risk

WASHINGTON — Mismanagement at a massive Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Texas created unsafe conditions that contributed to detainee deaths and suffering even as millions of wasted tax dollars enriched contractors, according to a federal report released Tuesday.

The Government Accountability Office report documents serious problems at Camp East Montana, a sprawling tent facility at Ft. Bliss in El Paso where three detainees have died in a little more than six months. Evidence in one of those deaths, of a 55-year-old Cuban migrant who died in January after being held down by guards, was “missing or destroyed,” the report found.

ICE rushed to open the camp in August before construction was complete and failed to conduct required oversight to ensure detainees were held in sanitary conditions and receiving adequate medical care, according to the report.

The Department of Homeland Security noted that ICE has replaced the contractor running the facility. “This new contractor will allow Camp East Montana to continue abiding by the highest detention standards with the ability to provide more medical care on-site,” said Homeland Security spokesperson Lauren Bis.

The GAO’s findings echo past reporting by the Associated Press and other news outlets about dangerous conditions at Camp East Montana, which quickly became the nation’s largest immigration detention facility.

But the government report also details previously undisclosed incidents, including a detainee escape in October due to what ICE called the contractor’s oversight failure. In January, a security guard lost a loaded firearm inside the facility that was never recovered.

The contractor failed to administer skin tests to screen detainees for tuberculosis, relying on a questionnaire instead, the report said. The inadequate screening allowed a detainee with tuberculosis to be housed with the general population, which later suffered an outbreak.

GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency in Congress that investigates how federal funds are spent and evaluates whether programs and policies are operating effectively. The office opened its review into Camp East Montana at the request of Democrats in the House and Senate.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois called the report’s findings “damning.”

“We now know even more details of how dangerous and irresponsible the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign truly is,” said Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding that “those detained are experiencing conditions that shock the conscience.”

A rush to build led to an inexperienced contractor

Facing pressure to increase its detention capacity, the Trump administration routed the contract to build Camp East Montana through the Army to speed construction after ICE twice failed to successfully award one. That resulted in the selection of a small, little-known contractor, Acquisition Logistics, for the $1.3-billion deal despite it having no prior experience operating detention facilities and facing what ICE called a “significant learning curve.”

The Army — and later ICE after the camp was transferred to the agency — wasted millions of dollars paying for services it did not need because the contract did not account for fluctuations in the detainee population, the report said.

The Army blew as much as $11.5 million paying for guards, medical services, transportation and meals in the weeks before the camp held detainees. Millions more were wasted because the government was contracted to pay the cost of meals for the camp’s maximum population of 5,000, even when the number of detainees there dropped to around 1,600, the report said.

Facility didn’t initially meet detention standards

The facility did not meet ICE detention standards or the contract’s requirements in several ways when it opened, in part because it had not been inspected as required by ICE policy, the report said. The camp lacked security cameras on the perimeter and had other surveillance blind spots that raised the risk of sexual assaults or escapes.

The camp could not accommodate detainees using wheelchairs and had no showers compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act, resulting in the disabled being held in medical care rooms.

The recreation area wasn’t available for several days, and after one yard was opened, it wasn’t enough space to provide required time for detainees. The law library, space to meet with attorneys and a visitation area did not open for weeks, resulting in detainees being deprived of legal resources and contact with family and friends, the report found.

The problems persisted as ICE began transporting more detainees there from across the country, the GAO found. While built to house up to 5,000 immigrants for short-term stays, its population has averaged about half of that from October until April, according to ICE’s most recent data.

Missing evidence and other problems

Detainees held at the facility didn’t receive comprehensive health assessments, which meant that those with chronic conditions received substandard care, the report said.

The contractor cleaned the dormitories weekly rather than daily as required, resulting in unsanitary conditions. Some guards offered detainees cookies if they would clean their own rooms. Acquisition Logistics didn’t reply to messages seeking comment.

The GAO report says investigations into the January death of Geraldo Lunas Campos were undermined after “evidence associated with the incident was missing or destroyed.” It did not elaborate. Campos died after he was restrained by guards and an outside autopsy report ruled the death a homicide due to asphyxia. The contractor at the facility did not provide use-of-force and death reports to ICE as required, according to the new report.

An investigation by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility into the death is on hold pending a criminal investigation by the FBI.

On Jan. 14, Nicaraguan detainee Victor Manuel Diaz, 36, died of suicide after staff put him in a medical holding room instead of suicide-resistant cell and left him unattended for intervals longer than 15 minutes, the report said. Staff could not see into the room because the contractor had failed to install vision panels that had been requested months earlier, it found.

“These are huge discrepancies in their failure to prevent suicides,” said Diaz family attorney Randall Kallinen, noting that the report strengthens a potential wrongful death claim he’s considering. “They are part of an entire laundry list of problems at Camp East Montana.”

Biesecker and Foley write for the Associated Press. Foley reported from Iowa City, Iowa.

The US defence department has reportedly raised its assessment of the espionage threat posed by Israel to the highest category of “critical”, according to media reports citing American intelligence and defence officials.

The assessment, first published by NBC News on Friday and followed by The New York Times, comes at a time when Washington is pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran, while its ally Israel is opposed to the talks aimed at ending the conflict now 100 days long on Sunday.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have publicly diverged in their approach to the war – Washington wants to extricate itself amid political pressure, while Israel is still pushing to topple the Iranian government.

This is not the first time Israel has been accused of espionage against the US – its closest ally and benefactor – with which it maintains extensive security and intelligence cooperation.

Here is what you need to know:

What did the Pentagon say?

According to NBC News and The New York Times (NYT), citing anonymous current and former US officials, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) arm recently upgraded Israel’s counterintelligence threat level from “high” to “critical”, the most serious designation in its internal assessment system.

The warning was based on Israeli intelligence agencies intensifying efforts to collect information on US military personnel, government officials and policy discussions.

The news reports said the concern was focused on American officials involved in shaping Washington’s approach towards Iran, as the two foes continue to negotiate an end to the war that has sent global energy prices soaring.

“An intensified Israeli effort to learn about US positions in talks with Iran has crossed a line, according to some American officials,” the NYT said.

According to the news outlet, intelligence assessments pointed to increased Israeli surveillance efforts in recent weeks targeting US military and government figures.

They include Trump envoy and key negotiator Steve Witkoff; the Pentagon’s top policy official, Elbridge A Colby; and one of his deputies, Michael P DiMino IV, the NYT reported.

Witkoff was chief negotiator in the nuclear talks before Israel and the US launched the attack on Iran on 28 February.

The reports also referenced incidents in which US defence personnel working in Israel allegedly discovered software on their phones “to tap their communications had been surreptitiously installed on their phones”, the NYT added.

The newspaper said the DIA reports found Israeli spying on the US, which has occurred before, surged from late 2024 onwards, coinciding with US President Joe Biden’s administration stepping up pressure on Israel over its genocide in Gaza.

The reported increase in spying continued after Trump was elected to a second term in November 2024 and began shaping his administration’s policy towards Iran.

Tensions between Trump and Netanyahu have come to the surface in the past week, amid reports the US president called the Israeli prime minister “f****ing crazy”, due to Israel’s escalation in Lebanon. At least 3,500 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Lebanon.

Trump has been pressing Israel to halt its attacks on Lebanon, but the bombardment in the south has continued, undermining a potential deal with Iran which insists both issues are inseparable.

While intelligence gathering between friendly nations is not unusual, some US officials reportedly believe recent Israeli activities have gone beyond what Washington traditionally considers acceptable among allies.

According to officials cited in the reports, US intelligence agencies have become increasingly concerned that Israel is seeking greater insight into US policy discussions and negotiating positions, specifically with Iran.

What has been the response from the Israeli and US governments?

Israel has denied the allegations.

According to NBC, the Israeli embassy in Washington said it was “completely false” that the country spies on US government officials or American institutions.

“Israel does not gather intelligence on American entities, let alone US government officials,” NBC quoted the spokesperson as saying.

A White House official also reportedly dismissed the NBC report, saying the “entire story is false and sourced to someone who doesn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on”.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the media reports and the US and Israeli responses.

Has Israel previously spied on the US?

Yes. Israel has previously been involved in espionage cases targeting the US, although such incidents have not been spoken about much given their close ties.

The most famous example is the Jonathan Pollard affair. The civilian intelligence analyst working for the US Navy was arrested in 1985 after passing large quantities of classified information to Israel. He later pleaded guilty to espionage and served 30 years in prison before being released on parole in 2015.

