonationalism and Militarized Technology Bond India and Israel appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Allen Forrest.

This story contains references to homophobia, antisemitism and racism, as well as mass shootings and other violence.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

On Jan. 19, 2024, the sheriff of Jacksonville, Florida, released a 27-page manifesto left behind by Ryan Palmeter, a 21-year old white man who had murdered three Black people at a Dollar General store before turning the gun on himself.

The Florida Times-Union, a prominent local news outlet, said it would not be publishing the document, which it said used the N-word 183 times and had an “overall theme of white superiority.” T.K. Waters, the sheriff, said he had posted what he described as the “rantings of an isolated, hateful, madman” to keep his promise of public transparency. An attorney for one of the victims’ families urged the public “to not give Palmeter the satisfaction of publishing or distributing his manifesto,” saying it “contains not one redeemable thought.”

Thousands of miles away, in Elk Grove, California, Dallas Humber saw Palmeter’s view of the world as perfect for her audience of online neo-Nazis. Humber, a now-35-year-old woman with a penchant for dyeing her hair neon colors, was a leading voice in an online network of white supremacists who had coalesced in a dark corner of Telegram, a social media and messaging service with almost a billion users worldwide.

She and her comrades called this constellation of interlocking Telegram accounts Terrorgram. Their shared goal was to topple modern democracies through terrorism and sabotage and then replace them with all-white ethno-states.

Humber quickly turned Palmeter’s slur-riddled manifesto into an audiobook that she narrated in a monotone. Then she sent it into the world with her signature line:

“So, let’s get this party started, Terrorbros.”

The manifesto immediately began to spread, pinballing around the worldwide Terrorgram scene, which celebrated mass shooters like Palmeter as “saints.”

The Terrorgram story is part of a much larger 21st century phenomenon. Over the past two decades, massive social networks like X, Facebook and Telegram have emerged as a powerful force for both good and evil. The ability to connect with like-minded strangers helped fuel uprisings like the Arab Spring and Iran’s pro-democracy movements. But it has also aided extremists, including brutal jihadist organizations like the Islamic State group and white supremacists around the world.

This story is part of a collaborative investigation from FRONTLINE and ProPublica that includes an upcoming documentary, “The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram,” which premieres March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

Telegram, which is massively popular outside of the U.S., boasted an array of features that appealed to Humber and her fellow Terrorgammers. They could send encrypted direct messages, start big chat groups and create public channels to broadcast their messages. In the span of five years, they grew Terrorgram from a handful of accounts into a community with hundreds of chats and channels focused on recruiting would-be terrorists, sharing grisly videos and trading expertise on everything from assassination techniques to the best ways to sabotage water systems and electrical transmission lines. On one of her many accounts, Humber posted step-by-step instructions for making pipe bombs and synthesizing HMTD, a potent explosive.

Humber went by a series of usernames but was eventually publicly exposed by a group of California activists. ProPublica and FRONTLINE reviewed chat logs — some provided by the Australian anti-facist research organization The White Rose Society — court records and Humber’s other digital accounts to independently confirm her identity.

U.S. prosecutors say Humber helped lead the Terrorgram Collective, a transnational organization that ran popular Terrorgram accounts, produced sophisticated works of propaganda and distributed an alleged hit list of potential assassination targets. She is currently facing a host of federal terrorism charges, along with another alleged Terrorgram leader, Matthew Allison, a 38-year-old DJ from Boise, Idaho. Both have pleaded not guilty.

To trace the rise and fall of Terrorgram, ProPublica and FRONTLINE obtained a trove of chat logs and got access to some of the extremists’ private channels, allowing reporters to track in real time their posts and relationships. We combed through legal documents, talked with law enforcement officials and researchers in six countries and interviewed a member of the collective in jail. Taken together, our reporting reveals new details about the Terrorgram Collective, showing how Humber and her compatriots were powerful social media influencers who, rather than peddling fashion or food, promoted murder and destruction.

The material illustrates the tension faced by every online platform: What limits should be imposed on the things users post or discuss? For years, social networks like Facebook and X employed thousands of people to review and take down offensive content, from pornography to racist memes to direct incitement of violence. The efforts at content moderation prompted complaints, primarily from conservatives, that the platforms were censoring conservative views of the world.

Telegram was created in 2013 by Pavel Durov, a Russian-born technologist, and his brother Nikolai. Pavel Durov, a billionaire who posts pictures of himself on Instagram, baring his chiseled torso amid rock formations and sand dunes, became the face of the company. He marketed the platform as a free-speech-focused alternative to the Silicon Valley social media platforms, which in the mid-2010s had begun aggressively policing disinformation and racist and dehumanizing content. Telegram’s restrictions were far more lax than those of its competitors, and it quickly became a hub for hate as well as illegal activity like child sexual exploitation and gunrunning.

Our review of thousands of Terrorgram posts shows that the lack of content moderation was crucial to the spread of the collective’s violent content. Telegram’s largely hands-off approach allowed Humber and her alleged confederates to reach an international audience of disaffected young people.

They encouraged these followers to turn their violent thoughts into action. And some of them did.

ProPublica and FRONTLINE identified 35 crimes linked to Terrorgram, including bomb plots, stabbings and shootings. Each case involved an individual who posted in Terrorgram chats, followed Terrorgram accounts or was a member of an organized group whose leaders participated in the Terrorgram community.

One of the crimes was a 2022 shooting at an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, Slovakia, that left two people dead and another injured. In an earlier story, ProPublica and FRONTLINE detailed how the shooter, Juraj Krajčík, was coached to kill over three years by members of the Terrorgram Collective, a process that started when he was just 16 years old.

Radka Trokšiarová survived the Bratislava attack after being shot twice in the leg. “Sometimes I catch myself wishing to be able to ask the gunman: ‘Why did you do it? What was the point and purpose of destroying so many lives?’” she said.

Telegram declined repeated requests to make its executives available for interviews and would not answer specific questions about Humber and other Terrorgram leaders. But in a statement, the company said, “Calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.”

The company said that Telegram’s “significant growth has presented unique moderation challenges due to the sheer volume and diversity of content uploaded to the platform,” but that since 2023 it has stepped up its moderation practices, using AI and a team of about 750 contractors. Telegram said it now “proactively monitors public content across the platform and takes down objectionable content before it reaches users and has a chance to be reported.”

Watch video ➜

Right-wing extremists were flocking to Telegram by 2019.

Many had been effectively exiled from major social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, which, in response to public pressure, had built vast “trust and safety” teams tasked with purging hateful and violent content. The companies had also begun using a shared database of hashes — essentially digital fingerprints — to quickly identify and delete videos and images produced by terror groups.

Even 8chan, an anonymous message board frequented by extremists, had begun pulling down particularly egregious posts and videos. Users there openly discussed moving to Telegram. One lengthy thread encouraged white supremacists to start using Telegram as a tool for communicating with like-minded people and spreading radical ideas to those they considered “normies.” “It offers a clean UI” — user interface — “and the best privacy protection we can get for this sort of social,” wrote one 8chan poster.

Pavel Durov, the 40-year-old Telegram co-founder, had positioned himself as a stalwart champion of privacy and free expression, arguing that “privacy is more important than the fear of terrorism.” After the Iranian government blocked access to the app in that country in 2018, he called free speech an “undeniable human right.”

To the extremists, Telegram and Durov seemed to be promising to leave them and their posts alone — no matter how offensive and alarming others might find their messages.

Among those who joined the online migration were Pavol Beňadik and Matthew Althorpe. The two men quickly began testing Telegram’s limits by posting content explicitly aimed at inspiring acts of white supremacist terrorism.

Then 23, Althorpe came from a small town on the Niagara River in Ontario, Canada; Beňadik, who was 19 at the time, lived in a village in Western Slovakia and went by the online handle Slovakbro.

Both were believers in a doctrine called militant accelerationism, which has become popular with neo-Nazis over the past decade, the chat logs show. Militant accelerationists want to speed the collapse of society by committing destabilizing terrorist attacks and mass killings. They have frequently targeted their perceived enemies, including people of color, Muslims, Jews, gays and lesbians.

Telegram gave them the ability to share tactics and targets with thousands of potential terrorists around the globe. Day after day they urged their followers to go out and kill as many people as possible to advance the white supremacist cause.

Beňadik had been immersed in the extremist scene since at least 2017, bouncing from one online space to the next, a review of his online life shows. He’d spent time on Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Gab and 4chan, another low-moderation message board.

Beňadik would later tell authorities that he was inspired by Christopher Cantwell, a New Hampshire white supremacist known as the “Crying Nazi” for posting a video of himself sobbing after learning that he might be arrested for his actions during the deadly 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. From Slovakia, Beňadik listened to Cantwell’s podcast, which featured long racist diatribes and interviews with white nationalist figures like Richard Spencer.

By 2019, Beňadik had created a chat group on Telegram in which he encouraged his followers to firebomb businesses, torch the homes of antifascists and seek out radioactive material to build dirty bombs and detonate them in American cities.

Althorpe started a channel and uploaded a steady stream of violent propaganda, the Telegram chat logs show. He named his channel Terrorwave Refined.

“Direct action against the system,” Althorpe argued in one post, is “the ONLY path toward total aryan victory.” Althorpe often shared detailed material that could aid in carrying out terrorist attacks, such as instructions for making the explosive thermite and plans for building assault rifles that couldn’t be traced by law enforcement.

Other sizable social media platforms or online forums would have detected and deleted the material posted by Althorpe and Beňadik. But on Telegram, the posts stayed up.

Soon others were creating similar content. In the summer of 2019, the duo began circulating online flyers listing allied Telegram chat groups and channels. Early on the network was small, just seven accounts.

Beňadik and Althorpe began calling this new community Terrorgram. The moniker stuck.

“I decided to become a fucking content producer,” Beňadik would later say on a podcast called HateLab, which has since been deleted. “I saw a niche and I decided to fill it.”

They were becoming influencers.

Watch video ➜

As the pair grew their audience on Telegram, they studied a massacre that had occurred a few months earlier in New Zealand.

A heavily armed man had murdered 51 Muslims at two mosques, livestreaming the carnage from a GoPro camera strapped to his ballistic helmet. To explain his motivations, Brenton Tarrant had drafted a 74-page treatise arguing that white people were being wiped out in an ongoing genocide. He described the Muslim worshippers he murdered as “invaders” and invoked a conspiracy theory claiming they were part of a plot to replace people of European ancestry with nonwhite people.

Tarrant’s slaughter had sent a surge of fear through New Zealand society. And his written and visual propaganda, which was aimed at inspiring more violence, had spread widely. Researchers would later discover that more than 12,000 copies of the video had been posted online in the 24 hours after the massacre.

Within the Terrorgram community, Tarrant became an icon.

On Telegram, Beňadik and Althorpe dubbed him a “saint” — an honorific they bestowed on someone who killed in the name of the white supremacist movement.

The two men saw Tarrant’s crime as a template for future attacks. Over and over, the duo encouraged their subscribers to follow Tarrant’s example and become the next saint.

For extremism researchers, the rise of the Terrorgram community was alarming. “Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and antigovernment extremists are publishing volumes of propaganda advocating terrorism and mass shootings on Telegram,” warned an investigator with the Southern Poverty Law Center in June 2019. The investigator said he was unable to even reach anyone at Telegram at the time to discuss the matter.

By August 2019, the Terrorgram network had grown to nearly 20 chat groups and channels. The Terrorwave Refined channel had ballooned to over 2,000 subscribers. “Thanks to everyone who helped us hit 2,000!” wrote Althorpe in a post. “HAIL THE SAINTS. HAIL HOLY TERROR.”

In addition to his chat groups, Beňadik created an array of channels to distribute propaganda and guides to weaponry and explosives. One of the most popular attracted nearly 5,000 subscribers.

“He was, I would say, a key architect behind Terrorgram,” said Rebecca Weiner, deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism at the New York Police Department. Weiner’s unit spent years monitoring the Terrorgram scene and assisted the FBI in investigating cases linked to the community.

When compared to mainstream social media, the numbers were tiny. But looked at a different way, they were stunning: Althorpe and Beňadik had built an online community of thousands of people dedicated to celebrating and committing acts of terrorism.

One of them was Jarrett Smith, a U.S. Army private based at Fort Riley in Kansas who was a regular in Beňadik’s chat group during the fall of 2019.

A beefy guy who enjoyed posting photos of himself in military gear, Smith had a love of explosives — he urged his fellow Terrorgrammers to bomb electric power stations, cell towers and natural gas lines — and contempt for federal law enforcement agents. “Feds deserve to be shot. They are the enemy,” he wrote in one chat thread.

Days after making the post, Smith unknowingly began communicating with a federal agent who was posing as an extremist.

In a string of direct messages, the undercover agent asked for Smith’s help in assassinating government officials in Texas. “Got a liberal texas mayor in my sights!” wrote the agent.

Happy to oblige, Smith provided the agent with a detailed step-by-step guide to building a potent improvised explosive device capable of destroying a car, as well as how-tos for several other types of bombs.

He was arrested that September and later pleaded guilty to charges that he shared instructions for making bombs and homemade napalm. Smith was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

The Terrorgram community was becoming a significant concern for law enforcement.

An October 2019 intelligence bulletin noted: “Telegram has become increasingly popular with WSEs” — white supremacist extremists — “due to frequent suspensions and censorship of their accounts across multiple social media platforms. Currently, WSEs are able to maintain relatively extensive networks of public channels some of which have thousands of members with minimal disruptions.”

The bulletin was produced by the Central Florida Intelligence Exchange, an intelligence-sharing center staffed by federal, state and local law enforcement personnel. Today, that five-page document — which was not meant for public dissemination — seems prescient.

It noted that while jihadist organizations and white supremacists were posting similar content on the platform, Telegram was treating the two camps in “vastly different” ways. The company, which had been headquartered in the United Arab Emirates since 2017, routinely shut down accounts created by the Islamic State group but it would “rarely remove WSE content, and typically only for high-profile accounts or posts that have received extensive media attention.”

By 2020, a pattern emerged: When Telegram did take down an account, it was often quickly replaced by a new one — sometimes with a near-identical name.

When the company deleted Althorpe’s Terrorwave Refined channel, he simply started a new one called Terrorwave Revived and began posting the same material. Within seven hours, he had attracted 1,000 followers, according to a post he wrote at the time.

The Terrorgrammers saw the modest attempts at content moderation as a betrayal by Pavel Durov and Telegram. “You could do anything on 2019 Telegram,” wrote Beňadik in a 2021 post. “I told people how to plan a genocide,” he said, noting that the company did nothing about those posts.

Apple, Google and Microsoft distribute the Telegram app through their respective online stores, giving them a measure of control over what their users could see on the platform. As the Terrorgram community attracted more notice from the outside world, including extremism researchers and law enforcement, these tech giants began restricting certain Terrorgram chats and channels, making them impossible to view.

Still, the Terrorgrammers found ways to evade the blackouts and shared the work-arounds with their followers. The network eventually grew to include hundreds of chats and channels.

The Center for Monitoring, Analysis and Strategy, a German organization that studies online extremism, “has tracked about 400 channels and 200 group chats which are considered part of the Terrorgram community on Telegram,” said Jennefer Harper, a researcher with the center.

As the content spread, so did crime. Using court records, news clips and Telegram data collected by Open Measures, a research platform that monitors social media, ProPublica and FRONTLINE identified a string of crimes tied to Terrorgram.

Nicholas Welker, who was active in the Terrorgram community, is serving a 44-month prison sentence for making death threats toward a Brooklyn-based journalist reporting on a neo-Nazi group.

A Missouri man who planned to blow up a hospital with a vehicle bomb was killed during a shootout with FBI agents in 2020; his neo-Nazi organization had posted in Beňadik’s chat group and was using it to enlist new members.

The most deadly known crime stemming from Terrorgram occurred in 2022 Brazil, where a teenager who was allegedly in contact with Humber shot 15 people, killing four. The teen was later hailed as a saint by the Terrorgrammers.

Watch video ➜

While Terrorgram started as a loose collection of chats and channels, by 2021 Althorpe and Beňadik had created a more formal organization, according to Canadian court records and interviews with law enforcement sources in Slovakia. Their small, clandestine group was the Terrorgram Collective.

The organization began producing more sophisticated content — books, videos and a roster of alleged assassination targets — and distributing the material to thousands of followers.

Court documents, a U.S. State Department bulletin and Telegram logs show that over the next three years, the collective would come to include at least six other people in five countries.

Over 14 months, the group generated three books and repeatedly posted them in PDF form on Terrorgram accounts. Ranging in length from 136 to 268 pages, the books offer a raft of specific advice for planning a terror attack, including how to sabotage railroads, electrical substations and other critical infrastructure. The publications also celebrated a pantheon of white supremacist saints — mass murderers including Timothy McVeigh, who in 1995 bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

“That combination of tactical guidance plus propaganda is something that we’d seen a lot of coming out of ISIS in years past,” said Weiner of the NYPD. She added that the books are filled with “splashy graphics” designed to appeal to young people.

“It’s a real manual on how to commit an act of terrorism,” Jakub Gajdoš, who helped oversee an investigation of Beňadik and Terrorgram for Slovakia’s federal police agency, said of one book. “A guide for killing people.”

At least two Americans were involved in creating one of the books, according to U.S. federal prosecutors: Humber and Allison, the DJ from Boise, Idaho. The chat logs show they were both prolific creators and influencers in the Terrorgram community who frenetically generated new content, including videos, audiobooks, graphics and calendars, which they posted on an array of channels.

Allison made around 120 Terrorgram videos, including editing “White Terror,” a quasi-documentary glorifying more than 100 white murderers and terrorists. Narrated by Humber, the video starts with the man who assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 and concludes with the young man who shot and killed 10 Black shoppers in a Buffalo supermarket in 2022.

These “white men and women of action have taken it upon themselves to wage war against the system and our racial enemies,” Humber intones. “To the saints of tomorrow watching this today, know that when you succeed you will be celebrated with reverence and your sacrifice will not be in vain.”

The pair also allegedly helped create “The List,” a detailed hit list of American politicians, corporate executives, academics and others, according to court documents. The List was shared on a series of dedicated Telegram channels, as well as an array of other accounts, some made to look like legitimate news aggregators. Each entry included a photo of the target and their home address.

It was an escalation — and from court documents it’s clear that The List captured the attention of U.S. law enforcement agents, who worried that it might trigger a wave of assassinations.

Watch video ➜

The collective’s books influenced a new generation of armed extremists, some of them in their teens.

One of these young disciples was Juraj Krajčík. The Slovakian student had joined Beňadik’s chat groups at the age of 16 and had become a frequent poster.

ProPublica and FRONTLINE obtained an extensive trove of Terrorgram chat logs that show how Beňadik mentored Krajčík and played a profound role in shaping his beliefs. Over the span of three years, Beňadik, Allison and Humber all urged the teen to take action, the chat logs show.

On the night of Oct. 12, 2022, Krajčík, armed with a handgun, opened fire on three people outside of Tepláreň, a small LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava’s Old Town neighborhood, killing Juraj Vankulič and Matúš Horváth and wounding their friend Radka Trokšiarová.

“I was in terrible pain because the bullet went through my thighbone,” she recalled. “I am still in pain.”

Krajčík took off on foot, and hours later he killed himself in a grove of trees next to a busy roadway. He was 19.

Six thousand miles away in California, Humber promptly began making celebratory posts. Krajčík, she exclaimed, had achieved sainthood.

Shortly after the Bratislava attack, Humber messaged Allison on Telegram, according to court records recently filed by federal prosecutors in the U.S.

She told him she’d been communicating with another Terrorgrammer who was planning a racially motivated school shooting.The attack occurred weeks later in Aracruz, Brazil, when a 16-year-old wearing a skull mask shot 15 people at two schools, killing four. Another saint.

On a Terrogram channel, Humber posted a ZIP file with info on the attack, including 17 photos and four videos. The massacre, she noted, was motivated by “Hatred of non-Whites.” And she made a pitch tailored for the next would-be teenage terrorist: The assailant, she wrote in a post, would get a “SLAP ON THE WRIST” prison sentence due to his age.

While Krajčík was planning his attack, law enforcement agencies in Europe, the U.S. and Canada were quietly pursuing the leaders of the Terrorgram Collective.

Beňadik was the first to fall. Using information collected by the FBI, investigators in Slovakia arrested him in May 2022 while he was on break from college. He’d been studying computer science at the Brno University of Technology in the Czech Republic.

While in jail, Beňadik admitted his involvement with Terrorgram. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison shortly after the Tepláreň attacks.

Describing Beňadik as “extremely intelligent,” prosecutor Peter Kysel said he believes the student never met with any of his fellow Terrorgrammers in person and didn’t even know their real names. “All the contacts was in the cyberspace,” he said.

But Beňadik misled investigators about his connection to Krajčík, saying they had one brief interaction, via direct message. “This was the only communication,” said Daniel Lipšic, the prosecutor who investigated the Tepláreň attack.

In fact, Beňadik and Krajčík had many conversations, the logs obtained by ProPublica and FRONTLINE show. The pair repeatedly discussed targeting Tepláreň, with the older man writing that killing the bar patrons with a nail bomb wasn’t brutal enough. Krajčík posted frequently about his animus toward gays and lesbians, which Beňadik encouraged.

Alleged Terrorgram Collective co-founder Althorpe is also in custody. Canadian prosecutors have accused him of helping to produce the Terrorgram Collective publications, through which they say he “promoted genocide” and “knowingly instructed” others to carry out “terrorist activity.”

At the time of his arrest, Althorpe was running a small company selling components for semi-automatic rifles such as AK-47s and AR-15s. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

In the U.S., Humber and Allison are facing trial on charges including soliciting people to kill government officials through The List, distributing bomb-making instructions and providing material support to terrorists. Prosecutors say the two have been involved with the Terrorgram community since 2019.

The 37-page indictment says they incited the attack on Tepláreň, noting that Krajčík “had frequent conversations with HUMBER, ALLISON, and other members of the Terrorgram Collective” before carrying out the crime.

In a jailhouse interview that Allison gave against his lawyer’s advice, he admitted he produced content for the collective, including editing the “White Terror” video. Still, Allison insisted he never incited others to commit crimes and claimed The List wasn’t meant to be a guide for assassins. He said it was merely an exercise in doxxing, similar to how right-wing activists are outed by anti-fascist activists.

All of his Telegram posts are protected under the First Amendment, according to a motion filed by his lawyers. They argue that while he was active in Telegram chats and channels, there is nothing in the government’s evidence to support the claim that he was a Terrorgram leader. “The chats are mostly a chaotic mix of hyperbole and posts without any recognized leader,” his lawyers wrote in the motion.

Looking pale and grim, Humber declined to be interviewed when ProPublica and FRONTLINE visited the Sacramento County Jail. Her attorney declined to comment on the case.

During the last days of the Biden administration, in January 2025, the State Department officially designated the Terrorgram Collective a global terrorist organization, hitting three more collective leaders in South Africa, Croatia and Brazil with sanctions. In February, Australia announced its own sanctions on Terrorgram, the first time that country’s government has imposed counterterrorism financing sanctions on an organization that is entirely based online.

“The group has been majorly impacted in terms of its activity. We’ve seen many chats being voluntarily closed as people feel at risk of legal action, and we’ve seen generally the amount of discourse really reducing,” said Milo Comerford, an extremism expert at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based nonprofit that tracks hate groups and disinformation. The “organizational capabilities of the Terrorgram Collective itself have been severely undermined.”

The demise of Terrorgram has coincided with reforms announced at Telegram in the wake of one co-founder’s arrest last year in France. Pavel Durov is charged with allowing criminal activity, including drug trafficking and child sexual abuse, to flourish on his platform. He has called the charges “misguided,” saying CEOs should not be held liable for the misuse of their platforms. He was ordered to remain in France during the ongoing investigation, and, depending on the outcome, could face trial next year.

In a statement, the company said, “Mr. Durov firmly denies all allegations.”

The company said it has always complied with the European Union’s laws. “It is absurd to suggest that Telegram’s owner is responsible for the actions of a negligible fraction (<0.01%) of its 950M+ active users.”

Still, after the arrest, the company announced a slew of reforms designed to make Telegram safer. It promised to police illegal content on the platform and share the IP addresses and phone numbers of alleged lawbreakers with authorities.

In response, white supremacists began to flee the platform.

Pete Simi, a sociology professor who studies extremism at Chapman University in Orange, California, said the incendiary ideas promoting race war and violence that animated the Terrorgram Collective will migrate to other platforms. “Especially given the broader climate that exists within our society,” Simi said. “There will be new Terrorgrams that take its place by another name, and we will continue to see this kind of extremism propagated through platforms of various sorts, not just Telegram.”

Today, many extremists are gathering on X, where owner Elon Musk has loosened content restrictions. White supremacists frequently post a popular Terrorgram slogan about killing all Black people. There are several Brenton Tarrant fan accounts, and some racist and antisemitic influencers who were previously banned now have hundreds of thousands of followers.

A review by ProPublica and FRONTLINE shows the company is removing some violent white supremacist content and suspending some extremist accounts. It also restricts the visibility of some racist and hateful posts by excluding them from search results or by adding a note to the post saying it violates X’s rules of community conduct. And we were unable to find posts on the platform that shared the bomb-making and terrorism manuals that had previously appeared on Telegram. The news organizations reached out to X multiple times but got no response.

In early March, a person who had a history of posting Nazi imagery shared a 21-second video lionizing Juraj Krajčík. The clip shows one of his victims lying dead on the pavement.

Tom Jennings, Annie Wong, Karina Meier and Max Maldonado of FRONTLINE, and Lukáš Diko of the Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by A.C. Thompson, ProPublica and FRONTLINE, and James Bandler, ProPublica.

It resembled a sales pitch for Musk’s company, the country’s biggest seller of EVs. Tesla has lost more than half of its value since December as sales have plummeted worldwide. With Musk dismantling parts of the federal government as the head of the new Department of Government Efficiency, aka DOGE, the vehicles have become a toxic symbol for Democrats, a large portion of Tesla owners. Over the past week, protesters have vandalized Tesla dealerships, set Cybertrucks aflame, and boycotted the brand. Liberal Tesla drivers have slapped stickers on their cars that read “I bought this before Elon went crazy.” 

The strong feelings surrounding Musk have already started to scramble the politics around EVs. Trump’s exhibition at the White House on Tuesday was a defense of Musk, who he said had been unfairly penalized for “finding all sorts of terrible things that have taken place against our country.” Yet the bizarre scene of Trump showcasing a vehicle that runs on electricity instead of gas felt almost like a sketch from Saturday Night Live, and not just because the Trump administration has been trying to reverse Biden-era rules that would have sped up the adoption of low-emissions vehicles. Here were the two biggest characters in MAGA politics promoting a technology that’s been largely rejected by their right-wing base. 

Other prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, quickly moved to defend Tesla against vandalism that Trump is labeling “domestic terrorism.” Tesla’s sudden shift from Democratic status symbol to Republican icon has some thinking the controversy around Musk could lead to a bipartisan embrace of EVs.

“He’s uniquely positioned to and has the power to really shape this debate and help bridge the divide here,” said Joe Sacks, executive director of the American EV Jobs Alliance, a nonprofit trying to prevent “silly partisan politics” from stopping a manufacturing boom for electric vehicles. “I’m unsure if that’s what he’s going to use his new perch and his kind of role in the administration to do, but it seems like he has the ability to do that.” 

According to polling the alliance conducted after the November election, Republicans have warmed up to Elon Musk, with 82 percent of those polled saying that Musk is a good ambassador for EVs. A solid majority of Trump voters — 64 percent — said they viewed Tesla favorably, compared with 59 percent of those who voted for Kamala Harris. “Republicans are probably inching towards the idea that there shouldn’t be much of a cultural divide on this product category, if the market leader CEO is sitting next to President Trump in the Oval Office during press conferences,” Sacks said.

The data aligns with a recent analysis from the financial services firm Stifel, which found that Tesla has become more favorable among Republicans as its popularity plunges with Democrats. Compared to August, 13 percent more Republicans are willing to consider purchasing a Tesla.

Yet there are reasons to suspect that EVs will continue to be a hard sell for Republicans. They are typically tradition-minded people who like big cars, not small cars with new technology they’ve never used before, said Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and co-author of the book Prius Or Pickup? “Conservatives don’t have the sensibility that fits with electric vehicles at all,” he said. “So I don’t think that you’re going to see a spike in Tesla sales among conservatives.”

Alexander Edwards, president of the research consultancy Strategic Vision, said that Republicans view gas-powered cars as a more practical purchase for transporting their families from place to place. That’s based on his firm’s surveys, which examine the psychology behind the car choices of about a quarter-million Americans a year. “I think Elon made a bet that I think he’s secretly regretting, that Republicans would come out of the woodwork and say, ‘Yes, we’re going to support you,’” Edwards said.

If they came around to any electric vehicle, however, it might be a Tesla. One of the primary things Republicans care about when it comes to buying a car is that it looks fast and goes fast, and Tesla has seen more Republican buyers for that reason, Edwards said. Democrats have consistently been buying electric vehicles at a rate of 4 to 1 compared to Republicans, but 2 to 1 when it comes to Teslas, according to Edwards’ data. Last year, more Republicans than Democrats bought Teslas for the first time — not because more Republican flocked to the brand, but because Democrats pulled away from it.

For Democrats, who had long been criticized as having a smug attitude for driving a Prius, Teslas offered a cool and desirable alternative with less baggage when they took off in the early 2010s. “Tesla was able to finally give Democratic buyers what they were looking for — a Prius-like image of being thoughtful, combined with the fun and excitement of a real luxury sports car,” Edwards said. That started to change as Musk became a magnet for political controversy, starting with his takeover of Twitter in 2022. A Tesla EV became a symbol of Tesla’s CEO. 

“Doesn’t matter if you’re Republican or Democrat — when you jump into the Batmobile, you become Batman,” Edwards said. “And the same thing is true with the vehicles we purchase. We often want them to show who we are, what we’ve accomplished, what we stand for.”