The Pollard case remains one of the most significant espionage scandals in the history of US-Israeli relations and continues to shape perceptions within parts of the American intelligence community.

However, espionage between close allies is not uncommon, says academic Andreas Kreig.

“Israel has a particularly long track record of conducting intelligence operations inside the United States,” the professor at the Department of Security at King’s College London told Al Jazeera.

“Over decades, Israel has sought to penetrate US policymaking circles through both formal and informal networks, including intelligence and lobbying channels, in order to gain insight into American strategic thinking and decision-making,” he added.

Nevertheless, Washington has for years provided billions in military aid and weapons sales to Israel, including throughout the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

The US Congress is also currently debating a section of a new defence bill, which would integrate the two countries’ research and development for weaponry to an unprecedented degree. The US has also provided diplomatic cover to Israel at the UN and other international bodies.

Why has Israel allegedly ramped up its espionage activities in the US?

According to academic Kreig, Israel is “deeply concerned” about the trajectory of US negotiations with Iran.

“From the Israeli perspective, the recent conflict with Iran was effectively a joint US-Israeli war, yet the United States is now in a position to shape the diplomatic endgame,” he told Al Jazeera.

“The principal Israeli concern is that Washington could agree to a deal that establishes an enduring diplomatic framework, potentially lasting years or even decades, which would constrain Israeli freedom of military manoeuvre against Iran in the future. Israeli policymakers therefore have a strong incentive to stay ahead of US deliberations and understand negotiations in real time.”

Moreover, Kreig said Israeli intelligence gathering also serves a “strategic purpose”, which is to identify “opportunities to influence, derail, or undermine negotiations if Israeli leaders judge the process to be contrary to their security interests”.

“While Israel sees the United States as its indispensable patron and closest strategic partner, it has simultaneously treated the US as a legitimate intelligence target whenever interests diverge,” he added.

“What surprises many observers is the extent to which Israel, despite being heavily dependent on American military, diplomatic and financial support, has developed the capacity to penetrate multiple layers of US policymaking and cultivate influence across key institutions involved in American statecraft.”

According to analyst and Iran expert Negar Mortazavi, Israel’s reported espionage in the current context is not new and has past precedent. Israel’s opposition to US-Iran negotiations goes back to the time of US President Barack Obama when he signed a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, which the US under Trump withdrew from in 2018.

“The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not want any deals or serious negotiations or normalisation between Tehran and Washington, and he tried to stop it publicly and privately in any way he could,” she told Al Jazeera.

Moreover, Mortazavi said the ongoing war on Iran was “not going as planned or as promised”, and that Trump wants “to exit the war and he has to do it through diplomacy”.

“At this point it is very clear that US interests and Israeli interests are no longer overlapping, they’re divergent,” she added.

A BBC expert has warned more than 270,000 people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

More than 270,000 people across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have received letters through the post, according to a BBC expert – and those who ignore them could find themselves facing court action. Viewers of BBC Morning Live were recently warned about the thousands of letters connected to county court judgements that have been dispatched over the past 12 months.

Expert Laura Pomfret explained to viewers that a County Court Judgement (CCJ) is essentially a court order issued in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland when someone fails to repay a debt and the creditor pursues enforcement action. She noted it could come from a council, company, landlord or a private individual – and if left unpaid, it can appear on the person’s credit report.

She said: “I think that’s what a lot of people resonate with that they’ve heard of CCJs can be bad for your credit. They stay on your credit report for six years. It can impact you getting a mortgage, even getting um a rental property. Sometimes credit checks are done, even when getting a mobile phone contract.

“It’s definitely something to avoid if someone can avoid it, and worryingly, in the first quarter of this year, over 270,000 new CCJs were registered, and that’s 17.5% up on last year. So this is obviously showing that people are struggling and in the energy industry is something that you know it’s it’s getting bigger and bigger.” She explained that these are frequently issued to those falling behind on energy bills — with the latest Ofgem figures revealing debt standing at £4.5 billion — while Energy UK puts the figure even higher at £5.5 billion.

She added: “That’s like such a big bill that lots of people are pay and people pay every month clearly struggling with it. And interestingly as well, credit card transactions in February were up 6% versus last February whereas debit transactions were only up 1%. And that also shows, you know, that people are having to rely on credit for even the most basic of bills.”

Ms Pomfret noted that receiving a CCJ typically follows a series of threatening letters, meaning the householder will already be feeling anxious. She said: “Firstly, it is upsetting to receive a formal document like that. If you get that through the post, it’s got a court seal on it it’s very formal. It might have followed you, you know, debt demand letters with red writing all over, which is overwhelming.”

“Firstly don’t be overwhelmed is easy to say but don’t be alarmed like it’s just a formal process it’s essentially a document asking you asking you for money and so it if it comes through the post you it will tell you what you owe it’ll tell you how to pay it and it will also tell you the deadline by which to pay so you have a few options when you receive a CCJ.” She explained that the first option was to repay the debt – and if someone does so within a month, it could be removed from their credit file. She said: “After that, it stays on your report, but it says that you paid it. So, please make sure you prioritise paying it.”

It’s also possible to vary the terms of a CCJ, she noted, which involves approaching the court to attempt to alter the conditions of the judgement. “Another thing that you may be able to do is apply for what’s called breathing space. So this is formerly called in England and Wales the debt respite scheme. “What this does is it gives you space from creditors, including the CCJ, and maybe gives you time to make a plan to pay it back or speak to a debt advisor, which is super helpful. The last thing that you may be able to do is you may actually be able to get the judgment or CCJ set aside. or recalled if you believed um that it’s an error.””

She stressed that there would need to be a legitimate reason to apply for it to be set aside, including submitting evidence, primarily that the individual doesn’t owe the money or that it’s a mistake. She added: “Another reason is that you didn’t receive the original claim form. So before a CCJ is issued or a decree is issued, you will get a claim form put forward and there’s an opportunity to respond.

“So you could have, for example, the wrong address, it could have been sent somewhere else. You may not have received it. Now, the court’s not going to take kindly to just saying, ‘I didn’t receive it.’ It’s kind of like the dog ate my homework sometimes for some people, but you may genuinely not have done. So that could be an option. Ultimately, you’re going to need evidence, you’re going to have to fill in the correct forms. You may have to pay fees to get it set aside, but you know, in the long run, it may be worth doing tha if you don’t want it to damage your credit.”

To find the steps and court forms involved in asking a court to vary the terms of a CCJ or decree, such as requesting to pay in instalments, or even how to get a judgment cancelled, you can click on the links below.

For England, Wales and Northern Ireland you can click here.

For Scotland you can click here., external

There temporary protection from your creditors while you get debt advice and make a plan.

In England and Wales this is called Breathing Space, and you can find information on that by clicking here., external

In Scotland this is called a moratorium, and you can find more information on that here.

A few hours after Lionel Messi and the Argentine World Cup team checked into their training base in Kansas City, a series of thunderstorms pounded the area, knocking out power, felling trees and bringing flood and tornado warnings.

Hardly ideal conditions for the world’s biggest soccer tournament. Yet that’s likely just the opening salvo of a disruptive weather system that could affect the 38-day competition, which kicks off next week with games in Mexico, Canada and the U.S.

“It’s pretty safe to say climate change is going to have a mark on this World Cup,” said Kaitlyn Trudeau, a senior research associate of climate science for Sacramento-based Climate Central. “With climate change we know it’s not just going to be hotter, but it’s also going to increase the humidity as well.”

And that could make this summer’s World Cup one of the last of its kind. Tournament soccer in June and July has been a tradition dating to the first World Cup in 1930, but since then global temperatures in June have warmed by 1.89 degrees, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That may not sound like a lot, but it takes many days and nights of extreme heat to move the needle that much.

“It can be a very dangerous situation,” Trudeau said.

As a result, FIFA President Gianni Infantino has already begun discussions on moving the start of the tournament from June to March or October after 2030. In the meantime, early kickoffs, cooling breaks, air-conditioned stadiums and regular weather-related delays will necessarily become common features of the tournament, according to “Pitches in Peril,” a detailed report on the impact of climate change on global soccer, released in the run-up to the World Cup.

“Football’s all of a sudden starting to reckon with the new climate realities,” said Elliot Arthur-Worsop, founding director of Football For Future, a pioneering U.K. nonprofit and co-publisher of “Pitches in Peril.”

“Extreme weather events are becoming more unpredictable,” he said. “The players, the spectators and the officials, they’re all at risk here, especially when it comes to extreme heat. How can we future-proof the game?