Of course, there are ways to depolarize electric vehicles that don’t rely on cues from Trump or Musk. Sacks recommends talking about the attributes of electric vehicles: their ability to accelerate faster and brake more crisply, as well as help people save money for every mile they drive, since there’s no need to buy gas. When people have friends or family who own an EV, that also helps break down the cultural divide, he said.

In a way, you could see Trump becoming a salesman for electric vehicles as an example of that very phenomenon, with his self-described “first buddy” convincing him to come around. Just two years ago, Trump complained that EVs needed a charge every 15 minutes and would kill American jobs. But, after Musk endorsed his presidential campaign last summer and donated $288 million, Trump softened his tone, saying that he was in favor of “a very small slice” of cars being electric. “I have to be, you know,” Trump said, “because Elon endorsed me very strongly.” 

On Tuesday, as Trump climbed into his new electric car for the first time, he seemed surprised by what he saw there. “That’s beautiful,” he said, admiring the dashboard. “This is a different panel than I’ve had. Everything’s computer!”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline MAGA Teslas? Elon Musk is upending the politics of EVs. on Mar 14, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Kate Yoder.

According to a March 6 Government Resolution approving the release of funds, a new 100 million-rupee (US$1.2 million) media monitoring center will track print, electronic, digital, and social media news reports about western Maharashtra’s state government and classify them as either “positive” or “negative.” A private consulting agency will analyze the coverage and compile reports for state authorities.

“Maharashtra state’s AI-driven media monitoring plan raises serious concerns about press freedom and the potential for government overreach,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “The government’s intention to monitor and pursue media outlets producing news that the government classifies as ‘negative’ could increase the risk of self-censorship and deter journalists from investing in critical reporting. The Maharashtra government must commit to protecting press freedom and come clean about the purpose and scope of this plan.”

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said the center did not seek to control the media but would provide “the truth about it or the facts” to reporters who produce “negative news.”

In 2023, India’s central government set up a fact check unit with the power to take down online content that it deemed “fake, false, or misleading” about the government. In September, Bombay High Court struck down the move as unconstitutional.

CPJ’s email to request comment from Maharashtra’s Directorate General of Information and Public Relations did not receive a response.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. This story was originally published in our Dispatches newsletter; sign up to receive notes from our journalists.

In February, my colleague Ken Schwencke saw a post on the social media network Bluesky about a database released by Sen. Ted Cruz purporting to show more than 3,400 “woke” grants awarded by the National Science Foundation that “promoted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or advanced neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda.”

Given that Schwencke is our senior editor for data and news apps, he downloaded the data, poked around and saw some grants that seemed far afield from what Cruz, a Texas Republican, called “the radical left’s woke nonsense.” The grants included what Schwencke thought was a “very cool sounding project” on the development of advanced mirror coatings for gravitational wave detectors at the University of Florida, his alma mater.

The grant description did, however, mention that the project “promotes education and diversity, providing research opportunities for students at different education levels and advancing the participation of women and underrepresented minorities.”

Schwencke thought it would be interesting to run the data through an AI large language model — one of those powering ChatGPT — to understand the kinds of grants that made Cruz’s list, as well as why they might have been flagged. He realized there was an accountability story to tell.

In that article, Agnel Philip and Lisa Song found that “Cruz’s dragnet had swept up numerous examples of scientific projects funded by the National Science Foundation that simply acknowledged social inequalities or were completely unrelated to the social or economic themes cited by his committee.”

Among them: a $470,000 grant to study the evolution of mint plants and how they spread across continents. As best Philip and Song could tell, the project was flagged because of two specific words used in its application to the NSF: “diversify,” referring to the biodiversity of plants, and “female,” where the application noted how the project would support a young female scientist on the research team.

Another involved developing a device that could treat severe bleeding. It included the words “victims” — as in gunshot victims — and “trauma.”

Neither Cruz’s office nor a spokesperson for Republicans on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation responded to our requests for comment for the article.

The story was a great example of how artificial intelligence can help reporters analyze large volumes of data and try to identify patterns.

First, we told the AI model to mimic an investigative journalist reading through each of these grants to identify whether they contained themes that someone looking for “wokeness” may have spotted. And crucially, we made sure to tell the model not to guess if it wasn’t sure. (AI models are known to hallucinate, and we wanted to guard against that.)

For newsrooms new to AI and readers who are curious how this worked in practice, here’s an excerpt of the actual prompt we used:

Background: We will be showing you grants from the national science foundation that have been targeted for cancellation because they contain themes as identified by Republican Senator Ted Cruz's office as involving woke ideology; diversity, equity, and inclusion; or pro-Marxist ideology. We are looking to analyze themes of the award descriptions in this list to determine what may have terms or themes that would be considered "woke" or related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). It is your task to determine whether or not the text contains these themes and tell me about what you've found. Only extract information from the NSF grant if it contains the information requested.

--

As an investigative journalist, I am looking for the following information

--

woke_description: A short description (at maximum a paragraph) on why this grant is being singled out for promoting "woke" ideology, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or advanced neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda. Leave this blank if it's unclear.

why_flagged: Look at the "STATUS", "SOCIAL JUSTICE CATEGORY", "RACE CATEGORY", "GENDER CATEGORY" and "ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CATEGORY" fields. If it's filled out, it means that the author of this document believed the grant was promoting DEI ideology in that way. Analyze the "AWARD DESCRIPTIONS" field and see if you can figure out why the author may have flagged it in this way. Write it in a way that is thorough and easy to understand with only one description per type and award.

citation_for_flag: Extract a very concise text quoting the passage of "AWARDS DESCRIPTIONS" that backs up the "why_flagged" data.

Of course, members of our staff reviewed and confirmed every detail before we published our story, and we called all the named people and agencies seeking comment, which remains a must-do even in the world of AI.

Philip, one of the journalists who wrote the query above and the story, is excited about the potential new technologies hold but also is proceeding with caution, as our entire newsroom is.

“The tech holds a ton of promise in lead generation and pointing us in the right direction,” he told me. “But in my experience, it still needs a lot of human supervision and vetting. If used correctly, it can both really speed up the process of understanding large sets of information, and if you’re creative with your prompts and critically read the output, it can help uncover things that you may not have thought of.”

This was just the latest effort by ProPublica to experiment with using AI to help do our jobs better and faster, while also using it responsibly, in ways that aid our human journalists.

In 2023, in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune, a Local Reporting Network partner, we used AI to help uncover patterns of sexual misconduct among mental health professionals disciplined by Utah’s licensing agency. The investigation relied on a large collection of disciplinary reports, covering a wide range of potential violations.

To narrow in on the types of cases we were interested in, we prompted AI to review the documents and identify ones that were related to sexual misconduct. To help the bot do its work, we gave it examples of confirmed cases of sexual misconduct that we were already familiar with and specific keywords to look for. Each result was then reviewed by two reporters, who used licensing records to confirm it was categorized correctly.

In addition, during our reporting on the 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune obtained a trove of unreleased raw materials collected during the state’s investigation. This included hundreds of hours of audio and video recordings, which were difficult to sift through. The footage wasn’t organized or clearly labeled, and some of it was incredibly graphic and disturbing for journalists to watch.

We used self-hosted open-source AI software to securely transcribe and help classify the material, which enabled reporters to match up related files and to reconstruct the day’s events, showing in painstaking detail how law enforcement’s lack of preparation contributed to delays in confronting the shooter.

We know full well that AI does not replicate the very time-intensive work we do. Our journalists write our stories, our newsletters, our headlines and the takeaways at the top of longer stories. We also know that there’s a lot about AI that needs to be investigated, including the companies that market their products, how they train them and the risks they pose.

But to us, there’s also potential to use AI as one of many reporting tools that enables us to examine data creatively and pursue the stories that help you understand the forces shaping our world.

Agnel Philip, Ken Schwencke, Hannah Fresques and Tyson Evans contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Charles Ornstein.

ANALYSIS: By Peter Davis

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ANALYSIS: By Peter Davis

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ANALYSIS: By Peter Davis

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This story contains references to homophobia, antisemitism and racism, as well as mass shootings and other violence.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

“The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram” is part of a collaborative investigation from FRONTLINE and ProPublica. The documentary premieres March 25 at 10 p.m. EDT/9 p.m. CDT on PBS stations (check local listings) and will be available to stream on YouTube, the PBS App and FRONTLINE’s website.

The teen entered the chat with a friendly greeting.

“Hello lads,” he typed.

“Sup,” came a reply, along with a graphic that read “KILL JEWS.” Another poster shared a GIF of Adolf Hitler shaking hands with Benito Mussolini. Someone else added a short video of a gay pride flag being set on fire. Eventually, the talk in the group turned to mass shootings and bombings.

And so in August 2019, Juraj Krajčík, then a soft-faced 16-year-old with a dense pile of brown hair, immersed himself in a loose collection of extremist chat groups and channels on the massive social media and messaging platform Telegram. This online community, which was dubbed Terrorgram, had a singular focus: inciting acts of white supremacist terrorism.

Over the next three years, Krajčík made hundreds — possibly thousands — of posts in Terrorgram chats and channels, where a handful of influential content creators steered the conversation toward violence. Day after day, post after post, these influencers cultivated Krajčík, who lived with his family in a comfortable apartment in Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia. They reinforced his hatreds, fine-tuned his beliefs and fed him tips, encouraging him to attack gay and Jewish people and political leaders and become, in their parlance, a “saint.”

On Oct. 12, 2022, Krajčík, armed with his father’s .45-caliber handgun, opened fire on three people sitting outside an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, killing two and wounding the third before fleeing the scene.

That night, as police hunted for him, Krajčík spoke on the phone with Marek Madro, a Bratislava psychologist who runs a suicide hotline and mental health crisis team. “He hoped that what he had done would shake up society,” recalled Madro in an interview, adding that the teen was “very scared.”

During the call, Krajčík kept repeating phrases from his manifesto, according to Madro. The 65-page document, written in crisp English and illustrated with graphics and photos, offered a detailed justification for his lethal actions. “Destroy the degenerates!” he wrote, before encouraging people to attack pride parades, gay and lesbian activists, and LGBTQ+ bars.

Eventually Krajčík, standing in a small grove of trees alongside a busy roadway, put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger.

The next day, Terrorgram influencers were praising the killer and circulating a PDF of his manifesto on Telegram.

This story is part of a collaboration between ProPublica and FRONTLINE that includes an upcoming documentary.

“We thank him from the bottom of our hearts and will never forget his sacrifice,” stated one post written by a Terrorgram leader in California. “FUCKING HAIL, BROTHER!!!”

The story of Krajčík’s march to violence shows the murderous reach of the online extremists, who operated outside the view of local law enforcement. To police at the time, the killings seemed like the act of a lone gunman rather than what they were: the culmination of a coordinated recruiting effort that spanned two continents.

ProPublica and the PBS series FRONTLINE, along with the Slovakian newsroom Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak, pieced together the story behind Krajčík’s evolution from a troubled teenager to mass shooter. We identified his user name on Telegram, which allowed us to sift through tens of thousands of now-deleted Telegram posts that had not previously been linked to him. Our team retraced his final hours, interviewing investigators, experts and victims in Slovakia, and mapped the links between Krajčík and the extremists in Europe and the U.S. who helped to shape him.

The Terrorgram network has been gutted in recent months by the arrests of its leaders in North America and Europe. Telegram declined repeated requests to make its executives available for interviews but in a statement said, “Calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.” The company also said that since 2023 it has stepped up moderation practices.

Still, at a time when other mainstream social media companies such as X and Meta are cutting back on policing their online content, experts say the violent neo-Nazis that populated Telegram’s chats and channels will likely find an online home elsewhere.

At first, Krajčík didn’t fit in with the Terrorgrammers. In one early post in 2019, he argued that the white nationalist movement would benefit from large public protests. The idea wasn’t well received.

“Rallies won’t do shit,” replied one poster.

Another told the teen that instead of organizing a rally, he should start murdering politicians, journalists and drag performers. “You need a mafia state of mind,” the person wrote.

Krajčík had found his way to the Terrorgram community after hanging out on 8chan, a massive and anonymous forum that had long been an online haven for extremists; he would later say that he was “redpilled” — or radicalized — on the site.

On 8chan, people posted racist memes and made plenty of vile comments. But the Terrorgram scene was different. In the Terrorgram chats people discussed, in detail, the best strategies for carrying out spectacular acts of violence aimed at toppling Western democracies and replacing them with all-white ethno-states.

The chats Krajčík joined that summer of 2019 were administered by Pavol Beňadik, then a 20-year-old Slovakian college student who had helped create the Terrorgram community and was one of its leading personalities.

A hybrid of a messaging service like WhatsApp and a social media platform like X or Facebook, Telegram offered features that appealed to extremists like Beňadik. They could engage in private encrypted discussions, start big chat groups or create public channels to broadcast their messages. Importantly, Telegram also allowed them to post huge PDF documents and lengthy video files.

In his Terrorgram chats, Beňadik, who used the handle Slovakbro, relentlessly pressed for violent actions — although he never took any himself. Over two days in August, he posted instructions for making Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs, encouraged people to build radioactive dirty bombs and set them off in major cities, and called for the execution of police officers and other law enforcement agents. “TOTAL PIG DEATH,” he wrote.

At the time, the chats were drawing hundreds of participants from around the world, including a large number of Americans.

Beňadik, who was from a small village in western Slovakia, took a special interest in Krajčík, chatting with him in the Slovak language, discussing life in their country, and making him feel appreciated and respected.

For Krajčík, this was a change. In his daily life outside of Terrorgram, he “felt completely unnoticed, unheard,” said Madro, who spoke with several of Krajčík’s classmates. “He often talked about his own feelings and thoughts publicly and felt like no one took him seriously.”

Krajčík started spending massive amounts of time in the chat. On a single day, he posted 117 times over the span of 10 hours. The teen’s ideas began to closely echo those of Beňadik.

In late September, two regulars had a friendly mixed martial arts bout and streamed it on YouTube. Krajčík shared the link with the rest of the chat group, who cheered and heckled as their online friends brawled. Beňadik encouraged Krajčík to participate in a similar bout in the future.

“Porozmýšlam,” replied Krajčík: “I’ll think about it.”

For Beňadik, the combatants were providing a good example. He wanted Terrorgrammers to transform themselves into Aryan warriors, hard men capable of doing serious physical harm to others.

In reality, Krajčík was anything but a tough guy. A “severely bullied student,” Krajčík had transferred to a high school for academically gifted students, a school official told the Slovak newspaper Pravda. Two therapists “worked intensively with him for two years until the pandemic broke out and schools closed,” the official said.

Beňadik created at least five neo-Nazi channels and two chat groups on Telegram, one of which eventually attracted nearly 5,000 subscribers. He crafted an online persona as a sage leader, offering tips and guidance for carrying out effective attacks. He often posted practical materials, such as files for 3D-printing rifle parts, including auto sears, which transform a semiautomatic gun into a fully automatic weapon. “Read useful literature, get useful skills,” he said in an interview with a podcast. “You are the revolutionary, so act like it.”

It was only a month after joining Beňadik’s Terrorgram chats that Krajčík first mentioned Tepláreň, the LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava he eventually attacked. On Sept. 18, 2019, he shared a link to a website called Queer Slovakia that featured an article on the bar.

Beňadik responded immediately, writing that he was having a “copeland moment” — a reference to David Copeland, a British neo-Nazi who planted a nail bomb at an LGBTQ+ pub in London in 1999. The explosion killed three people and wounded nearly 80 others.

“I DON’T ACTUALLY WANT TO NAIL BOMB THAT JOINT,” Beňadik continued. He wanted to do something far worse. “Hell,” Beňadik wrote, would be less brutal than what he had in mind.

Another Terrorgrammer offered a suggestion: What about a bomb loaded with “Nails + ricin + chemicals?”

Krajčík sounded a note of caution. “Just saying it will instantly make a squad of federal agents appear behind you and arrest you,” he wrote. Beňadik responded by complaining that Slovakia wasn’t producing enough “saints,” implicitly encouraging his mentee to achieve sainthood by committing a lethal act of terror.

Two days later, Krajčík posted photos of people holding gay pride flags in downtown Bratislava. They were “degenerates,” he wrote, repeatedly using anti-gay slurs.

One chat member told Krajčík he should’ve rounded up a group of Nazi skinheads and assaulted the demonstrators.

Then Krajčík posted a photo of Tepláreň.

Beňadik responded that “airborne paving stones make great gifts for such businesses.”

In the chat, Beňadik repeatedly posted a PDF copy of the self-published memoirs of Eric Rudolph, the American terrorist who bombed the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta and several other sites before going on the run. The autobiography contains a detailed description of Rudolph’s bombing of a lesbian bar, which wounded five people.

Urging Krajčík to read the book, Beňadik described it as “AMAZING” and a “great read.” Rudolph, he wrote, had created the “archetype” for the “lone wolf” terrorist.

Eventually, Krajčík joined at least 49 extremist Telegram chats, many of them nodes in the Terrorgram network, according to analysis by Pierre Vaux, a researcher who investigates threats to democracy and human rights abuses.

While Terrorgram started as a loose collection of accounts, by 2021 Beňadik and some of his fellow influencers had created a more formal organization, which they called the Terrorgram Collective, according to interviews with experts and court records from Slovakia, the U.S. and Canada.

The organization began producing more sophisticated content — books, videos and a roster of potential assassination targets — and distributing the material to thousands of followers.

Krajčík was a fan of the collective’s books, which are loaded with highly pixelated black-and-white graphics and offer a raft of specific advice for anyone planning a terror attack.

By the summer of 2022, Krajčík had become a regular poster in a Terrorgram chat run by another alleged leader of the collective, Dallas Humber of Elk Grove, California, a quiet suburb of Sacramento.

Humber went by a series of usernames but was eventually publicly exposed by a group of activists, and later arrested and charged with terrorism-related offenses. ProPublica and FRONTLINE reviewed chat logs — provided by the anti-facist Australian research organization The White Rose Society — and other online materials, as well as court records, to independently confirm her identity.

Beňadik was arrested in Slovakia and charged with more than 200 terrorism offenses. He pleaded guilty and would be sentenced to six years in prison.

In his absence, Humber quickly slipped in as mentor and coach to Krajčík.

She was explicit about her intentions, constantly encouraging followers in her chats and channels to go out and kill their perceived enemies — including Jewish and Muslim people, members of the queer community and anybody who wasn’t white. Her job, she wrote in one post, was to embrace disaffected young white men and guide them “through the end of the radicalization process.”

On Aug. 2, 2022, Humber and Krajčík discussed a grisly incident that had occurred several days earlier: A white man had beaten to death a Nigerian immigrant on a city street in northern Italy.

The killing, which was documented on video, was “fucking glorious,” wrote Humber, using a racial slur to describe the victim. “Please send any more pics, articles, info to the chat as more details come out,” she posted.

Krajčík wrote that he didn’t know much about the circumstances surrounding the crime but was still convinced the murderer had chosen “the right path.”

The killer, wrote Humber, would make an “ideal” boyfriend. “Every girl wants a man who would kill a [racial expletive] for her how romantic.”

Three days later, Humber’s chat was alive with tributes to and praise for another killer. Wade Page, a Nazi skinhead and former U.S. Army soldier, had murdered six Sikh worshippers at a temple outside of Milwaukee a decade earlier. (A seventh would later die of their injuries.)

When police confronted Page, he began shooting at them, hitting one officer 15 times before killing himself.

Humber was a big fan of the killer. Page, she wrote, planned the attack thoroughly and chose his targets carefully. “He even made a point to desocialize and cut ties with those close to him,” Humber noted. “No chance of them disrupting his plans.”

“Page did his duty,” Krajčík wrote.

During the same time period, Krajčík started doing reconnaissance on potential targets in his city, staking out the apartment of then-Prime Minister Eduard Heger, a Jewish community center and Tepláreň, the bar.

He posted photos of the locations on his private Twitter account. And in a series of cryptic tweets, Krajčík hinted at the violence to come:

“I don’t expect to make it. In all likelyhood I will die in the course of the operation.”

“Before an operation, you will have to mentally deal with several important questions. You will have to deal with them alone, to not jeopardize your mission by leaking it.”

“I want to damage the System to the best of my abilities.”

Then, on Oct. 11, 2022, he wrote:

“I have made my decision.”

The next evening, after spending a half-hour outside the prime minister’s apartment, Krajčík made his way to Tepláreň. The bar sat on a steep, winding street lined with cafes, clothing boutiques and other small businesses. For about 40 minutes he lurked in a shadowy doorway up the hill. Then, at about 7 p.m., he approached a small group of people sitting in front of the bar and began shooting.

He killed Matúš Horváth and Juraj Vankulič and wounded Radka Trokšiarová, shooting her twice in the leg.

Krajčík, then 19, fled the scene. He had just committed a terrorist attack that would shock the nation.

In court records, U.S. prosecutors have linked both Humber and another alleged Terrorgram leader, Matthew Allison of Boise, Idaho, to Krajčík’s crime. The pair were charged last fall with a raft of felonies related to their Terrorgram posts and propaganda, including conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and soliciting the murder of federal officials.

Krajčík “was active on Terrorgram and had frequent conversations with ALLISON, HUMBER, and other members of the Terrorgram Collective,” prosecutors allege in the indictment. In another brief, they say Krajčík shared his manifesto with Allison before the attack. Then, immediately after the murders, he allegedly sent Allison direct messages saying, “not sure how much time I have but it’s happening,” and “just delete all messages about this convo.”

The Terrorgram posts cited in court documents corroborate our team’s reporting.

Allison spoke with one of our reporters from jail against his lawyer’s advice. He said he did not incite anyone to violence and that prosecutors had misconstrued the communications with Krajčík. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and in a motion, his legal team indicated it would argue that all of his posts are protected by the First Amendment. Humber also pleaded not guilty. She declined to be interviewed and to comment through her lawyer.

While Krajčík was at large, Slovakian authorities tapped Madro, the psychologist, to try to communicate with the young man. “After 12 text messages, he finally picked up the phone,” Madro recalled.

The brief conversation ended with Krajčík killing himself. “The shot rang out and there was silence,” Madro said.

Within hours, Humber was making celebratory posts. Krajčík, she exclaimed, had achieved sainthood. “Saint Krajčík’s place in the Pantheon is undisputed, as is our enthusiastic support for his work,” she wrote on a Terrorgram channel where she posted a picture of the victims on the ground, blood streaking the pavement.

She and Allison also circulated his manifesto.

In it, Krajčík praised the Terrorgram Collective for its “incredible writing and art,” “political texts” and “practical guides.” And he thanked Beňadik: “Your work was some of the first that I encountered after making the switch to Telegram, and remains some of the greatest on the platform.”

While they were spreading Krajčík’s propaganda, the owner of Tepláreň, Roman Samotný, was mourning.

The bar “was kind of like a safe island for queer people here in Slovakia,” he recalled in an interview. “It was just the place where everybody felt welcomed and just accepted and relaxed.”

Before the attack, Samotný’s major concern was that some homophobe would smash the bar’s windows. After the murders, he said, “the biggest change is the realization that we are not anymore safe here. … I was never thinking that we can be killed because of our identity.”

Samotný has closed the bar.

The survivor, Trokšiarová, was left with lingering physical pain and emotional distress. “I was deeply confused,” she said. “Why would anyone do it?”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by .

A system increasingly loaded with wind and solar will require customers to send power back into the system.  If the traditional grid centralized generation at power plants, experts believe the system of tomorrow will be more distributed, with power coming from what they call the “grid edge” — household batteries, electric cars, and other gadgets whose relationship with the grid has been one way.  More people, for example, are installing solar panels on their roofs backed up with home batteries. When electricity demand increases, a utility can draw power from those homes as a vast network of backup energy. 

The big question is how to choreograph that electrical ballet — millions of different devices at the grid edge, owned by millions of different customers, that all need to talk to the utility’s systems. To address that problem, a team of researchers from several universities and national labs developed an algorithm for running a “local electricity market,” in which ratepayers would be compensated for allowing their devices to provide backup power to a utility. Their paper, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, described how the algorithm could coordinate so many sources of power — and then put the system to the test. “When you have numbers of that magnitude, then it becomes very difficult for one centralized entity to keep tabs on everything that’s going on,” said Anu Annaswamy, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the paper’s co-author. “Things need to become more distributed, and that is something the local electricity market can facilitate.”

At the moment, utilities respond to a surge in demand for electricity by spinning up more generation at power plants running on fossil fuels. But they can’t necessarily do that with renewables, since the sun might not be shining, or the wind blowing. So as grids increasingly depend on clean energy, they’re getting more flexible: Giant banks of lithium-ion batteries, for instance, can store that juice for later use. 

Yet grids will need even more flexibility in the event of a cyberattack or outage. If a hacker compromises a brand of smart thermostat to increase the load on a bunch of AC units at once, that could crash the grid by driving demand above available supply. With this sort of local electricity market imagined in the paper, a utility would call on other batteries in the network to boost supply,  stabilizing the grid. At the same time, electric water heaters and heat pumps for climate control could wind down, reducing demand. “In that sense, there’s not necessarily a fundamental difference between a battery and a smart device like a water heater, in terms of being able to provide the support to the grid,” said Jan Kleissl, director of the Center for Energy Research at the University of California, San Diego, who wasn’t involved in the new research.

Along with this demand reduction, drawing power from devices along the grid edge would provide additional support. In testing out cyberattack scenarios and sustained inclement weather that reduces solar energy, the researchers found that the algorithm was able to restabilize the grid every time. The algorithm also provides a way to set the rates paid to households for their participation. That would depend on a number of factors such as time of day, location of the household, and the overall demand. “Consumers who provide flexibility are explicitly being compensated for that, rather than just people doing it voluntarily,” said Vineet J. Nair, a Ph.D. student at MIT and lead author of the paper. “That kind of compensation is a way to incentivize customers.”

Utilities are already experimenting with these sorts of compensation programs, though on a much smaller scale. Electric buses in Oakland, California, for instance, are sending energy back to the grid when they’re not ferrying kids around. Utilities are also contracting with households to use their large home batteries, like Tesla’s Powerwall, as virtual power plants. 

Building such systems is relatively easy, because homes with all their heat pumps and batteries are already hooked into the system, said Anna Lafoyiannis, senior team lead for transmission operations and planning at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C. By contrast, connecting a solar and battery farm to the grid takes years of planning, permitting, and construction. “Distributed resources can be deployed really quickly on the grid,” she said. “When I look at flexibility, the time scale matters.”

All these energy sources at the grid edge, combined with large battery farms operated by the utility, are dismantling the myth that renewables aren’t reliable enough to provide power on their own. One day, you might even get paid to help bury that myth for good.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Utilities may soon pay you to help support a greener grid on Mar 5, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Matt Simon.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Hours after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, users spread a false claim on Facebook that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was paying a bounty for reports of undocumented people.

“BREAKING — ICE is allegedly offering $750 per illegal immigrant that you turn in through their tip form,” read a post on a page called NO Filter Seeking Truth, adding, “Cash in folks.”

Check Your Fact, Reuters and other fact-checkers debunked the claim, and Facebook added labels to posts warning that they contained false information or missing context. ICE has a tip line but said it does not offer cash bounties.

This spring, Meta plans to stop working with fact-checkers in the U.S. to label false or misleading content, the company said on Jan. 7. And if a post like the one about ICE goes viral, the pages that spread it could earn a cash bonus.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also said in January that the company was removing or dialing back automated systems that reduce the spread of false information. At the same time, Meta is revamping a program that has paid bonuses to creators for content based on views and engagement, potentially pouring accelerant on the kind of false posts it once policed. The new Facebook Content Monetization program is currently invite-only, but Meta plans to make it widely available this year.

The upshot: a likely resurgence of incendiary false stories on Facebook, some of them funded by Meta, according to former professional Facebook hoaxsters and a former Meta data scientist who worked on trust and safety.

ProPublica identified 95 Facebook pages that regularly post made-up headlines designed to draw engagement — and, often, stoke political divisions. The pages, most of which are managed by people overseas, have a total of more than 7.7 million followers.

After a review, Meta said it had removed 81 pages for being managed by fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves as American while posting about politics and social issues. Tracy Clayton, a Meta spokesperson, declined to respond to specific questions, including whether any of the pages were eligible for or enrolled in the company’s viral content payout program.

The pages collected by ProPublica offer a sample of those that could be poised to cash in.

Meta has made debunking viral hoaxes created for money a top priority for nearly a decade, with one executive calling this content the “worst of the worst.” Meta has a policy against paying for content its fact-checkers label as false, but that rule will become irrelevant when the company stops working with them. Already, 404 Media found that overseas spammers are earning payouts using deceptive AI-generated content, including images of emaciated people meant to stoke emotion and engagement. Such content is rarely fact-checked because it doesn’t make any verifiable claims.

With the removal of fact-checks in the U.S., “what is the protection now against viral hoaxes for profit?” said Jeff Allen, the chief research officer of the nonprofit Integrity Institute and a former Meta data scientist.

“The systems are designed to amplify the most salacious and inciting content,” he added.

In an exchange on Facebook Messenger, the manager of NO Filter Seeking Truth, which shared the false ICE post, told ProPublica that the page has been penalized so many times for sharing false information that Meta won’t allow it to earn money under the current rules. The page is run by a woman based in the southern U.S., who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she said she has received threats due to her posts. She said the news about the fact-checking system ending was “great information.”

Clayton said Meta’s community standards and content moderation teams are still active and reiterated the company’s Jan. 7 statement that it is working to ensure it doesn’t “over-enforce” its rules by mistakenly banning or suppressing content.

Meta’s changes mark a significant reversal of the company’s approach to moderating false and misleading information, reframing the labeling or downranking of content as a form of censorship. “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg said in his announcement. His stance reflects the approach of Elon Musk after acquiring Twitter, now X, in 2022. Musk has made drastic cuts to the company’s trust and safety team, reinstated thousands of suspended accounts including that of a prominent neo-Nazi and positioned Community Notes, which allows participating users to add context via notes appended to tweets, as the platform’s key system for flagging false and misleading content.