“Adaptation looks like moving the entire tournament to another time of year to deal with the extreme weather. Short term it could be moving the kickoff times, it could be introducing more drink breaks, having more heat protocols and safety regulations.”

Some climatologists fear summer events like the World Cup and Olympic Games are just one heatwave away from a major weather-related tragedy. In fact, Arthur-Worsop said his group’s study found that this men’s World Cup, the first held in North America in 32 years, will likely be the last played here.

“By the time the cycle of awarding the hosting rights would possibly come back, our climate projections show that the tournament in its current form would be unplayable due to extreme weather events,” he said. “Not only heat, but other compounding threats such as extreme wind and flooding and wildfires.”

Trudeau worries that whatever adaptations are eventually adopted won’t keep pace with a rapidly warming planet.

“We are basically pushing ourselves to a limit,” she said. “I’m not saying we’re going to absolutely lose the World Cup. But we are making it so much harder to find time to safely enjoy these kinds of events.

“This is not a safe environment and we should not be putting people’s lives at risk just to watch a game.”

FIFA did move the 2022 World Cup, pushing the start of the tournament in Qatar from June to November. Even then the games had to be played in air-conditioned stadiums, though. Three of the 16 venues to be used this summer — in Atlanta, Houston and Arlington, Texas — are domed and climate-controlled.

But the next World Cup, to be held in 2030, will be played mostly in Spain, Portugal and Morocco, where June and July temperatures frequently top 95 degrees. And just one of the likely venues is climate-controlled.

As for this summer’s tournament, a 2025 study published in the International Journal of Biometeorology found that conditions in 14 of the 16 World Cup host cities are likely to exceed the extreme Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) threshold, an advanced index used to measure how the human body experiences heat stress.

A weather delay interrupts a Club World Cup match between Auckland City FC and Boca Juniors in Nashville in June 2025.

(Alex Grimm / Getty Images)

But you don’t have to do complicated math to know it’s hot because there’s also the “feels like” index, which registers how your body feels the heat. That can be vastly different from the reading on a thermometer. In Miami, for example, where seven World Cup games will be played, humidity will make an air temperature of 90 degrees “feel like” 109 degrees.

Under those conditions, it becomes more difficult for the body to cool itself.

“We talk about temperatures all the time, but that is only one part of the equation. It’s not including the amount of heat that you might feel from humidity,” Trudeau said. “It’s so important because once it gets too humid, then our body’s main cooling mechanism, sweating, is no longer possible.

“These are the kinds of situations where you have to be really careful. Not just players, but also people who maybe work at the stadiums, people who are watching the matches. It can be a very dangerous situation.”

Playing games in the cooler evening hours could alleviate that but FIFA, in a nod to TV viewers in Europe, scheduled 40 of the tournament’s 104 games, including the majority of games in the knockout rounds, to kick off at 3 p.m. or earlier local time. And though mandatory three-minute hydration breaks midway through each half have been added, Trudeau questions their impact.

“That’s kind of silly to be like, ‘Oh, we’re going to give an extra water break. But we’re going to be doing it at the hottest time of the day,’” she said. “It kind of sends mixed messages, right? What is the main priority of FIFA here? Is it to get the most views and the most revenue and the most whatever? Or is it to actually protect these players?

“We should not be having these in the hottest parts of the world at the hottest times of day,” she continued. “It’s just common sense.”

Chelsea’s Benoit Badiashile puts water on his face before a Club World Cup match against Esperance de Tunis in Philadelphia in June 2025.

(Francois Nel / Getty Images)

FIFA defended the schedule, saying in a statement that climate-related risks are assessed as part of overall tournament planning and managed in close coordination with the host cities, stadium authorities and national agencies.

“Building on experience from recent tournaments, a tiered heat-mitigation model will apply,” the statement continued. “When forecasts indicate elevated temperatures, venues will activate additional cooling capacity, including shaded areas, misting systems, cooling buses and expanded water distribution. Work-rest cycles for staff and volunteers are adapted accordingly, and first-aid readiness is reinforced with clear triage and escalation pathways for suspected heat illness. These measures scale dynamically based on real-time conditions before and during each event.”

Last summer’s FIFA Club World Cup, a 63-game tournament played in the U.S. as a kind of dress rehearsal for this year’s event, gives an indication of the problems ahead. That tournament was plagued not just by high heat and humidity, but also by thunderstorms and lightning that paused or delayed a half-dozen matches in Orlando, Fla.; Nashville; Cincinnati; Charlotte, N.C.; and East Rutherford, N.J.

“The heat is incredible,” said Argentine midfielder Enzo Fernandez, who played in last summer’s tournament with Chelsea. “I got a bit dizzy during a play. I had to lie down on the ground because I was really dizzy.

“Playing in this temperature is very dangerous.”

But if health risks are the primary concern of summer sporting events on a warming planet, they aren’t the only ones. The weather also affects the quality of play, said Norwegian defender Julian Ryerson, who played for Borussia Dortmund in last summer’s club tournament.

“Football is different when you play in this humidity and heat,” he said. “It is really tough. You take some precautions. That’s the only way to go about it.”

As the planet continues to bake, there are also increasingly fewer ways of going about staging a World Cup. You can play it nontraditional times and in nontraditional places. You can play it indoors in air-conditioned stadiums.

Or you can not play it at all.

“We’re running out of options,” Trudeau said. “We have to understand that unless we are going to address human-caused climate change, you’re going to start losing these things that are culturally important to us or economically important.

“We cannot keep doing these things at the rate we’re doing them and the times that we’re doing them in the ways that we’re doing them while we also continue to warm the planet.”

Anthropic is proposing that the world’s top artificial intelligence companies come up with a coordinated way to pause development of advanced AI systems, warning that the technology is improving so quickly that there’s a risk humans would lose control.

The company behind the Claude chatbot said in a blog post on Thursday that, as cutting-edge AI gets increasingly faster at carrying out tasks, “it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause” its development.

Anthropic said its internal research institute plans to explore the issue in collaboration with others and “take actions” to help build the systems for a credible slowdown or pause, without being more specific.

Anthropic rival OpenAI argued for a different approach in a report published on Wednesday, saying that “democratic governments — not private companies acting alone — must ultimately determine the rules, safeguards, and accountability mechanisms”.

“Our view is that decisions about the pace of AI innovation should not be left to any one lab, company, or special interest group,” it said.

AI models are getting faster, with rapid increases in how quickly they can carry out software tasks like coding on their own, Anthropic said in its post. Based on current trends and given enough computing power, an AI system could be able to design and develop its own successor, in what is known as “recursive self-improvement”.

Self-building AI would be a major technological milestone that would bring benefits in science, healthcare and other areas, Anthropic said, but it “also might increase the risks of humans losing control over AI systems”.

Some tech industry figures have long warned of such a scenario.

Anthropic’s post comes after a different warning this week from a team of researchers at the University of Toronto who showed how AI tools could be used to create a new kind of AI “worm” that adapts its hacking strategy as it spreads from device to device and takes over a vast computing network.

“I think it’s really important that people understand that it’s not just the biggest, most powerful language models that pose the security concerns,” lead researcher Nicolas Papernot said in an interview.

The authors of the Anthropic post, company cofounder Jack Clark and Marina Favaro, head of its research institute, said the pause would be used to enable “societal structures and alignment research” to keep up with AI advances. Alignment is industry shorthand for making sure the technology matches human values and intentions.

The proposed coordination would let advanced AI labs verify that global rivals have actually stopped or slowed their work, “and that a bad actor could not use the auspices of a coordinated slowdown to jump ahead in secret”.

The company said a coordinated global mechanism is needed because, without it, a slowdown in AI development could let the “least cautious” players catch up and add to pressure on companies and governments as they make tough choices about AI safety.

Fears that advanced AI systems may get out of human control and cause societal harm have risen as the technology becomes increasingly capable. Anthropic’s own Mythos model sent shockwaves through industries, including banking and software, earlier this year with its ability to find vulnerabilities in existing code.

But regulation has been slow, especially in the US, where most leading AI labs are based. A Trump administration executive order earlier this week put the onus on the labs themselves, asking them to voluntarily submit their most capable models for government cybersecurity testing before public release.

Safety focus

AI researchers have also urged a pause before, but have had little success. Elon Musk, who owns AI lab xAI, was among the backers of a 2023 push by the non-profit Future of Life Institute to halt AI development for six months to allow time for safety guardrails.

Anthropic has long positioned itself as a safety-focused AI lab. Earlier this year, it refused to let the US military use its models for domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, prompting backlash from the government, which put it on a national security blacklist, set to take effect later in 2026.