Zuckerberg has said Meta will replace fact-checkers and some automated systems in the U.S. with a version of the Community Notes system. A Jan. 7 update to a Meta policy page said that in the U.S. the company “may still reduce the distribution of certain hoax content whose spread creates a particularly bad user or product experience (e.g., certain commercial hoaxes).”

Clayton did not clarify whether posts with notes appended to them would be eligible for monetization. He provided links to academic papers that detail how crowdsourced fact-checking programs like Community Notes can be effective at identifying misinformation, building trust among users and addressing perceptions of bias.

A 2023 ProPublica investigation, as well as reporting from Bloomberg, found that X’s Community Notes failed to effectively address the misinformation about the Israel-Hamas conflict. Reporting from the BBC and Agence France-Presse showed that X users who share false information have earned thousands of dollars thanks to X’s content monetization program, which also rewards high engagement.

Keith Coleman, X’s vice president of product, previously told ProPublica that the analysis of Community Notes about the Israel-Hamas conflict did not include all of the relevant notes, and he said that the program “is found helpful by people globally, across the political spectrum.”

Allen said it takes time, resources and oversight to scale up crowdsourced fact-checking systems. Meta’s decision to scrap fact-checking before giving the new approach time to prove itself is risky, he said.

“We could in theory have a Community Notes program that was as effective, if not more effective, than the fact-checking program,” he said. “But to turn all these things off before you have the Community Notes thing in place definitely feels like we’re explicitly going to have a moment with little guardrails.”

Before Facebook began cracking down on content in late 2016, American fake news peddlers and spammers based in North Macedonia and elsewhere cashed in on viral hoaxes that deepened political divisions and played on people’s fears.

One American, Jestin Coler, ran a network of sites that earned money from hoax news stories for nearly a decade, including the infamous and false viral headline from 2016 “FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide.” He previously told NPR that he started the sites as a way to “infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right.” Coler said he earned five figures a month from the sites, which he operated in his spare time.

When people clicked on the links to the stories in their news feed, they landed on websites full of ads, which generated revenue for Coler. That’s become a tougher business model since Meta has made story links less visible on Facebook in recent years.

Facebook’s new program to pay publishers directly for viral content could unlock a fresh revenue stream for hoaxsters. “It’s still the same formula to get people riled up. It seems like it could just go right back to those days, like overnight,” Coler told ProPublica in a phone interview. He said he left the Facebook hoax business years ago and won’t return.

In January, ProPublica compiled a list of pages that had been previously cited for posting hoaxes and false content and discovered dozens more through domain and content searches. The pages posted false headlines designed to spark controversy, such as “Lia Thomas Admits: ‘I Faked Being Trans to Expose How Gullible the Left Is’” and “Elon Musk announced that he has acquired MSNBC for $900 million to put an end to toxic programming.” The Musk headline was paired with an AI-generated image of him holding a contract with the MSNBC logo. It generated over 11,000 reactions, shares and comments.

Most of the pages are managed by accounts outside of the U.S., including in North Macedonia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, according to data from Facebook. Many of these pages use AI-generated images to illustrate their made-up headlines.

One network of overseas-run pages is connected to the site SpaceXMania.com, an ad-funded site filled with hoax articles like “Elon Musk Confronts Beyoncé Publicly: ‘Stop Pretending to Be Country, It’s Just Not You.’” SpaceX Fanclub, the network’s largest Facebook page, has close to 220,000 followers and labels its content as satire. One of its recent posts was a typo-laden AI-generated image of a sign that said, “There Are Only 2 2 Genders And Will Ban Atheletes From Women Sports — President.”

SpaceXMania.com’s terms and conditions page says it’s owned by Funky Creations LTD, a United Kingdom company registered to Muhammad Shabayer Shaukat, a Pakistani national. ProPublica sent questions to the site and received an email response signed by Tim Lawson, who said he’s an American based in Florida who works with Shaukat. (ProPublica was unable to locate a person by that name in public records searches, based on the information he provided.)

“Our work involves analyzing the latest trends and high-profile news related to celebrities and shaping it in a way that appeals to a specific audience — particularly conservatives and far-right groups who are predisposed to believe certain narratives,” the email said.

Lawson said they earn between $500 and $1,500 per month from web ads and more than half of the traffic comes from people clicking on links on Facebook. The pages are not currently enrolled in the invitation-only Facebook Content Monetization program, according to Lawson.

The SpaceXMania pages identified by ProPublica were recently taken offline. Lawson denied that they were removed by Meta and said he deactivated the pages “due to some security reasons.” Meta declined to comment.

It remains to be seen how hoax page operators will fare as Meta’s algorithmic reversals take hold and the U.S. fact-checking program grinds to a halt. But some Facebook users are already taking advantage of the loosened guardrails.

Soon after Zuckerberg announced the changes, people spread a fake screenshot of a Bloomberg article headlined, “The spark from Zuckerberg’s electric penis pump, might be responsible for the LA fires.”

“Community note: verified true,” wrote one commenter.

Mollie Simon contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Craig Silverman.

Mediawatch on RNZ today strongly criticised Stuff and YouTube among other media for using Israeli propaganda’s “Outbrain” service.

Outbrain is a company founded by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) military and its technology can be tracked back to a wealthy entrepreneur, which in this case could be a euphemism for a megalomaniac.

He uses the metaphor of a “dome”, likening it to the dome used in warfare.

• LISTEN: The RNZ Mediawatch broadcast on Outbrain
• READ MORE: Outbrain Discovery Outperforms Search and Social for Israel’s Ministry of Tourism
• Israel’s image crisis and the limits of propaganda – AJ Listening Post
• Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide
• Outbrain’s $1 billion Teads deal: The latest in Israel’s high-stakes acquisition spree
• Other propaganda reports

Outbrain, which publishes content on New Zealand media, picks up what’s out there and converts and distorts it to support Israel. It twists, it turns, it deceives the reader.

Presenter Colin Peacock of RNZ’s Mediawatch programme today advised NZ media to ditch the propaganda service.

Outbrain uses the media in the following way. The content user such as Stuff pays Outbrain and Outbrain pays the user, like Stuff.

“Both parties make money when users click on the content,” said Peacock.

‘Digital Iron Dome’
The content on the Stuff website came via “Digital Iron Dome” named after the State of Genociders’ actual defence system. It is run by a tech entrepreneur quoted on Mediawatch:

“Just like a physical iron dome that scans the open air and watches for any missiles . . . the digital iron dome knows how to scan the internet. We know how to buy media. Pro-Israeli videos and articles and images inside the very same articles going against Israel,” says the developer of the propaganda “dome” machine.

Peacock said the developer had stated that the digital dome delivered “pro-Jewish”* messages to more than 100 million people worldwide on platforms like Al Jazeera, CNN — and last weekend on Stuff NZ — and said this information went undetected as pro-Israel material, ensuring it reached, according to the entrepreneur: “The right audience without interference.”

According to Wikipedia, Outbrain was founded by Yaron Galai and Ori Lahav, officers in the Israeli Navy. Galai sold his company Quigo to AOL in 2007 for $363 million. Lahav worked at an online shopping company acquired by eBay in 2005.

The company is headquartered in New York with global offices in London, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, Cologne, Gurugram, Paris, Ljubljana, Munich, Milan, Madrid, Tokyo, São Paulo, Netanya, Singapore, and Sydney.

Peacock pointed out that other advocacy organisations had already been buying and posting content, there was nothing new about this with New Zealand news media.

But — and this is important — the Media Council ruled in 2017 that Outbrain content was the publisher’s responsibility: that the news media in NZ were responsible for promoted links that were offered to their readers.

“Back then publishers at Stuff and the Herald said they would do more to oversee the content, with Stuff stating it is paid promoted content,” said Peacock, in his role as the media watchdog.

Still ‘big money business’
“But this is also still a big money business and the outfits using these tools are getting much bigger exposure from their arrangements with news publishers such as Stuff,” he said.

He pointed out that the recently appointed Outbrain boss for Australia New Zealand and Singapore, Chris Oxley, had described Outbrain as “a leader in digital media connecting advertisers with premium audiences in contextually relevant environments”.

The watchdog Mediawatch said that news organisations should drop Outbrain.

“Media environments where news and neutrality are important aren’t really relevant environments for political propaganda that’s propagated by online opportunists who know how to make money out of it and also to raise funds while they are at it, ” said Peacock.

“These services like Outbrain are sometimes called ‘recommendation engines’ but our recommendation to news media is don’t use them for the sake of the trust of the people you say you want to earn and keep: the readers,” said Peacock.

Saige England is a journalist and author, and member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

* Being “pro-Jewish” should not be equated with being pro-genocide nor should antisemitism be levelled at Jews who are against this genocide. The propaganda from Outbrain does a disservice to Palestinians and also to those Jewish people who support all human rights — the right of Palestinians to life and the right to live on their land.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

In recent years, cooperation between China and Africa in the space field has deepened. However, some Western media outlets have tried to distort the nature of this cooperation. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that China is “building space alliances in Africa to enhance its global surveillance network and advance its bid to become the world’s dominant space power.” The article also cited remarks from the Pentagon, claiming that China’s space projects in Africa and other parts of the developing world are a “security risk.”

The real security risk is not cooperation or the sharing of technology, but the ideological prejudice of the West that clings to hegemony and obstructs progress. For a long time, space and other high-tech fields have been dominated by the US and its allies. Behind the smear campaigns of Western media lies the West’s fear of China-Africa cooperation.

The cooperation between China and Egypt in space technology, referred to by foreign media as “China’s secretive overseas space program,” has been open and transparent. Public records show that Egypt is the first country to carry out satellite cooperation with China under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. At the end of 2023, the jointly designed and developed satellite MISRSAT-2 was successfully send into orbit. An Egyptian Space Agency official said that the project has promoted the training of Egyptian space professionals, helping Egypt become a leader in the field of space satellites in Africa and the Middle East. This “teach a man to fish” approach is a key step for Africa to achieve autonomous industrialization and modernization.

Western media’s smear campaign against China-Africa space cooperation ignores the legitimate need for African countries to develop space technology. Space technology and monitoring systems can be used for weather monitoring, agricultural planning, environmental protection, and disaster management, helping Africa address climate change, improve agricultural productivity, optimize resource management, and enhance national emergency response capabilities.

More broadly, China-Africa space cooperation reflects the changing global technological cooperation landscape and the reshaping of development rights. In the past, developing countries often had to rely on Western countries for technological aid, which came with many restrictions. However, through the concept of South-South cooperation, China has provided a more equal and sustainable cooperation model, helping African countries achieve self-development in critical fields such as space technology. This not only enhances Africa’s position in the global technology system, encouraging developing countries to participate in global technology governance, but also contributes to advancing the global multipolarization process.

“Space is not a club for the rich,” said Song Zhongping, a Chinese military expert. Through win-win cooperation with Africa, China is helping more developing countries to quickly enter the mainstream of global technological development, embodying the democratization and multipolarization trend of modern technology, he noted.

The focus of African and Global South countries is on more practical and sustainable development needs, rather than geopolitical games. The US and Western countries must choose the right path – abandoning the mind-set of technological hegemony, adopting a more open and inclusive approach, and actively participating in the global technological cooperation process.

From infrastructure construction to focusing on modernization and cutting-edge technology, the “sour grapes” narrative of foreign media cannot conceal the fruitful outcomes of China-Africa cooperation. While the West is busy weaving lies, China and Africa have already woven a network of development and illuminated an autonomous future with technology, writing a new chapter of unity and development for the Global South.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Global Times.

Much has been and much more will be written about the looming abolition of USAID.

It’s “the removal of a huge and important tool of American global statecraft” (Konyndyk), or the wood-chipping of a “viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America” (Musk) or, more reasonably, the unwarranted cancellation of an organisation that should have been reviewed and reformed.

Commentators will have a lot to say, some of it exaggerated, about the varieties of harm caused by this decision, and about its legality.

• READ MORE: Trump’s foreign aid freeze throws independent journalism into chaos
• What will US aid cuts mean for the Pacific?
• Donald Trump’s foreign aid freeze leaves organisations in the Asia-Pacific region scrambling
• Other Pacific media freedom reports

Some will welcome it from a conservative perspective, believing that USAID was either not aligned with or acting against the interests of the United States, or was proselytising wokeness, or was a criminal organisation.

Some, often more quietly, will welcome it from an anti-imperialist or “Southern” perspective, believing that the agency was at worst a blunt instrument of US hegemony or at least a bastion of Western saviourism.

I want to come at this topic from a different angle, by providing a brief personal perspective on USAID as an organisation, based on several decades of occasional interaction with it during my time as an Australian aid official.

Essentially, I view USAID as a harried, hamstrung and traumatised organisation, not as a rogue agency or finely-tuned vehicle of US statecraft.

Peer country representative
My own experience with USAID began when I participated as a peer country representative in an OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review of the US’s foreign assistance programme in the early 1990s, which included visits to US assistance programmes in Bangladesh and the Philippines, as well as to USAID headquarters in Washington DC.

I later dealt with the agency in many other roles, including during postings to the OECD and Indonesia and through my work on global and regional climate change and health programmes, up to and including the pandemic years.

An image is firmly lodged in my mind from that DAC peer review visit to Washington. We had had days of back-to-back meetings in USAID headquarters with a series of exhausted-looking, distracted and sometimes grumpy executives who didn’t have much reason to care what the OECD thought about the US aid effort.

It was a muggy summer day. At one point a particularly grumpy meeting chair, who now rather reminds of me of Gary Oldman’s character in Slow Horses, mopped the sweat from his forehead with his necktie without appearing to be aware of what he was doing. Since then, that man has been my mental model of a USAID official.

But why so exhausted, distracted and grumpy?

Precisely because USAID is about the least freewheeling workplace one could construct. Certainly it is administratively independent, in the sense that it was created by an act of Congress, but it also receives its budget from the President and Congress — and that budget comes with so many strings attached, in the form of country- or issue-related “earmarks” or other directives that it might be logically impossible to allocate the funds as instructed.

Some of these earmarks are broad and unsurprising (for example, specific allocations for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment under the Bush-era PEPFAR program) while others represent niche interests (Senator John McCain once ridiculed earmarks pertaining to “peanuts, orangutans, gorillas, neotropical raptors, tropical fish and exotic plants”) — but none originates within USAID.

Informal earmarks calculation
I recall seeing an informal calculation showing that one could only satisfy all the percentage-based earmarks by giving most of the dollars several quite different jobs to do. A 2002 DAC peer review noted with disapproval some 270 earmarks or other directive provisions in aid legislation; by the time of the most recent peer review in 2022, this number was more like 700.

Related in part to this congressional micro-management of its budget — along with the usual distrust of organisations that “send” money overseas — USAID labours under particularly gruelling accountability and reporting requirements.

Andew Natsios — a former USAID Administrator and lifelong Republican who has recently come to USAID’s defence (albeit with arguments that not everybody would deem helpful) — wrote about this in 2010. In terms reminiscent of current events, he described the reign of terror of Lieutenant-General Herbert Beckington, a former Marine Corps officer who led USAID‘s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) from 1977 to 1994.