Anthropic’s post comes as the company and ChatGPT-maker OpenAI race to sell shares on the stock market, in an IPO that could value Anthropic at nearly a trillion dollars.

Papernot notified Canadian cybersecurity authorities prior to releasing his report, which shows how researchers developed the worm in a laboratory by using an “open-source” AI tool that is easy for software developers to cheaply access and modify.

“In the past, cyber attackers would focus on targets that are very high value,” he said. “Banking systems, hospitals, electricity grids, water treatment systems, schools.”

Papernot agreed that there should be more collaboration between companies, government agencies and academic researchers to develop countermeasures as AI-powered hacking tools supercharge the search for computer vulnerabilities.

“That old laptop you have in your basement that you don’t check on regularly doesn’t seem like a very high-value target, but it can be used as a launch pad to attack these higher-value targets,” he said. “Anything connected to the internet is now at risk because of how low the cost has become to mount these cyberattacks.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte, his pick for acting director of national intelligence, would not be his “permanent” choice for the critical security post.

The Republican president’s disclosure that he was ruling out installing Pulte in the position full time came after bipartisan pushback on Capitol Hill in recent days over Pulte’s lack of national security experience. The position requires Senate confirmation, something that lawmakers indicated was unlikely if Pulte were the nominee.

“He’s not going to be permanent because, you know, I don’t think he’d want to be permanent,” Trump said while taking questions in the Oval Office after an event on coal. He called Pulte a “very smart guy” and said he may look at past elections that Trump claims, without credible evidence, were “rigged” against him.

Trump said other candidates were under consideration for nomination to the post. “We’re interviewing people right now,” he said.

Pulte, a grandson of the founder of PulteGroup, has been a source of controversy within the administration for his work as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and his oversight of the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pulte has used his position to pursue Trump’s perceived political rivals for alleged mortgage fraud and has verbally attacked Jerome H. Powell, whose term as the Federal Reserve chairman recently ended after months of Trump and Pulte attacking him for not slashing the central bank’s benchmark rates. The federal housing finance regulator has also pitched a 50-year mortgage, an idea that backfired as it meant that the process of building wealth through homeownership would be slowed.

Both Republican and Democratic senators expressed concerns about Pulte and his lack of national security credentials in occupying a role coordinating 18 federal agencies involved in domestic and foreign security issues. Trump’s initial director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, resigned last month, citing her husband’s recent cancer diagnosis.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said the national intelligence director job shouldn’t be “weaponized” and should be led by “professionals.”

Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas, who are each leaving the chamber after this year’s elections, also expressed concerns about Pulte.

Democratic senators view Pulte as a risk even if he is serving only temporarily as the director of national intelligence while keeping his position at the FHFA.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent Trump a letter on Thursday calling on him to rescind Pulte’s national security appointment.

“Americans cannot trust him to protect our nation and refrain from misusing the sensitive information he will have access to,” Warren wrote, saying that giving Pulte the job on an acting basis was a risk because Trump’s own words suggested the federal agency could be used “to promote election denial theories.”

At a hearing on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed reports that he had threatened to fight Pulte in September, a sign of the friction that the federal housing finance director had generated inside the administration.

But as a frequent traveler on Air Force One, Pulte has a close relationship with Trump.

“He’s a person who’s got high integrity,” Trump said Thursday about Pulte.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

With California facing increasingly destructive wildfires, experts and officials have long urged the strategic removal of dense, flammable vegetation that can erupt into particularly destructive flames from a lightning bolt or the spark of a power line.

But after years of record investment by the state in such wildfire risk mitigation, two key money sources are drying up, potentially reducing the state’s annual budget for vegetation removal by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wildfire resiliency advocates are warning that the loss of these funds will leave the state vulnerable to devastation, and are calling on California’s next governor to take that threat seriously.

Currently, California relies heavily on two funding sources for wildfire mitigation work: A state program that charges polluters for their emissions and a climate bond approved by voters in 2024.

Late Friday, however, state officials adopted a new structure for the emissions program, called cap-and-invest, that analysts say will likely reduce wildfire mitigation funding by $200 million per year. At the same time, the governor’s latest budget proposal puts the state on track to allocate the majority of the climate bond’s $1.5 billion in wildfire prevention money within just three years.

As a result, California could go from routinely pulling more than $600 million a year from these sources, to just $150 million, according to an estimate from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition — a group of more than 80 organizations representing conservationists, business owners, fire officials and tribal leaders.

The coalition is urging the state to find new sources of funding for the work.

“We have the scientists, we have the technicians, we have the advocates,” said Michelle Decker, who is on the coalition’s executive committee and serves as president and CEO of the Inland Empire Community Foundation. “We see this problem. We can get ahead of this problem. It is a revenue issue.”

California wildfires have become increasingly costly. The 2025 L.A. fires alone caused an estimated $250 billion in damage and economic loss. Insurance companies have already paid out $22.4 billion.

In attempt to reduce the risk of damage to communities and ecosystems, the state has employed a wide range of tactics. These includes fortifying homes against wildfires, replanting fire-ravaged forests and thinning out vegetation with prescribed burns, goat grazing and manual thinning with heavy machinery to reduce the intensity of potential fires.

Research suggests wildfire mitigation work pays off. A recent analysis of 285 fires in the western U.S. found that every dollar spent on landscape projects saved about $3.75 in wildfire damage.

But as funding from cap-and-invest and the climate bond dwindle, the state must increasingly turn to Cal Fire, which devotes only a small portion of its budget to mitigation work.

“This is not an issue that can be pushed off to a timeline based solely on politics,” said Steve Frisch, a founding member of the coalition and president of the Sierra Business Council. “Fire happens whether we want it to or not.”

After a series of destructive wildfires in Northern California and the 2017 Thomas fire in Southern California, the state legislature began to explicitly focus on funding wildfire mitigation.

In 2018, lawmakers directed $200 million per year of cap-and-invest funds to wildfire mitigation projects.

As the Woolsey fire in Southern California and the Camp fire in Paradise raged later that fall, Trump accused the state of “gross mismanagement” of forest lands and threatened to cut off federal funds unless it was corrected.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the legislature, with a significant budget surplus, began earmarking even more funds, leading to a peak of $1.1 billion in wildfire mitigation investments during the 2021-2022 fiscal year.

After the surplus dwindled, the legislature opted in 2024 to put a $10-billion climate bond in front of voters — $1.5 billion of which was dedicated specifically for wildfire mitigation work.

Newsom has since pointed to this high state funding to call on the federal government to step up its own investments into forest management work.

The federal government manages 57% of all forests in the state. While the U.S. Forest Service spent $3.1 billion mitigating wildfire conditions in the state over the last few years, California spent $4.3 billion, according to the California Forest Resilience and Wildfire Task Force.

However, the state has already allocated about $600 million of the climate bond’s wildfire mitigation pot for the 2024-2025 and current fiscal years. The latest budget proposal would allocate more than $300 million for this upcoming fiscal year. While many advocates support allocating the money quickly, it leaves little for future years.

Once that money is spent, California has to pay off the $10 billion bond with interest. The result is an estimated price tag of $16 billion, paid in roughly $400 million increments every year, for 40 years, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

As for the cap-and-invest funds, a fraught months-long debate at the California Air Resources Board on how to extend the program beyond 2030 resulted in a compromise that will cut the revenue it generates in half, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates.

Since other projects get priority — including $1 billion every year for California’s high-speed rail project — the new proposal would “likely leave no funding” for the wildfire and forest resilience line item, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found.

Cal Fire still holds a modest annual budget for wildfire mitigation work. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the agency had $500 million for forest management and fire prevention that was not directly tied to cap-and-invest or the bond — up from about $65 million two decades prior.

As for the federal government, independent analyses by Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and NPR found that Forest Service wildfire mitigation work is on the decline amid federal staffing cuts. The Forest Service claims the decrease in work was primarily due to poor weather conditions for activities like prescribed burns and staff being occupied with firefighting.

Both the state and federal government’s investments pale in comparison to the spending of California’s investor-owned utilities. In 2025 alone, the utilities planned to spend more than $9.2 billion on preventing their equipment from sparking the next devastating wildfire, primarily funded by Californians’ electricity bills.

Times staff writer Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

P&O Cruises passengers are urged to check the rules for their destination before packing certain medications

P&O Cruises passengers heading to specific destinations worldwide are being advised to pay special attention to the medications they bring. The cruise operator is a favoured option for countless Britons, carrying between 500,000 and 600,000 travellers annually.

P&O Cruises operates a fleet of seven vessels. This collection features both family-oriented choices and adult-only ships, spanning from massive floating resorts to more intimate, traditional boats. All the ships go to numerous nations, including Norway, the Caribbean, and the Canary Islands.

For those with bookings to Japan or voyages exploring the Arabian Gulf, it’s essential to verify what medications are permitted. These nations enforce stringent regulations, and particular medicines are prohibited for personal import and non-prescription use.

This includes codeine, which is frequently found in paracetamol tablets. On the P&O Cruises website, the operator outlines all the crucial information passengers require, reports the Liverpool Echo.

It states: “Please be aware that some prescriptions, over-the-counter drugs, complementary therapies and other medicines that are purchased in the UK may be illegal in the United Arab Emirates and are therefore banned in the country. Japan also has rules regarding such medication. Penalties can be severe if banned substances are found when entering these countries.”

It states: “Codeine, for example, is banned and no products containing codeine, which may include paracetamol, may be imported or sold in the United Arab Emirates. An import Certificate from the Japanese or UAE Authorities would be required in order to take such products into the countries, and this does not guarantee the products will be permitted.”

According to the NHS, codeine is a potent opioid painkiller and is often combined with paracetamol to treat moderate pain that standard paracetamol alone cannot alleviate. This combination is typically known as co-codamol.

Codeine is categorised as a narcotic. You’re prohibited from bringing it into Japan for personal use without obtaining strict prior authorisation. Codeine is also designated as a controlled substance in the UAE.

If you’re taking medication and have any uncertainty, contact the appropriate embassy before your arrival:

• United Arab Emirates London Embassy Medical Department: 020 7486 6281
• Japanese Embassy: 0207 465 6500
• You may also check for further information at www.fco.gov.uk.

P&O Cruises also advises that anyone travelling with medications and/or syringes should carry a prescription. It clarifies: “All medications should be kept in their labelled dispensing bottles or packages. If the medications are ‘controlled’ or injectable drugs, it is also advisable to carry a doctor’s letter.

“For the United Arab Emirates, it is essential to carry a prescription for any medication, as well as a medical report if you are travelling with syringes or other medical equipment. We strongly advise you to seek advice if any of the above affects you.”

People visiting these islands could be at risk of high UV levels

People have been urged to take certain precautions as the ultraviolet radiation risk at a popular holiday destination area has been raised to “extreme”. Health officials in the Canary Islands have elevated the UV risk across several of the islands.

According to the Canary Islands Health Department, UV radiation levels are presently classified as “very high” across all islands. And Fuerteventura, Lanzarote and Gran Canaria have reached the highest “extreme” warning category.

Prolonged exposure to ultraviolet radiation can lead to serious health complications, including DNA damage, severe sunburn, allergic skin reactions, eye conditions and a heightened risk of skin cancer, including melanoma. Health experts also caution that UV exposure can suppress the immune system and even trigger the reactivation of viruses such as cold sores.

The alert particularly impacts those who spend lengthy periods outdoors, whether for work or leisure, as well as individuals with fair skin, light eyes or a family history of skin cancer. Children and older adults are also regarded as especially at risk.

As reported by Canarian Weekly on May 21, health authorities are strongly advising people to avoid direct sunlight between 11am and 5pm wherever possible, seek out shaded areas and wear protective clothing, wide-brimmed hats and approved sunglasses with UVA and UVB protection. The application of SPF 50 sunscreen is highly recommended, even on overcast days.

Authorities also issued a reminder to parents that babies under one year old should never be exposed directly to sunlight, as their skin is particularly sensitive and incompatible with most sun creams. The Canary Islands consistently record some of the highest UV radiation levels across Spain throughout the year, owing to their geographical position and climate.

How to apply sunscreen

The NHS warns that most people do not apply enough sunscreen. As a guide, adults should aim to apply around six to eight teaspoons of sunscreen if you’re covering your entire body.

READ MORE: Drivers in England urged to put ‘light coloured’ towel in their car from FridayREAD MORE: 5 UK areas issued with amber heat health alerts as heatwave warning upgraded

If sunscreen is applied “too thinly”, the amount of protection it gives is reduced. If you plan to be out in the sun long enough to risk burning, sunscreen needs to be applied twice:

• 30 minutes before going out
• Just before going out

Sunscreen should be applied to all exposed skin, including the face, neck and ears, and head if you have thinning or no hair, but a wide-brimmed hat is better. Sunscreen needs to be reapplied liberally and frequently, and according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

This includes applying it straight after you have been in water, even if it’s “water resistant”, and after towel drying, sweating or when it may have rubbed off. It’s also recommended to reapply sunscreen every two hours, as the sun can dry it off your skin.

Further to this, the NHS recommends you should do the following to stay safe in the sun:

• Spend time in the shade between 11am and 3pm
• Never burn
• Cover up with suitable clothing and sunglasses
• Take extra care with children
• Keep babies under six months out of direct sunlight
• Use at least factor 30 sunscreen – make sure to use enough and re-apply frequently

It comes as a passenger claims they were ‘turned away’ on board

P&O Cruises is reminding passengers about a particular item of clothing that is ‘not allowed’ on board under specific circumstances. The cruise line issued the guidance in a recent social media post after a passenger claimed they were ‘turned away’.

On X, a user called Duncan wrote: “@Pandocruises describe ‘formal’. Turned away from one restaurant the other day wearing formal shorts, smart tailored shirt. Dye it showing sine ‘leg’. However, seen plenty of women wearing skirts much shorter than my shorts been welcomed in!”

P&O Cruises responded: “Hi Duncan, smart shorts are not permitted in certain restaurants on board. A suit with jacket and tie is required on formal nights in the main restaurant and other venues.”

On P&O Cruises’ website, there is extensive information regarding the cruise line’s dress code policy, reports the Liverpool Echo. It states: “While we encourage you to relax and enjoy your holiday, we do ask that you adhere to a smart casual dress code in our public areas and restaurants.”

In a key notice to passengers, P&O Cruises confirms that tailored shorts cannot be worn on Black Tie or Celebration Nights, with the exception of the buffet. It adds: “On evening casual nights tailored shorts can be wore in the buffet, The Beach House, and The Glass House, as well as 6th Street Diner, The Olive Grove and The Keel and Cow on Arvia and Iona.” Further guidance states: “Denim, including dark denim, isn’t allowed on Black Tie and Celebration Nights, except in venues with an Evening Casual dress code.”

For daytime wear, P&O Cruises states: “Feel free to wear your favourite holiday attire, such as shorts, T-shirts, and sundresses, or your typical winter clothing on one of our colder holidays. However, please remember to wear shoes when you’re not by the pool. We also ask that there is no pool wear in the ship’s lounges, inside bars, restaurants or reception.”

Regarding evening attire, the cruise operator noted: “Our dress code varies depending on the night. You can find details of each evening’s dress code in your daily Horizon found in your cabin, or on My P&O Cruises under the ‘Your Itinerary’ section before you sail.”

P&O Cruises operates two principal dress codes: ‘Evening Casual’ and ‘Black Tie’. Evening Casual calls for ‘smart casual attire’, encompassing trousers, smart dark denim, polo shirts, dresses, and skirts.

The Black Tie dress code is reserved for more formal occasions, where passengers are encouraged to “dress to impress”. The cruise line elaborates: “Gentlemen, a dinner jacket or tuxedo is ideal, but a dark suit and tie is also acceptable. Ladies, feel free to wear your favourite evening gown or cocktail dress.”

Passengers are also encouraged to adhere to the dress code for celebration nights, which P&O Cruises describes as special evenings on board where guests can enjoy a more formal dining experience and entertainment. “These events involve a higher level of dress code (black tie) and a more elaborate menu. It’s a chance to dress up, savour delicious food, and enjoy the ambience of a special occasion”, it says.

During celebration nights, most venues will operate a dress code, though some will permit a more relaxed attire for those who prefer it. Passengers can discover which venues are exempt from dress codes in their daily Horizon.

When visiting destinations on excursions, P&O Cruises advises comfortable walking shoes and clothing suited to the climate and culture of the places being visited. “Some cultures have specific dress codes, particularly for places of worship. Please respect local customs and dress modestly when visiting religious sites,” it adds.

For religious passengers, the cruise line confirms that customers are welcome to wear national or religious dress on board. “If you wear a headdress, depending on the amount of your face it covers, you may be asked to unveil for a security photo at check-in and when passing through security check points ashore and on board during your holiday”, it says.