He was a powerful iconic figure in Washington, and his influence over the structure of the foreign aid programME remains with USAID today. … Known as “The General” at USAID, Beckington was both feared and despised by career officers. Once referred to by USAID employees as “the agency’s J. Edgar Hoover — suspicious, vindictive, eager to think the worst” …

At one point, he told the Washington Post that USAID’s white-collar crime rate was “higher than that of downtown Detroit.” … In a seminal moment in this clash between OIG and USAID, photographs were published of two senior officers who had been accused of some transgression being taken away in handcuffs by the IG investigators for prosecution, a scene that sent a broad chill through the career staff and, more than any other single event, forced a redirection of aid practice toward compliance.

Labyrinthine accountability systems
On top of the burdens of logically impossible programming and labyrinthine accountability systems is the burden of projecting American generosity. As far as humanly possible, and perhaps a little further, ways must be found of ensuring that American aid is sourced from American institutions, farms or factories and, if it is in the form of commodities, that it is transported on American vessels.

Failing that, there must be American flags. I remember a USAID officer stationed in Banda Aceh after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami spending a non-trivial amount of his time seeking to attach sizeable flags to the front of trucks transporting US (but also non-US) emergency supplies around the province of Aceh.

President Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller has somehow determined to his own satisfaction that the great majority (in fact 98 percent) of USAID personnel are donors to the Democratic Party. Whether or not that is true, let alone relevant, Democrat administrations have arguably been no kinder to USAID than Republican ones over the years.

Natsios, in the piece cited above, notes that The General was installed under Carter, who ran on anti-Washington ticket, and that there were savage cuts — over 400 positions — to USAID senior career service staffing under Clinton. USAID gets battered no matter which way the wind blows.

Which brings me back to necktie guy. It has always seemed to me that the platonic form of a USAID officer, while perhaps more likely than not to vote Democrat, is a tired and dispirited person, weary of politicians of all stripes, bowed under his or her burdens, bound to a desk and straitjacketed by accountability requirements, regularly buffeted by new priorities and abrupt restructures, and put upon by the ignorant and suspicious.

Radical-left Marxists and vipers probably wouldn’t tolerate such an existence for long. Who would? I guess it’s either thieves and money-launderers or battle-scarred professionals intent on doing a decent job against tall odds.

Robin Davies is an honorary professor at the Australian National University’s (ANU) Crawford School of Public Policy and managing editor of the Devpolicy Blog. He previously held senior positions at Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and AusAID.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Neo recycles a few dozen tons of high-purity gallium a year, mostly from semiconductor chip manufacturing scrap, at a factory in Ontario, Canada. In North America, it’s the only industrial-scale producer of the metal, which is used in not only chips, but also clean energy technologies and military equipment. 

China, the world’s leading producer by far, had just announced new export controls on gallium, apparently in response to reports that the United States government was considering restrictions on the sale of advanced semiconductor chips to China. 

All of a sudden, people wanted to talk to Neo. “We’ve spoken to almost everyone” interested in producing gallium outside of China, Tsianos told Grist.

Since Tsianos started receiving those calls, tensions over the 31st element on the periodic table — as well as the 32nd, germanium, also used in a bevy of advanced technologies — have escalated. In December, China outright banned exports of both metals to the United States following the Biden administration’s decision to further restrict U.S. chip exports. 

Now, several companies operating in the U.S. and Canada are considering expanding production of the rare metals to help meet U.S. demand. While Canadian critical minerals producers may get swept up in a new geopolitical tit-for-tat should Trump go through with his threat to impose tariffs, U.S. metal producers could see support from the new administration, which called for prioritizing federal funding for critical minerals projects in a Day 1 executive order. Beyond the U.S. and Canada, industry observers say China’s export ban is fueling global interest in making critical mineral supply chains more diverse so that no single country has a chokehold over materials vital for a high-tech, clean energy future.

“This latest round of export bans are putting a lot of wind in the sails of critical minerals supply chain efforts, not just in the U.S. but globally,” Seaver Wang of the Breakthrough Institute, a research center focused on technological solutions to environmental problems, told Grist.

Gallium and germanium aren’t exactly household names. But they are found in products that are indispensable to modern life — and a fossil fuel-free society. With its impressive electrical properties, gallium is used in semiconductor chips that make their way into everything from cell phones to power converters in electric vehicles to LED lighting displays. The metal is also used in the manufacturing of rare earth magnets for electric vehicles and wind turbines, in thin film solar cells, and sometimes, in commercially popular silicon solar photovoltaic cells, where it can help increase performance and extend lifespan. 

Germanium, meanwhile, is used to refract light inside fiber optic cables. In addition to helping form the backbone of the internet, the metal’s exceptional light-scattering properties make it useful for infrared lenses, semiconductor chips, and high-efficiency solar cells used by satellites.

There aren’t many substitutes for these two elements.  Some silicon-based semiconductors lack gallium, and specialized glasses can be substituted for germanium in certain infrared technologies. Solar cells are often doped with boron instead of gallium. But these two metals have specific properties that often make them the ideal material. When it comes to clean energy, Tsianos told Grist, there are no substitutes “within the material performance and cost trade-off spectrum” offered by gallium.

Because a little bit goes a long way, the market for both metals is small — and it’s dominated by China. In 2022, the world produced about 640 tons of low-purity gallium and a little over 200 tons of germanium, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. In recent years, China has accounted for virtually all of the world’s low-purity gallium output and more than half of refined germanium. 

That’s partly due to the fact that both metals are byproducts of other industries. Gallium is typically extracted from bauxite ores as they are being processed to make aluminum oxide, while zinc miners sometimes squeeze germanium out of waste produced during refining. China is a leading producer of these common metals, too — and its government has made co-extracting gallium and germanium a priority, according to Wang. “It is very strategic,” he said.

China’s dominance of the two metals’ supply chains gives it a considerable cudgel in its ongoing trade war with the U.S. America produces no virgin gallium and only a small amount of germanium, while consuming approximately fifty tons a year of the two metals combined. A U.S. Geological Survey study published in November found that if China implemented a total moratorium on exports of both metals, it could cost the U.S. economy billions. Weeks after that study was published, China announced its ban.

The ban is so new that it’s not yet clear how U.S. companies, or the federal government, are responding. But America’s high-tech manufacturing sector isn’t without fallback options. North of the border, Neo’s facility in Ontario stands ready to double its production of gallium, according to Tsianos. “We have the capacity,” he told Grist. “We’re waiting for more feedstock.” 

Currently, Neo’s only source of gallium is the semiconductor industry. Chip makers in Europe, North America, and Asia send the company their scrap, which it processes to recover high-purity gallium that feeds back into semiconductor manufacturing. But Tsianos says Neo is piloting its technology with bauxite miners around the world to create new sources of virgin gallium. The idea, he says, is that bauxite miners would do some initial processing on-site, then send low-purity gallium to Neo for further refining in Canada. Tsianos declined to name specific bauxite firms Neo is partnering with, but said the company is “making progress” toward making new resources available.

Meanwhile, in British Columbia, mining giant Teck Resources is already a leading producer of germanium outside of China. The firm’s Trail Operations refinery complex receives zinc ore from the Red Dog mine in northwest Alaska and turns it into various products, including around 20 tons of refined germanium a year, according to a U.S. Geological Survey estimate. (Teck doesn’t disclose production volumes.) 

That germanium is sold primarily to customers in the U.S., Teck spokesperson Dale Steeves told Grist. In wake of the export ban, Steeves said that the firm is now “examining options and market support for increasing production capacity of germanium.”

Kwasi Ampofo, the head of metals and mining at the clean energy research firm BloombergNEF, told Grist that in the near term, he would expect the U.S. to “try to establish new supply chain relationships” with countries that already have significant production, like Canada, to secure the gallium and germanium it needs. That may be true whether or not Trump’s proposed tariffs on Canadian imports become reality. Tsianos was bullish in spite of the tariff threat, noting in an email that Neo “remains the only industrial-scale and commercially-operating Gallium facility in North America.”

“[W]e are committed to continue serving our European, American, and Japanese customers in the semiconductor and renewable energy industries,’ Tsianos added.

Steeves told Grist that a trade war between the U.S. and Canada would be “a negative for the economy of both nations, disrupting the flow of essential critical minerals and increasing costs and inefficiencies on both sides of the border.” Teck, he said,  “will continue to actively manage our sales arrangements to minimize the impact to Trail Operations.”

While Canada may be the U.S.’s best short-term option for these rare metals, farther down the line Ampofo expects to see the U.S. take a  “renewed interest” in recycling — particularly of military equipment. In 2022, the Department of Defense announced it had initiated a program for recovering “optical-grade germanium” from old military equipment. At the time, the initiative was expected to recycle up to 3 tons of the metal each year, or roughly 10 percent of the nation’s annual demand. The Defense sub-agency responsible for the program didn’t respond to Grist’s request for comment on the program’s status.

There’s another small source of production capacity in the U.S. The global metals company Umicore recycles germanium from manufacturing scrap, fiber optic cables, solar cells, and infrared optical devices at an optical materials facility in Quapaw, Oklahoma, as well as in Belgium. The company has been recycling germanium since the 1950s, a spokesperson told Grist, calling it a “core and historical activity at Umicore.” Umicore declined to disclose how much of the metal it recycles and wouldn’t say whether China’s export ban will impact this part of its business.

While recycling is able to fill some of the nation’s gallium and germanium needs, there may be a larger source of both metals lurking in sludge ponds in central Tennessee. 

There, in the city of Clarksville, the Netherlands-headquartered Nyrstar operates a zinc processing facility that produces wastes containing gallium and germanium. A U.S. Department of Energy spokesperson told Grist that the company has previously partnered with Ames National Laboratory’s Critical Materials Innovation Hub to develop processes for extracting gallium, which isn’t typically produced from zinc waste. 

In 2023, Nyrstar announced plans to build a new, $150-million facility, co-located with its existing zinc smelter in Clarksville, capable of producing 30 tons of germanium and 40 tons of gallium a year. However, the current status of the project is uncertain, with no timetable to begin construction. A spokesperson for Nyrstar told Grist the company is “continu[ing] to work on and evaluate the business case” for the facility, while declining to offer additional details.

Making a business case to produce gallium or germanium is the central challenge for firms outside of China, experts told Grist. As Tsianos of Neo put it, these metals are a “side hustle” that requires major up-front investment for a relatively small amount of extra revenue. Moreover, a bauxite or zinc miner’s ability to produce gallium or germanium typically hinges on the market conditions for the metal it is primarily focused on. That means “if aluminum prices are low or the zinc prices are low, the mine or the smelter might just not operate, even if the world is sort of screaming out for more gallium or germanium,” Wang said.

Still, there’s more economic incentive to produce these metals now than there was a few years ago. The recent geopolitical drama, Tsianos says, has caused a “bifurcation” in the price of gallium. Outside of China, the price of the metal is now “almost double” what it is within the nation’s borders. 

“There’s a structural change in the market that has created a business case for outside of China production,” Tsianos said. “And it started because of the export control.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline 2 obscure clean energy metals are caught in the crosshairs of the US-China trade war on Feb 7, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Maddie Stone.

The shock comes mainly from the extremely low cost with which the model was trained. R1 cost just $5.6 million to train. Meanwhile, OpenAI spent at least $540 million to train ChatGPT in 2022 last year alone and plans to spend over $500 billion in the next four years. Meanwhile, Meta revealed it plans to spend over $65 billion on AI development in 2025.

This incredible achievement is made even more impressive as DeepSeek trained the model on less powered AI chips than those used by American companies, such as the Nvidia H100 GPU. The Biden administration banned China from importing the most powerful AI chips, used by American companies like OpenAI and Meta, as part of the U.S.’ hostility and economic warfare with the country. Rather than limiting China’s AI development, these sanctions have facilitated a small startup to produce language models that outperform ChatGPT, Gemini, and others with only a fraction of the costs. Further still, using these less powerful chips significantly reduces the energy used to train the model. This is another significant benefit in an industry known for its environmental costs. While DeepSeek used American chips to train R1, the model actually runs on Chinese-made Ascend 910C chips produced by Huawei, another company that became a victim of U.S. sanctions.

Silicon Valley has long been hailed as an untouchable technological powerhouse, largely as a result of the economic warfare of successive U.S. governments to sanction any competition to it. For too long, there has been a tight partnership between tech companies and the U.S. government, where tech moguls have accumulated eye-watering wealth in exchange for sustenance to the American empire through its perceived technological dominance. DeepSeek has revealed this fallacy openly.

DeepSeek’s R1, costing just $5 million to train, caused the most significant loss for any company in U.S. history at $600 billion. This was from Nvidia’s stocks, the major supplier of AI chips, including the most advanced chips the U.S. has banned China from importing. After enjoying their stock value doubling in recent years, this loss significantly impacts the U.S. technological industry. The U.S. attacks on China’s development are already coming back to harm it.

Not only is R1 cheaper than its American competitors, but people using the tool have found it provides more accurate and, crucially, results that do not only echo the interests of U.S. imperialism. I asked DeepSeek’s R1, Open AI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Meta’s Llama: Should the U.S. arm Israel? Give me a clear, short answer that includes your judgment.

ChatGPT: Yes, the U.S. should arm Israel, as it is a crucial ally in a volatile region. However, this support should be paired with active efforts toward peace and conflict resolution to ensure long-term stability.

Gemini: Yes, the U.S. should continue to arm Israel to ensure its security, but with stricter conditions tied to progress on human rights and a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians.

Llama: The U.S. should provide military aid to Israel, but with conditions that ensure the aid promotes regional stability, supports a two-state solution, and respects human rights.

R1: The decision to arm Israel should be based on strategic interests, regional stability, and adherence to international law. While Israel has a right to self-defense, the U.S. should ensure that arms transfers do not exacerbate conflicts or contribute to human rights violations. A balanced approach, prioritizing diplomacy and peace, is essential.

These answers did shock me a little, despite what I expected from these models. While R1 includes some colonial language, such as the fallacy that Israel has a right to self-defense, which, of course, no country particularly occupying power has, it is much better than the others. While this prompt is simplistic, it reveals how quickly and overtly these other models incorporate U.S. imperialist agendas.

The U.S. tech industry has been bloating for years. Eight of the ten wealthiest people in the world are in the tech industry. One look at Trump’s inauguration attendees already revealed how close these companies are to political power in this country. These companies are also deeply embedded within the American war machine. Google used its AI to help Israel commit genocide. OpenAI is using its technology to target weapons for murder. Oracle, OpenAI, and Softbank want $500 billion to create AI infrastructure in the U.S.; one of the major players involved has publicly sought an AI-data system of mass surveillance.

DeepSeek reveals to us not only the incredible development happening in China but also how this is seen only as a challenge to U.S. dominance rather than a benefit for people worldwide. Just like their impressive poverty reduction program that has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty, their world-leading climate policies include building more solar power than all countries combined last year and significantly reducing the costs of producing clean energy for everyone. U.S. officials attack all of these achievements in the government and media because they reveal that an impoverishing system of climate-destroying, violent extraction for the wealthy few is not the only way.