However, certain items of national dress, such as ceremonial blades and swords, including Skean Dhus and Kirpans, are not allowed on board. Passengers can consult the list of prohibited items for further details.

P&O Cruises states that fancy dress, novelty clothing or outfits featuring any inappropriate or offensive language or imagery are banned on board. “We reserve the right to deny embarkation to guests who are inappropriately dressed”, the cruise line states. For further details regarding dress codes, click here.

For passengers who already know which ship they will be sailing on, the dress code for each dining venue on board can be found on the ship page by clicking ‘Dining’. View P&O Cruises ships here.

Picking the wildest fantasy promoted by President Trump as a basis for public policy is increasingly challenging — is it his yarn about schoolchildren being secretly abducted from their classrooms and given sex-changing operations? The notion that the vaccines given to children are like “a vat, like a big glass, of stuff pumped into their bodies?”

Here’s one that has disrupted the economics of renewable energy generation and will cost Americans billions of dollars: It’s Trump’s “completely weird war on wind power in the United States,” based on a sheaf of “fact-free arguments.”

That judgment comes from Steven Cohen, a climate policy expert at Columbia University, who points out that wind already accounts for 10.5% of U.S. energy generation, that it’s destined to continue growing — and that most of it is generated today in red states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Kansas.

There is no question that Trump’s weird war against wind is full blown. On the day of his second inauguration, he issued an executive order shutting down all new permits for offshore wind farms and ordered the Interior Department to review existing permits.

A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the executive order in December, and his orders suspending work on existing offshore wind projects have been halted by other federal judges. The Trump administration has blocked or delayed as many as 165 wind projects on private land, citing “national security” concerns, according to the American Clean Power Assn.

Most recently, Trump has reached agreements with offshore wind firms in which the government will pay them a combined $2 billion to abandon their U.S. projects.

At some level, this crusade resembles Trump’s misguided effort to revive the American coal industry, which is on the glide path to inevitable extinction. In that case, Trump is waging an explicitly partisan and ideological battle. “We’re ending Joe Biden’s war on beautiful, clean coal,” he declared last April.

Trump’s anti-wind program is part of his campaign to dismantle U.S. renewables policy because of its roots in the Biden administration.

Additionally, multiple commentators conjecture that his hostility to wind originated in 2011, when he groused that an offshore wind farm would be visible from one of his golf courses in Scotland. He sued to thwart the “ugly” project, and lost.

But Trump has mustered other arguments against wind, on- and offshore, none of which holds water.

During a cabinet meeting in July 2025, he called wind “a very expensive form of energy.” In fact, on average it’s cheaper than natural gas, coal and nuclear generation. Perhaps more important, the cost has been coming down sharply as technology improves and the sector reaches critical mass: falling to eight cents from 21 cents per kilowatt-hour from 2010 to 2024 for offshore projects, and to 3.4 cents from 11.3 cents for land-based wind farms over the same period.

Trump blamed wind turbines for mass killing whales and birds. Neither assertion is correct.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency, says “there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.”

The Audubon Society reported in January that although wind turbines can present hazards to birds, “developers can effectively manage these risks without significantly increasing project costs.” The biggest risks to birds come from the climate: “Two-thirds of North American birds are at increasing risk of extinction from global temperature rise,” the society reported — a threat that wind power can ameliorate.

Trump spokeswoman Taylor Rogers didn’t respond to my questions about the derivation of his anti-wind stance, but told me by email only that “President Trump has been clear: hard-earned taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be wasted on unreliable and costly wind farms that pose serious threats to our national security. Instead, we should be strengthening and expanding our infrastructure that produces reliable, affordable, and secure energy like natural gas plants.”

That brings us to the recent deals with offshore wind developers. The largest single deal, signed in March, was with the French firm TotalEnergies, which is to receive approximately $1 billion from the federal government to abandon all of its U.S. offshore wind projects and invest instead in oil and gas projects, including a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas.

In his March 23 announcement of the deal, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called offshore wind “one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive, and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers.”

This is what Huck Finn would call a “stretcher,” given the decades of subsidies spooned out to the oil and gas industry, reaching more than $30 billion a year in federal and state tax credits, indulgent regulation of pollution and low-cost access to federal lands. Indeed, the investment firm Lazard recently reported that renewables, including wind, are a cost-competitive form of generation even without subsidies. (Lazard’s calculation is of the “levelized cost of energy,” meaning the average cost over a generating plant’s lifetime.)

TotalEnergies fell into lockstep with the Interior Department in its own announcement, explaining its willingness to renounce U.S. offshore wind power because “offshore wind developments in the United States, unlike those in Europe, are costly,” echoing the agency’s position that “the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest.” Never mind that one factor that makes U.S. offshore wind development costly compared with Europe is the Trump administration’s opposition.

The government subsequently reached an agreement to pay the French company Ocean Winds $885 million to walk away from two offshore wind projects, including one in the waters off California. Ocean Winds described the deal as one driven chiefly by economics, but hinted at pressure from the White House.

“We welcome the opportunity to engage constructively with the administration on this agreement and acknowledge the clarity they have provided with this decision and deal,” Michael Brown, the chief executive of Ocean Winds North America, said when the deal was announced last month. “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners, and shareholders.”

The TotalEnergies deal, which the government has described as a “refund” of money the firm paid for its offshore leades, raised the hackles of congressional Democrats, who assert that it violates the law and constitution in multiple ways.

“We will hold you accountable for this billion-dollar ripoff,” Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, warned TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné in an April 29 letter.

Among other infirmities Raskin and Huffman alleged, the government’s national security rationale for canceling offshore wind leases looks “fabricated”; the payout violates the statutory formula for compensation for canceled leases; the money is to come from a fund designed only to pay court-ordered judgments and settlements of lawsuits, which don’t exist in this case; and includes a provision preventing the deal from being reviewed by a court.

The last of those provisions would have to be authorized by Congress, the letter states, asking for documents and a response from the company by Wednesday. Committee spokespersons weren’t available to say whether they received a response from TotalEnergies, and the company didn’t respond to my request for comment. I received no response from the Department of the Interior.

The California Energy Commission has opened an investigation into the Ocean Winds deal.

“The Trump Administration is recklessly spending billions of taxpayer dollars on backroom deals that would turn back the clock on innovation” CEC Chair David Hochschild said. “Taxpayer dollars should be used to build a sustainable energy future, not to pay to make projects disappear.”

What’s especially wasteful about Trump’s crusade against wind power is that it’s almost certain to be time-limited.

It’s hardly debatable that renewables such as solar and wind will be our principal sources of energy in the future; holding back the clock achieves nothing but injecting uncertainty into investment decisions that need to be made now, at a time when the price of oil is on the upswing thanks to Trump’s Iran adventure and Europe and China are racing to transition away from fossil fuels, while the U.S. remains becalmed by ideology.

“In the long run, fossil fuels will be used for petrochemicals and not for burning,” Cohen told me. “Fifty years from now, people are going to be amazed that we burned these rare, useful hydrocarbons for fuel, when the sun was just sitting up there providing an essentially infinite source of energy.”

The U.S. Air Force has confirmed it has come up with a new set of requirements as it continues to look for a successor to its hard-working MQ-9 Reaper fleet. In contrast to the Reaper, the replacement aircraft is likely to be more flexible in terms of mission spectrum. At the same time, the service wants to use new manufacturing technologies to ensure that it can be built at scale and at a lower price point than the MQ-9. This would allow it to be bought in larger numbers and risked more freely in contested environments.

All this reflects the continued high utility placed on the MQ-9 fleet, as well as its considerable loss rates sustained against mid-tier and lower-tier adversaries. It also points away from filling the MQ-9’s role with a far more exquisite, costly, but more survivable asset, which seemed to have been the direction the Air Force was heading, at least in part, for many years now. With this in mind, this new direction appears to accept that many losses will occur in future combat scenarios and embraces that reality to leverage quantity over quality for whatever eventually takes over from the MQ-9.

Testifying before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Maj. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the acting head of Air Force Futures, said that a new requirements document for an MQ-9 replacement had been approved. Aviation Week was first to report the development.

The approval clears the path for the Air Force to begin a new acquisition process for an uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) that will assume the MQ-9’s role. A medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) system, the Reaper is primarily used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions.

Niemi told the Senate Armed Services Committee that improvements in technology since the MQ-9 was developed mean the service now considers it possible for a new drone to be “more flexible,” leaning upon open architectures.

At the same time, modern production methods mean the new drone will be easier and cheaper to produce “in mass numbers,” Niemi said. The result should be a drone that the Air Force can “use in a more attritable way.”

Interestingly, within the Air Force, there has in recent years been a shift away from the term attritable — meaning inexpensive enough to be willing to lose on high-risk missions while being capable enough to be relevant for those missions — to “affordable mass.” This is something TWZ previously highlighted was already happening back in 2021.

This change came about as a way of helping define the kinds of advanced drones that the Air Force is planning to acquire in the coming years, reflecting that their capabilities will necessarily come at a cost that will make them less than “attritable.”

Last month, the Air Force published a market survey notice, requesting information from industry on a new attritable ISR drone.

This notice included some key performance parameters for the drone, including a range of up to 932 miles and a 20-hour endurance. The attritable nature of the drone was reflected in a requirement for it to fly 100 missions with a “low-to-medium acquisition” cost.

The basic Reaper can fly for more than 20 hours unarmed, or more than 12 hours with weapons. In the case of the MQ-9B version, with an extended wingspan, flight endurance can be increased to more than 40 hours.

“Operators desire low-cost, fast-to-field, fast-to-deploy airborne ISR mass to increase mission flexibility and mission surging,” the market survey notice added.

The process of figuring out what to replace the Reaper with has been ongoing for many years now. However, the latest effort is noteworthy for its emphasis on a lower-cost, more attritable platform.

Back in 2020, the Air Force published a request for information for a program dubbed MQ-Next, also seeking an MQ-9 successor. This was focused on ISR and strike capabilities, but also stated a desire for reduced operating costs and greater persistence, survivability, and range.

By 2021, the Air Force was concentrating more on a family of systems — the so-called Next-Generation Multi-Role Unmanned Aerial System Family of Systems (Next-Gen Multi-Role UAS FoS) — including a growing emphasis on low-observable (stealth) technologies. The same year, the service said it was seeking a replacement for the MQ-9 that could possibly include defensive counter-air capabilities to protect high-value manned aircraft, such as tankers, as well as potentially fly red air aggressor missions. Fast forward to today, and it’s clear that these higher-performance air-to-air focused missions could be taken over, at least in part, by the current Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. As a result, whatever replaces the MQ-9 is unlikely to have such broad requirements.

The Next-Gen Multi-Role UAS FoS included scope for platforms that could be survivable and reusable, or ones that would be attritable or expendable. This was not a single platform solution, either. It would likely need to include a mix of systems.

The 2021 document also stipulated that the MQ-9’s successor should be tailored for Great Power Competition, pointing to a drone ecosystem suitable for the kinds of highly contested environments that would be encountered during a conflict with a peer rival such as China or Russia. At the same time, the solution was also intended to fly missions in more permissive environments, like the MQ-9.

Around this same time, the Air Force also said it wanted to leverage advances in development and manufacturing, meaning that smaller numbers of manned aircraft could be produced quickly to meet dynamically evolving threats. This reflected the Air Force’s “Digital Century Series” that was in vogue at that time, and which led to talk about “throwaway” technology and essentially “disposable” aircraft. Some of this appears to have made it into these new requirements, which stipulate that the aircraft needs to be able to fly just 100 missions.

Meanwhile, the latest statements from the service describe a drone with increased flexibility achieved through open architecture, rather than building bespoke batches of drones for particular requirements. Previous statements from the service outlined an aspiration to have its new drone capable of accommodating rapidly reconfigurable payloads, something that open architecture would expedite.

Above all else, the MQ-9 successor will still have to operate in contested environments.

In his testimony yesterday, Niemi presented a vision of a new drone, the design of which would stress being attritable, rather than survivable.

The Pentagon has long worked on the basis that a future conflict with a peer rival, and especially with China in the Pacific, would see it facing highly robust anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) scenarios. With that in mind, previous Reaper replacement studies had suggested that low observability would need to be incorporated into the design.

The latest thinking seems to reject that, or at least reorient the program toward a lower-cost platform of the kind that the Air Force would be able to field in mass, as well as to absorb the anticipated attrition in a high-end conflict. This does not preclude this airframe from featuring low-observable elements. In fact, it most likely will. But those would be more aggressively balanced against cost.

Concerns over the MQ-9’s vulnerability to air defenses have been ongoing for years now, although usually the nuances of this issue are not portrayed accurately in the media. Regardless, many MQ-9s were lost over Yemen, against a bottom-tier force. The war with Iran earlier this year underlined both the great utility and vulnerabilities of the platform. At least 24 Air Force Reapers were destroyed during the war, but these aircraft were pushed deep into Iran, loitered there for hours on end, and did some of the most important air-to-ground strike and surveillance work during the air campaign. While the Air Force says it plans to “buy back” some of the losses from that conflict, that will come with a hefty price tag, something that the service will want to avoid with its next ISR/strike drone. Furthermore, production of the MQ-9A model has now ended in favor of the MQ-9B.

The assumption that the MQ-9 replacement will be acquired in significant numbers is also noteworthy in terms of the current Air Force Reaper fleet, which includes more than 130 MQ-9As, according to Aviation Week.

What appears to be missing at this stage, or at least obscured, is an acquisition strategy for the new drones. As well as the aerial platforms, the MQ-9 successor will require suitable new ground control systems, sensors, and data exploitation technologies, all of which are compatible with open-architecture standards. These systems will also have to leverage the latest technologies to allow the drones to be more effective and more survivable over the battlefield.

Since MQ-Next, the U.S. drone landscape has changed considerably in terms of manufacturers. A few years ago, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics would have been seen as the front-runners for the MQ-9 replacement. Now, there are more contenders, often with a founding focus on rapidly scaling up production at low cost. Still, these firms have much to prove, especially considering the risk in replacing an aircraft as important as the MQ-9. At the same time, in the more advanced drone space, the legacy defense “prime” contractors are also making major progress in leveraging new technologies to reduce production costs and migrating away from exquisite, very expensive drones as their default offerings.

Back in 2021, the Air Force was promoting a “Speed to Ramp” initiative for its MQ-Next, which would see the first iterations of this capability fielded before “the 2026/2027 timeframe.” Other solutions under the same effort would begin to be fielded “in the 2030 timeframe,” the Air Force said.

While the latter timeline might still be somewhat achievable, it will require a considerable effort and investment and, not least, the firming up of the requirements for exactly what the Air Force wants its MQ-9 replacement to look like.

What we do know is that, while the Reaper’s replacement might not be as survivable as once envisioned, it will certainly be tailored to the increasingly harsh realities of a conflict against an advanced peer-state adversary. 

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Author Oliver Eagleton says British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is fighting for his job because he tried to turn the Labour Party into the ‘new Conservative Party’ and ‘occupy that centre ground’. Dozens of lawmakers are calling for Starmer’s resignation after devastating local elections.

easyJet passengers are being warned they could face serious consequences if they don’t completely switch off certain electronic devices

Holidaymakers travelling with easyJet this summer are being warned that they could unknowingly fall foul of strict cabin rules unless they fully switch off a commonly used electronic device before stepping on board. The trouble is that many passengers only discover the rule once they’ve already reached the airport or are on the verge of boarding, where last-minute slip-ups could spell serious problems.

According to EasyJet, the warning relates to e-cigarettes and vaping devices, which must be carried in hand luggage only and are strictly forbidden from being stowed in hold baggage under any circumstances. The airline’s official policy states: “All electronic cigarettes and vaping devices must be carried in the cabin, re-charging is strictly prohibited and the device must be completely switched off.”

It also advises passengers to keep their devices on their person where they can be kept an eye on throughout the flight, reducing the risk of accidental activation. These rules are in place due to concerns over lithium-ion batteries, which are used to power vaping devices and are well known for posing a fire risk if they become damaged or overheat.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority categorises lithium batteries as a significant safety risk in aviation due to their potential for ‘thermal runaway’, producing intense heat and flames that are notoriously difficult to extinguish in confined spaces. The International Air Transport Association has highlighted a worldwide rise in lithium battery-related incidents, which has gone hand in hand with the increasing prevalence of portable electronic devices, prompting airlines across the globe to tighten their rules considerably.

EasyJet also warns that passengers must take precautions to prevent their vaping devices from being switched on accidentally during flights, including ensuring they are fully powered down before boarding. The airline stipulates that travellers may carry no more than two spare batteries in their hand luggage, and that these must be properly protected to prevent them from coming into contact with metal objects.

Under UK aviation rules, vaping devices must be kept in hand luggage at all times. Official government guidance states that e-cigarettes are strictly prohibited from hold baggage.