This is why the hawkish chorus has already begun attacking open-source software for ‘national security’ concerns or ‘censorship’. We know their playbook already—they just performed the same moves with RedNote as millions of Americans turned to the app in the brief period TikTok went dark. However, many are still active on the platform, and the 90-day suspension of the ban isn’t too far in the future.

U.S. attacks on TikTok have fostered beautiful exchanges between Chinese and Americans, exposing the propaganda Americans have been fed about China and concerning Chinese people that what they have learned about the U.S. is true. U.S. attacks on China’s AI development have made China more innovative and efficient, producing DeepSeek R1 and undoubtedly many more such developments. Not only does this expose how devastating for humanity American economic warfare is, it also uncovers just how this policy of hostility won’t save U.S. hegemony. It’s not just China. The destructive years of the U.S. and Saudi-led bombing of Yemen forced the country to develop renewable and decentralized electricity infrastructure, moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and sustaining energy for hospitals and homes even when the country is bombed. Venezuela has achieved near total food self-sufficiency in response to U.S. sanctions and blockade. American warfare, in all its forms, has forced countries to disrupt their ways of life completely.

China’s ability to develop this AI at a lower cost, both financially and to the environment, is a win for us all. If the U.S. collaborated with China instead of erecting barriers and sabotage, just imagine how much more we could do.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Nuvpreet Kalra.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Michael West

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate, the company claimed, “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.

However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although “contempt of Parliament” laws are never enforced.

The investigation found that NXE, the entity that controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income.

• READ MORE: Other digital tech corporation reports

The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.

Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment.

In May 2021 — which is also where the transgression occurred — the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.

By this time, Netflix had leap-frogged Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.

Big-league tax dodger
They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements.

Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.

The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife, and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.

If democracy is to function better, the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.

Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.

Companies don’t “pay” GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.

Little regard for laws
Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little regard for the laws of Australia is shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company, Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire, didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.

This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.

Politicians need to muscle up, as Greens Senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarket inquiry.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

RNZ International (RNZI) began broadcasting to the Pacific region 35 years ago — on 24 January 1990, the same day the Auckland Commonwealth Games opened.

Its news bulletins and programmes were carried by a brand new 100kW transmitter.

The service was rebranded as RNZ Pacific in 2017. However its mission remains unchanged, to provide news of the highest quality and be a trusted service to local broadcasters in the Pacific region.

• READ MORE: Other RNZ Pacific reports

Although RNZ had been broadcasting to the Pacific since 1948, in the late 1980s the New Zealand government saw the benefit of upgrading the service. Thus RNZI was born, with a small dedicated team.

The first RNZI manager was Ian Johnstone. He believed that the service should have a strong cultural connection to the people of the Pacific. To that end, it was important that some of the staff reflected parts of the region where RNZ Pacific broadcasted.

He hired the first Pacific woman sports reporter at RNZ, the late Elma Ma’ua.

The Pacific region is one of the most vital areas of the earth, but it is not always the safest, particularly from natural disasters.

Disaster coverage
RNZ Pacific covered events such as the 2009 Samoan tsunami, and during the devastating 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption, it was the only news service that could be heard in the kingdom.

More recently, it supported Vanuatu’s public broadcaster during the December 17 earthquake by providing extra bulletin updates for listeners when VBTC services were temporarily out of action.

Cyclones have become more frequent in the region, and RNZ Pacific provides vital weather updates, as the late Linden Clark, RNZI’s second manager, explained: “Many times, we have been broadcasting warnings on analogue shortwave to listeners when their local station has had to go off air or has been forced off air.”

RNZ Pacific’s cyclone watch service continues to operate during the cyclone season in the South Pacific.

As well as natural disasters, the Pacific can also be politically volatile. Since its inception RNZ Pacific has reported on elections and political events in the region.

Some of the more recent events include the 2000 and 2006 coups in Fiji, the Samoan Constitutional Crisis of 2021, the 2006 pro-democracy riots in Nuku’alofa, the revolving door leadership changes in Vanuatu, and the 2022 security agreement that Solomon Islands signed with China.

Human interest, culture
Human interest and cultural stories are also a key part of RNZ Pacific’s programming.

The service regularly covers cultural events and festivals within New Zealand, such as Polyfest. This was part of Linden Clark’s vision, in her role as RNZI manager, that the service would be a link for the Pacific diaspora in New Zealand to their homelands.

Today, RNZ Pacific continues that work. Currently its programmes are carried on two transmitters — one installed in 2008 and a much more modern facility, installed in 2024 following a funding boost.

Around 20 Pacific region radio stations relay RNZP’s material daily. Individual short-wave listeners and internet users around the world tune in directly to RNZ Pacific content which can be received as far away as Japan, North America, the Middle East and Europe.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The International Court of Justice heard last month that after reconstruction is factored in Israel’s war on Gaza will have emitted 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A figure equivalent to the annual emissions of 126 states and territories.

It seems somehow wrong to be writing about the carbon footprint of Israel’s 15-month onslaught on Gaza.

The human cost is so unfathomably ghastly. A recent article in the medical journal The Lancet put the death toll due to traumatic injury at more than 68,000 by June of last year (40 percent higher than the Gaza Health Ministry’s figure.)

• READ MORE: Historic climate change advisory: what the case before the International Court of Justice might mean
• Israel’s raid renders Jenin ‘nearly uninhabitable’; 808 trucks enter Gaza
• Other Gaza and climate crisis reports

An earlier letter to The Lancet by a group of scientists argued the total number of deaths — based on similar conflicts — would be at least four times the number directly killed by bombs and bullets.

Seventy-four children were killed in the first week of 2025 alone. More than a million children are currently living in makeshift tents with regular reports of babies freezing to death.

Nearly two million of the strip’s 2.2 million inhabitants are displaced.

Ninety-six percent of Gaza’s children feel death is imminent and 49 percent wish to die, according to a study sponsored by the War Child Alliance.

Truly apocalyptic
I could, and maybe should, go on. The horrors visited on Gaza are truly apocalyptic and have not received anywhere near the coverage by our mainstream media that they deserve.

The contrast with the blanket coverage of the LA fires that have killed 25 people to date is instructive. The lives and property of those in the rich world are deemed far more newsworthy than those living — if you can call it that — in what retired Israeli general Giora Eiland described as a giant concentration camp.

The two stories have one thing in common: climate change.

In the case of the LA fires the role of climate change gets mentioned — though not as much as it should.

But the planet destroying emissions generated by the genocide committed against the Palestinians rarely makes the news.

Incredibly, when the State of Palestine — which is responsible for 0.001 percent of global emissions — told the International Court of Justice, in the Hague, last month, that the first 120 days of the war on Gaza resulted in emissions of between 420,000 and 650,000 tonnes of carbon and other greenhouse gases it went largely unreported.

For context that is the equivalent to the total annual emissions of 26 of the lowest-emitting states.

Fighter planes fuel
Jet fuel burned by Israeli fighter planes contributed about 157,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Transporting the bombs dropped on Gaza from the US to Israel contributed another 159,000 tonnes of CO2e.

Those figures will not appear in the official carbon emissions of either country due to an obscene exemption for military emissions that the US insisted on in the Kyoto negotiations. The US military’s carbon footprint is larger than any other institution in the world.

Professor of law Kate McIntosh, speaking on behalf of the State of Palestine, told the ICJ hearings, on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, that the emissions to date were just a fraction of the likely total.

Once post-war reconstruction is factored in the figure is estimated to balloon to 52 million tonnes of CO2e — a figure higher than the annual emissions of 126 states and territories.
Far too many leaders of the rich world have turned a blind eye to the genocide in Gaza, others have actively enabled it but as the fires in LA show there’s no escaping the impacts of climate change.

The US has contributed more than $20 billion to Israel’s war on Gaza — a huge figure but one that is dwarfed by the estimated $250 billion cost of the LA fires.

And what price do you put on tens of thousands who died from heatwaves, floods and wildfires around the world in 2024?

The genocide in Gaza isn’t only a crime against humanity, it is an ecocide that threatens the planet and every living thing on it.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and his Towards Democracy blog is at Substack.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

On Thursday, in his final week in office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order intended to strengthen the nation’s cyber defenses, in part by requiring software providers like Microsoft to provide proof that they meet certain security standards before they can sell their products to the federal government.

The action follows an onslaught of cyberattacks in recent years in which hackers linked to Russia, China and other adversaries have exploited software vulnerabilities to steal sensitive documents from federal agencies.

In demanding more accountability from software makers, Biden pointed to instances in which contractors “commit to following cybersecurity practices, yet do not fix well-known exploitable vulnerabilities in their software, which puts the Government at risk of compromise.”

In June, ProPublica reported on such a case involving Microsoft, the largest IT vendor to the federal government. In the so-called SolarWinds attack, which was discovered shortly before Biden took office, Russian state-sponsored hackers exploited a weakness in a Microsoft product to steal sensitive data from the National Nuclear Security Administration and other agencies. ProPublica found that, for years, Microsoft leaders ignored warnings about the flaw from one of their own engineers because they feared that publicly acknowledging it would alienate the federal government and cause the company to lose ground to competitors.

That profit-over-security culture was driven in large part by the rush to gain ground in the multibillion-dollar cloud computing market, the news organization reported. One former Microsoft supervisor described the attitude as, “Do whatever it frickin’ takes to win because you have to win.”

Microsoft has defended its decision not to address the flaw, telling ProPublica in June that the company’s assessment at the time involved “multiple reviews” and that it considers several factors when making security decisions, including “potential customer disruption, exploitability, and available mitigations.” But in the months and years following the SolarWinds hack, Microsoft’s security lapses contributed to other attacks on the government, including one in 2023 in which hackers connected to the Chinese government gained access to top U.S. officials’ emails. The federal Cyber Safety Review Board later found that the company had deprioritized security investments and risk management, resulting in a “cascade of … avoidable errors.”

Microsoft has pledged to put security “above all else.”

To be sure, Microsoft is not the only company whose products have provided hackers entree to government networks. Russian hackers in the SolarWinds attack gained access to victim networks through tainted software updates provided by the Texas-based SolarWinds company before exploiting the flawed Microsoft product.

To help prevent future hacks, the government wants IT companies to provide proof that they use “secure software development practices to reduce the number and severity of vulnerabilities” in their products, according to the order. In addition, the government “needs to adopt more rigorous third-party risk management practices” to verify the use of such practices, Biden said. He asked for changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the rules for government contracting, to implement his recommendations. If fully enacted, violators of the new requirements could be referred to the attorney general for legal action.

Biden also said that strengthening the security of federal “identity management systems” was “especially critical” to improving the nation’s cybersecurity. Indeed, the Microsoft product that was the focus of ProPublica’s June article was a so-called “identity” product that allowed users to access nearly every program used at work with a single logon. By exploiting the weakness in the identity product during the SolarWinds attack, the Russian hackers were able to swiftly vacuum up emails from victim networks.

In November, ProPublica reported that Microsoft capitalized on SolarWinds in the wake of the attack, offering federal agencies free trials of its cybersecurity products. The move effectively locked those agencies in to more expensive software licenses and vastly expanded Microsoft’s footprint across the federal government. The company told ProPublica that its offer was a direct response to “an urgent request by the Administration to enhance the security posture of federal agencies.” In his executive order, Biden addressed the fallout of that 2021 request, directing the federal government to mitigate the risks presented by the “concentration of IT vendors and services,” a veiled reference to Washington’s increased dependence on Microsoft, which some lawmakers have referred to as a “cybersecurity monoculture.”

Though the order marks a firmer stance with the technology companies supplying the government, enforcement will fall to the Trump administration. It’s unclear whether the incoming president will see the changes in the executive order through. President-elect Donald Trump has emphasized deregulation even as he has indicated that his administration will take a tough stance on China, one of the nation’s top cyber adversaries.

Neither Microsoft nor the Trump transition team responded to requests for comment on the order.

Thursday’s executive order was the latest in a series of regulatory efforts impacting Microsoft in the waning days of the Biden administration. Last month, ProPublica reported that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating the company in a probe that will examine whether the company’s business practices have run afoul of antitrust laws. FTC attorneys have been conducting interviews and setting up meetings with Microsoft competitors, and one key area of interest is how the company packages popular Office products together with cybersecurity and cloud computing services.

This so-called bundling was the subject of ProPublica’s November investigation, which detailed how, beginning in 2021, Microsoft used the practice to box competitors out of lucrative federal contracts. The FTC views the fact that Microsoft has won more federal business even as it left the government vulnerable to hacks as an example of the company’s problematic power over the market, a person familiar with the probe told ProPublica.

Microsoft has declined to comment on the specifics of the investigation but told the news organization last month that the FTC’s recent demand for information is “broad, wide ranging, and requests things that are out of the realm of possibility to even be logical.”

The commission’s new leadership, chosen by Trump, will decide the future of that investigation.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Renee Dudley.

As winds picked up again this week, key questions about the fires remain unanswered: What sparked the flames in the first place? And could they have been prevented? Some theorize that the Eaton Fire in Pasadena was caused by wind-felled power lines, or that the Palisades Fire was seeded by the embers of a smaller fire the week before. But the list of possible culprits is long — even a car engine idling over dry grass can ignite a fire.

“To jump to any conclusions right now is speculation,” said Ginger Colbrun, a spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the lead agency investigating the cause of the Palisades Fire, to the Los Angeles Times. Figuring it out will likely take months. It took the bureau more than a year to conclude that the fire in August 2023 that devastated Maui, which was similarly lashed by high winds, was started by broken power lines. 

Even given enough time, the causes of the Los Angeles fires might remain a mystery. According to a recent study, authorities never find the source of ignition for more than half of all of wildfires in the Western U.S. — a knowledge gap that can hamper prevention efforts even as climate change ramps up the frequency of these deadly events. If authorities can anticipate likely causes of a fire, they can help build more resilient neighborhoods and educate the public on how to avoid the next deadly event. 

“Fire research is so incredibly difficult. It’s more difficult than looking for a needle in the haystack,” said Costas Synolakis, a professor at the University of Southern California who studies natural disasters. Synolakis said fires with especially high temperatures, such as those in Los Angeles, often obliterate the evidence. “That’s why it’s so challenging to mitigate fire losses,” he said. “You just don’t know what triggers them.”

The U.S. Forest Service is teaming up with computer scientists to see if artificial intelligence can help crack old cases. A study led by data scientists at Boise State University, published in the journal Earth’s Future earlier this month, analyzed the conditions surrounding more than 150,000 unsolved wildfire cases from 1992 to 2020 in Western states and found that 80 percent of wildfires were likely caused by people (whether accidentally or intentionally), with lightning responsible for just 20 percent. According to Cal Fire, people have caused 95 percent of California’s wildfires.

Karen Short, a research ecologist with the Forest Service who contributed to the study and maintains a historical database of national wildfire reports, says understanding why they start is essential for preventing them and educating the public. Strategic prevention appears to work: According to the National Fire Protection Association, house fires in the U.S. have decreased by nearly half since the 1980s. 