Industry experts point out that confusion often arises because rules can vary between airlines and destinations, which can leave passengers unknowingly packing the wrong items before they even reach airport security. Aviation safety specialists also warn that using or charging vaping devices while on board flights is strictly prohibited by all major airlines, with penalties ranging from confiscation to fines or even travel bans in severe cases.

As summer travel demand picks up, holidaymakers are being urged to check airline regulations before they set off to avoid delays, confiscations, or being refused entry at the boarding gate.

May 7 (UPI) — As Washington and Hanoi enter a dense stretch of trade diplomacy, the coming weeks will test whether one of the Indo-Pacific’s most pragmatic economic partnerships can sustain its momentum or become entangled in the very frictions it has worked to avoid.

A series of meetings — including Section 301 hearings on industrial capacity from Tuesday to Friday this week, forced labor discussions April 28 to May 1 and bilateral consultations next Monday and Tuesday, arrives at a pivotal juncture.

They will help determine whether the United States and Vietnam can preserve a trade relationship that has become central to supply chain resilience, U.S. business interests and Vietnam’s continued economic ascent.

At its core, the U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership is grounded not in diplomacy alone, but also in economic logic.

Partnership built on complementarity

Over the past decade, Vietnam has emerged as one of the fastest-growing U.S. trading partners, driven by a convergence of structural interests. As American firms diversify production beyond China, Vietnam has become a preferred destination, offering cost competitiveness, political stability and deepening integration into global value chains.

U.S. data show Vietnam ran a $123.5 billion trade surplus with the United States last year — the fourth-largest imbalance after China, the European Union and Mexico. It is a figure that has drawn increasing scrutiny in Washington even as it reflects the depth of bilateral trade integration.

From electronics to apparel and consumer goods, Vietnam-based production is often embedded within supply chains designed and financed by U.S. and allied firms. American companies benefit from lower production costs and diversified risk, while Vietnamese exports sustain growth and employment at home.

Disrupting this ecosystem through blunt trade measures risks undermining the very businesses Washington seeks to protect.

Hanoi has consistently signaled a willingness to engage. It has approached trade tensions not with confrontation, but with negotiation — a posture that stands in contrast to more adversarial economic relationships. The upcoming consultations should reinforce that cooperative trajectory, not derail it.

Rethinking “overcapacity”

The debate over “overcapacity” has become a central issue in U.S. trade discussions, with concerns that the term is being applied broadly across different economic models.

In Vietnam’s case, officials and industry observers note that production growth is largely driven by market-based investment and global supply chain shifts rather than state-directed industrial surpluses.

“Vietnam’s overcapacity is much different from China’s,” said Murray Hiebert, head of research for Bower Group Asia. “China’s factories are producing huge surpluses that it dumps onto the world’s markets below market prices. Instead, Vietnam relies on foreign investment companies to produce for export.”

He noted that Vietnam’s export engine is overwhelmingly foreign-driven, with multinational firms, particularly from the United States and South Korea, accounting for roughly 80% of outbound shipments, while domestic producers contribute only about one-fifth.

“Vietnam’s economy is largely a manufacturing platform for foreign companies,” Hiebert said. “U.S. policymakers need to understand Vietnam did not create overcapacity by subsidizing manufacturing, but by courting foreign investors who used Vietnam as a low-cost base to serve global markets.”

Vietnam’s manufacturing expansion has been shaped by global supply chain realignment, accelerated by U.S.-China trade tensions and pandemic-era disruptions, rather than by state-led efforts to flood international markets. Many of the factories operating in Vietnam were relocated or expanded by multinational firms seeking to maintain access to U.S. consumers.

To conflate this model with subsidy-driven overproduction risks misdiagnosing the issue and penalizing a partner that has facilitated, rather than distorted, market outcomes.

Labor reforms and supply chain progress

Concerns over labor practices and supply chain integrity remain part of the policy conversation, particularly in the context of ongoing forced labor discussions. But these concerns should be weighed against Vietnam’s steady, if incremental, progress.

In recent years, Hanoi has undertaken significant labor reforms aligned with the International Labor Organization, including updates to its labor code, expanded worker representation rights and enhanced compliance mechanisms.

Vietnam has also prioritized traceability and transparency across key export sectors. From fisheries to manufacturing, authorities have invested in monitoring systems, strengthened inspections and improved regulatory oversight — steps aimed at meeting the expectations of international partners and markets.

This is an evolving process, not a completed one. But the trajectory is clear: Vietnam is moving toward higher standards, not retreating from them.

The case for market economy recognition

Another unresolved issue, Vietnam’s designation as a non-market economy under U.S. trade law, has become increasingly difficult to justify.

Vietnam operates within the framework of the World Trade Organization and has been recognized as a market economy by more than 70 countries. Its private sector has expanded rapidly, its regulatory environment continues to evolve and its integration into global markets is deepening.

Maintaining Vietnam’s current non-market economy designation under U.S. trade law has raised concerns among policymakers and business groups, who say it could affect the application of trade remedies and investor confidence. The issue comes as Washington seeks to expand economic partnerships across the Indo-Pacific.

Avoiding unintended consequences

Intellectual property has emerged as a new point of tension in U.S.-Vietnam trade relations. Ambassador Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, has designated Vietnam as a “Priority Foreign Country” — its most serious classification — in its latest intellectual property rights report, opening the door to a potential Section 301 investigation within 30 days.

The designation, the first of its kind in more than a decade, reflects ongoing U.S. concerns over Vietnam’s intellectual property protections and could affect the trajectory of current trade negotiations.

Sweeping trade measures designed to address structural concerns could disrupt supply chains, raise costs for American businesses and consumers, and weaken a partnership that has delivered measurable benefits. In an already fragile global economy, such outcomes would be counterproductive.

Vietnam’s own incentives align with stability. Its growth depends on open markets, foreign investment and compliance with international standards. That alignment should be viewed as a strategic asset.

Washington should avoid applying a China-centric lens to Vietnam’s trade profile, said Dan Harris, a partner at the law firm Harris Sliwoski. Treating Vietnam as an “overcapacity” case without clear evidence risks penalizing U.S. firms that relocated production there in line with Washington’s own push to reduce reliance on China and strengthen supply chain resilience.

“We will end up punishing the companies that did what we asked,” Harris warned.

He added that the broader strategic context matters: Vietnam’s long history of conflict and mistrust with China sets it apart from Beijing, even as it emerges as an increasingly important U.S. partner in the Indo-Pacific.

But the implications of Washington’s trade posture toward Hanoi extend far beyond economics. Vietnam’s export-driven growth, fueled primarily by multinational investment rather than state subsidies, has quietly elevated the country into a strategic linchpin in the Indo-Pacific.

A stable and prosperous Vietnam not only supports supply chain diversification, but also reinforces the rules-based order in the South China Sea.

Economic resilience in Vietnam is not peripheral to U.S. strategy. It is foundational to maintaining balance in contested Indo-Pacific waters. Trade policy cannot be divorced from strategic reality: A weakened Vietnamese economy would do more than disrupt production flows. It could undercut one of the region’s most important counterweights to China’s expanding maritime presence.

Balancing trade and security alignments

Rising risks of policy missteps could carry strategic costs. Analysts warn that overly punitive U.S. trade measures, particularly those misreading Vietnam’s market-driven model, may push Hanoi toward alternative economic alignments, reshaping regional supply chains and weakening U.S. influence in an increasingly competitive Indo-Pacific.

U.S. policymakers are weighing more targeted, cooperative measures in managing trade concerns with Vietnam, including a bilateral supply chain monitoring mechanism, expanded data-sharing on industrial capacity and the potential creation of a standing U.S.-Vietnam trade and standards working group.

The approach aims to address regulatory and transparency issues while maintaining stability in the broader economic partnership.

The challenge for Washington is alignment – translating economic logic into strategic necessity. That means recognizing Vietnam not as a trade problem to be managed, but rather as a partner whose economic trajectory is increasingly central to the region’s stability and security.

Beyond trade flows and investment figures, the U.S.-Vietnam economic relationship carries broader strategic significance. It reinforces a rules-based framework in the Indo-Pacific and supports cooperation across sectors ranging from technology to maritime security.

Any escalation in trade tensions between the United States and Vietnam could disrupt commercial ties and place broader strategic cooperation at risk, as both sides seek to sustain recent gains in economic and security engagement.

James Borton is a non-resident senior fellow at Johns Hopkins SAIS Foreign Policy Institute and the author of Harvesting the Waves: How Blue Parks Shape Policy, Politics, and Peacebuilding in the South China Sea. Borton is the editor-in-chief of the South China Sea NewsWire. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.