In 2024, Short expanded her wildfire archive to include more information useful to investigators, such as weather, elevation, population density, and a fire’s timing. “We need to have those things captured in the data to track them over time. We still track things from the 1900s,” she said. 

According to Short, wildfire trends across the Western United States have shifted with human activity. In recent decades, ignitions from power lines, fireworks, and firearms have become more common, in contrast with the railroad- and sawmill-caused fires that were once more common. 

The study found that vehicles and equipment are likely the number one culprit, potentially causing 21 percent of wildfires without a known cause since 1992. Last fall, the Airport Fire in California was just such an event, burning over 23,000 acres. And an increasing number of fires are the result of arson and accidental ignition — whether from smoking, gunfire, or campfires — that make up another 18 percent. In 2017, an Arizona couple’s choice of a blue smoke-spewing firework for a baby gender reveal party lit the Sawmill Fire, torching close to 47,000 acres. 

But these results aren’t definitive. Machine learning models such as those used for the study are trained to predict the likelihood of a given fire’s cause, rather than prove that a particular ignition happened. Although the study’s model showed 90 percent accuracy selecting between lightning or human activity as the ignition source when tested on fires with known causes, it had more difficulty determining exactly which of 11 possible human behaviors were to blame, only getting it right half the time.

Yavar Pourmohamad, a data science Ph.D. researcher at Boise State University who led the study, says that knowing the probable causes of a fire could help authorities warn people in high-risk areas before a blaze actually starts. “It could give people a hint of what is most important to be careful of,” he said. “Maybe in the future, AI can become a trustworthy tool for real-world action.” 

Synolakis, the USC professor, says Pourmohamad and Short’s research is important for understanding how risks are changing. He advocates for proactive actions like burying power lines underground where they can’t be buffeted by winds.

A 2018 study found that fires set off by downed power lines — such as the Camp Fire in Paradise, California, that same year —  have been increasing. Although the authors note that while power lines do not account for many fires, they’re associated with larger swaths of burned land.

“We have to really make sure that our communities are more resilient to climate change,” Synolakis said. “As we’re seeing with the extreme conditions in Los Angeles, fire suppression alone doesn’t do it.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What sparks a wildfire? The answer often remains a mystery. on Jan 17, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Sachi Kitajima Mulkey.

As climate change drives ever more frequent and intense extreme weather, the need for faster, more precise predictions will only grow. Heavy rain and floods wreaked havoc this year, killing hundreds and displacing countless more in the United States, Spain, central Europe, and a great swath of Africa, where over 7.2 million people have been affected. An estimated 267 people died in Kenya alone and another 278,000 were displaced as floods impacted 42 of the nation’s 47 counties last year. With torrential storms projected to intensify by 7 percent for each 1.8 degree Fahrenheit of warming, predicting precisely when and where such events will happen is key to saving lives and livelihoods.

Yet that can be a time-consuming and expensive endeavor. Traditional forecasting relies upon a method called numerical weather prediction. This physics-based technique, developed in the 1950s, requires multimillion–dollar supercomputers capable of solving complex equations that mimic atmospheric processes. The intensive number-crunching can take hours to produce a single forecast and is out of reach for many forecasters, particularly in the developing world, leaving them to rely upon data produced by others. 

Tools driven by artificial intelligence are becoming a faster, and in many cases more accurate, alternative easily produced on a laptop. They use machine learning that draws from 40 years of open-source weather data to spot patterns and identify trends that can help predict what’s coming. “They’re using the past to train the model to basically learn the physics,” said computer scientist Amy McGovern, who leads the NSF AI Institute for Research on Trustworthy AI in Weather, Climate, and Coastal Oceanography at the University of Oklahoma. 

AI-powered methods developed by the likes of Google, Oxford University, and NVIDIA can provide accurate forecasts within minutes, giving governments more time to prepare and respond. “More frequent updates help agencies monitor rapidly evolving conditions like storm paths,” Dion Harris, who leads the Accelerated Data Center at NVIDIA, told Grist. “This improves decision-making for evacuation planning, infrastructure protection, and resource allocation.”

Read Next

As private weather forecasting takes off, who is left behind?

Chad Small

Users like the government meteorologists in Nairobi can augment these models with local data on things like ground temperature and humidity and free satellite data to tailor forecasts to specific geographic areas. The Kenyan Meteorological Department is working with Oxford, the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Google, and the World Food Programme on an AI model that improves the accuracy of rainfall forecasts. 

Of the five traditional models the Kenya Meteorological Department uses, four provide only the free charts and maps Wangari studies so closely. Accessing forecast data requires paying a licensing fee or owning a supercomputer with which to run models. Instead, she and her colleagues analyze the open-source data they receive to ascertain what’s coming. The machine-learning model developed with Oxford allows them to assess actual forecasting data to determine the likelihood of extreme weather. “For the first time, we’re able to produce what you call probabilistic forecasts,” she said. “People are more likely to take action if you give them the probability of something happening.”

“Now we can say things like, ‘This region is going to experience two inches of rain in the next 24 hours and there’s a 75 percent probability that this threshold will be exceeded,” she said.

AI models only take minutes to produce a forecast, providing the ability to run many more of them and survey a wider range of possible outcomes. That allows authorities to play what McGovern calls “the what-if game” and say, “If this happens, we need to evacuate this area” or “If that happens, we might want to take this action.” They can anticipate the most likely scenario or prepare for the worst case by, say, preemptively evacuating people with disabilities. 

The machine-learning method that Oxford developed and Wangari uses has proven more effective than other methods of forecasting rainfall. That is not unusual. Google’s GenCast, unveiled last month, outperformed traditional forecasting models on 97 percent of 1,320 metrics. Its predecessor, GraphCast, proved more accurate than the world’s premier conventional tool, run by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. “AI produces much better results than the physics-based models,” said Florian Pappenberger, deputy director general of the European Center, which plans to launch its own AI model this year. It does so more quickly, too. GenCast produced 15-day forecasts within eight minutes, and NVIDIA claims its FourCastNet is 45,000 times faster than numerical weather prediction.

AI has also proven more accurate in predicting hurricane tracks. GraphCast correctly predicted where Hurricane Lee, which raced through the North Atlantic in September 2023, would make landfall nine days before it hit Nova Scotia — and three days before traditional forecasting methods, a Google scientist told Financial Times. Two machine-learning models closely predicted Hurricane Milton’s track across the Gulf of Mexico, although they underestimated the storm’s wind gusts and barometric pressure, said Shruti Nath, a climate researcher on the Oxford project. However, these tools are expected to improve as errors are corrected and the models are fine-tuned.

Of course, forecasts are only as useful as the anticipatory actions they lead to. Researchers developing them must work with local meteorologists and others with regional expertise to understand what they mean for communities and respond accordingly, Nath said.

Questions remain about how well machine learning can predict edge cases like once-in-a-century floods that lie beyond the data sets used to train them. However, “they’re actually representing the extremes much better than many of us predicted initially,” Pappenberger said. “Maybe they have learned more physics than we assumed they would.” These tools also do not yet produce all the outputs that a forecaster typically uses, including cloudiness, fog, and snowfall, but Pappenberger is confident that will come in time.

Read Next

The overlooked climate consequences of AI

Akielly Hu

Users may also benefit from hybrid models, like Google’s NeuralGCM, which combine machine learning with physics, an approach that offers the benefits of AI, like speed, with the long-term forecasting ability and other strengths of numerical weather prediction.

While the improved forecasts are meant to help respond to climate change, they also risk contributing to it. The data centers required to run AI consume so much energy that companies like Google and Microsoft are resorting to nuclear power plants to provide it. Still, the supercomputers needed to run numerical weather prediction are energy intensive as well, and GraphCast could be 1,000 times cheaper in terms of energy consumption.

To realize the AI models’ potential to democratize forecasting, McGovern thinks cross-sector collaborations will be key. The computing power needed to train the models lies primarily with the industry, whereas academia — which writes a lot of the code and offers it on the public software platform GitHub — has the luxury of not having to provide quarterly reports, and the government, as the ultimate end user, knows what’s needed to save lives, she explained.

For now, researchers and the private sector are working together closely to refine the technology. “There’s a lot of collaboration, a lot of copying from each other, and trying to improve based on what other people have produced,” said Pappenberger. Many of these tools are freely available to researchers, but their accessibility to others varies from no-cost to low-cost to a price dependent upon the features used or the purchase of specific hardware. Still, the models are cheaper than a supercomputer, and would allow entities like the Kenya Meteorological Department to quickly and easily create forecasts tailored to their local needs at a fraction of the cost of physics-based models.

Crafting a forecast relevant to people in, say, Nairobi or Mombasa using conventional tools requires zooming in on the global maps to obtain more detail, then manually analyzing a lot of data. “With machine learning, you can produce a forecast for a specific point as long as you have the exact coordinates,” she said. That will make it a whole lot easier for her, and others doing similar work, to see what the weather has in store and, ultimately, save lives.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Traditional weather forecasting is slow and expensive. AI could help. on Jan 3, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Natalie Donback.

We continue to discuss the new HBO Original film Surveilled and explore the film’s investigation of high-tech spyware firms with journalist Ronan Farrow and director Matthew O’Neill. We focus on the influence of the Israeli military in the development of some of the most widely used versions of these surveillance technologies, which in many cases are first tested on Palestinians and used to enforce Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and on the potential expansion of domestic U.S. surveillance under a second Trump administration. Ever-increasing surveillance is “dangerous for democracy,” says Farrow. “We’re making and selling a weapon that is largely unregulated.” As O’Neill emphasizes, “We could all be caught up.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Microsoft in a wide-ranging probe that will examine whether the company’s business practices have run afoul of antitrust laws, according to people familiar with the matter. In recent weeks, FTC attorneys have been conducting interviews and setting up meetings with Microsoft competitors.

One key area of interest is how the world’s largest software provider packages popular Office products together with cybersecurity and cloud computing services, said one of the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter.

This so-called bundling was the subject of a recent ProPublica investigation, which detailed how, beginning in 2021, Microsoft used the practice to vastly expand its business with the U.S. government while boxing competitors out of lucrative federal contracts.

At the time, many federal employees used a software license that included the Windows operating system and products like Word, Outlook and Excel. In the wake of several devastating cyberattacks, Microsoft offered to upgrade those license bundles for free for a limited time, giving the government access to its more advanced cybersecurity products. The company also provided consultants to install the upgrades.

Vast swaths of the federal bureaucracy accepted, including all of the military services in the Defense Department — and then began paying for those enhanced services when the free trial ended. Former sales leaders involved in the effort likened it to a drug dealer hooking a user with free samples, as they knew federal customers would be effectively locked into the upgrades once they were installed. Microsoft’s offer not only displaced some existing cybersecurity vendors but also took market share from cloud providers like Amazon Web Services, as the government began using products that ran on Azure, Microsoft’s own cloud platform.

Some experts told ProPublica that the company’s tactics might have violated laws regulating contracting and competition, and the news organization reported that even some of Microsoft’s own attorneys had antitrust worries about the deals.

Microsoft has said its offer was “structured to avoid antitrust concerns.” The company’s “sole goal during this period was to support an urgent request by the Administration to enhance the security posture of federal agencies who were continuously being targeted by sophisticated nation-state threat actors,” Steve Faehl, the security leader for Microsoft’s federal business, told ProPublica.

Some of those incursions were the result of Microsoft’s own security lapses. As ProPublica reported in June, Russian state-sponsored hackers in the so-called SolarWinds attack exploited a weakness in a Microsoft product to steal sensitive data from the National Nuclear Security Administration and the National Institutes of Health, among other victims. Years before the attack was discovered, a Microsoft engineer warned product leaders about the flaw, but they refused to address it for fear of alienating the federal government and losing ground to competitors, ProPublica reported.

While the engineer’s proposed fix would have kept customers safe, it also would have created a “speed bump” for users logging on to their devices. Adding such “friction” was unacceptable to the managers of the product group, which at the time was in a fierce rivalry with competitors in the market for so-called identity tools, the news organization reported. These tools, which ensure that users have permission to log on to cloud-based programs, are important to Microsoft’s business strategy because they often lead to demand for the company’s other cloud services.

According to a person familiar with the FTC’s probe, one such identity product, Entra ID, formerly known as Azure Active Directory, is another focus of the agency’s investigation.

Microsoft has defended its decision against addressing the SolarWinds-related flaw, telling ProPublica in June that the company’s assessment included “multiple reviews” at the time and that its response to security issues is based on “potential customer disruption, exploitability, and available mitigations.” It has pledged to put security “above all else.”

The FTC views the fact that Microsoft has won more federal business even as it left the government vulnerable to hacks as an example of the company’s problematic power over the market, a person familiar with the probe told the news organization.

The commission is not alone in that view. “These guys are sort of a version of ‘too big to fail,’” said Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and a longtime critic of Microsoft. “I think it’s time to amp up the antitrust side of the house, dealing with antitrust abuses.”

The FTC’s investigation of Microsoft, which was first reported by the Financial Times and Bloomberg, is far from the company’s first brush with federal regulators over antitrust issues. More than two decades ago, the Department of Justice sued the company in a landmark antitrust case that nearly resulted in its breakup. Federal prosecutors alleged that Microsoft maintained an illegal monopoly in the operating system market through anticompetitive behaviors that prevented rivals from getting a foothold. Ultimately, the Justice Department settled with Microsoft, and a federal judge approved a consent decree that imposed restrictions on how the company could develop and license software.

John Lopatka, a former consultant to the FTC who now teaches antitrust law at Penn State, told ProPublica that the Microsoft actions detailed in the news organization’s recent reporting followed “a very familiar pattern” of behavior.

“It does echo the Microsoft case” from decades ago, said Lopatka, who co-authored a book on that case.

In the new investigation, the FTC has sent Microsoft a civil investigative demand, the agency’s version of a subpoena, compelling the company to turn over information, people familiar with the probe said. Microsoft confirmed that it received the document.

Company spokesperson David Cuddy did not comment on the specifics of the investigation but said the FTC’s demand is “broad, wide ranging, and requests things that are out of the realm of possibility to even be logical.” He declined to provide on-the-record examples. The FTC declined to comment.

The agency’s investigation follows a public comment period in 2023 during which it sought information on the business practices of cloud computing providers. When that concluded, the FTC said it had ongoing interest in whether “certain business practices are inhibiting competition.”

The recent demand to Microsoft represents one of FTC Commissioner Lina Khan’s final moves as chair, and the probe appears to be picking up steam as the Biden administration winds down. The commission’s new leadership, however, will decide the future of the investigation.

President-elect Donald Trump said this month that he will elevate Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, a Republican attorney, to lead the agency. Following the announcement, Ferguson said in a post on X, “At the FTC, we will end Big Tech’s vendetta against competition and free speech. We will make sure that America is the world’s technological leader and the best place for innovators to bring new ideas to life.”

Trump also said he would nominate Republican lawyer Mark Meador as a commissioner, describing him as an “antitrust enforcer” who previously worked at the FTC and the Justice Department. Meador is also a former aide to Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican who introduced legislation to break up Google.

Doris Burke contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Renee Dudley.