Here's a look at the preliminary agreement between the U.S. and Iran, and the challenges that remain to find lasting peace.

(Image credit: Iranian Presidency Office via AP)

Here's a look at the preliminary agreement between the U.S. and Iran, and the challenges that remain to find lasting peace.

(Image credit: Iranian Presidency Office via AP)

In city after city, the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has been met by protests and rallies from members of the local community opposed to the White House’s deportation policies. Federal agents from the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have repeatedly attempted to break up and drive back these crowds through the use of airborne irritants like tear gas and pepper spray, which can cause an array of immediate reactions — from eye pain to shortness of breath to nausea and vomiting — intended to temporarily disable their targets.

DHS has defended its use of these weapons on crowds and said that it “does NOT target children,” but after reviewing news accounts, lawsuits and officer-worn body camera footage, as well as verifying incidents by interviewing more than 40 victims or witnesses, ProPublica recently identified more than six dozen instances in which children had been harmed by tear gas and pepper spray.

Here are five things you should know about how these airborne weapons have been used during Trump’s immigration crackdown and how their use has particularly harmed children.

Dozens of children have been harmed by tear gas deployed by immigration agents.

So-called less lethal weapons like tear gas and pepper spray were developed to inflict severe pain and debilitate adult combatants and rioters, but ProPublica identified 79 children across the country since 2025 who have been harmed by these chemicals after they were deployed by federal immigration officers. Our tally is nearly four times the number cited in a recent congressional report, yet it is likely still a vast undercount.

The Department of Homeland Security has defended its agents’ use of the chemicals and claimed the blame lies with “agitators” in the crowds and parents who put their children in harm’s way. Many children harmed by tear gas and pepper spray were in their cars, at home or walking to school when they came into contact with the airborne weapons.

Tear gas and pepper spray are especially toxic to children.

There is no one such thing as “tear gas.” It’s a catch-all term for various chemical irritants that exist as a fine powder and trigger nerve endings to feel as if they’re on fire. The chemicals sear your lungs and throat, inflaming your airways until it feels like you’re breathing through a straw, while snot and tears stream down your face. They can cause vomiting, rashes and coughs that last for weeks. Pepper spray is made from compounds found in hot peppers and causes similar effects.

Because children breathe more rapidly and can pull in more contaminated air than adults relative to their body weight, these weapons are particularly dangerous to the young. Children are also more vulnerable because they have narrower airways and they are closer to the ground, where tear gas tends to pool after being deployed. The Trump administration’s use of tear gas has been so extraordinary that no one yet knows what long-term harm may result from children who’ve come into contact with these chemicals — some of them multiple times.

Courts have found that agents’ use of tear gas is excessive, but their power is limited.

In November 2025, a federal judge in Illinois ruled that ICE and CBP officers had deployed these chemicals “without justification, often without warning” against people who didn’t pose a physical threat. This constituted an illegal use of excessive force, said the judge, ordering the agencies to stop. But her injunction covered only the areas mentioned in the complaint. Agents were unfettered to continue using the weapons elsewhere.

After federal agents in Portland, Oregon, responded to a Jan. 31 rally by firing various less-lethals into the crowd — including Triple Chaser grenades that each separated into three tear gas canisters; dozens of pepper ball projectiles filled with chemical munitions; and “rubber ball grenades” that released stinging pellets, bright lights, and loud sounds — a judge there issued a temporary restraining order that forbade federal agents from using chemical munitions unless targeted at someone who posed “an imminent threat of physical harm.”

However, appellate courts have subsequently vacated the Illinois judge’s ruling and multiple rulings from judges in Portland seeking to enjoin the use of these weapons.

Once deployed, these weapons are difficult to contain.

Though the Trump administration has defended agents’ training and said ICE officers are taught to use “the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations,” not only can tear gas canisters launched into a crowd bounce and roll unpredictably, but the toxic chemicals can travel through the air, sometimes for blocks. In Minneapolis, ProPublica found that tear gas had traveled at least a quarter mile before seeping into a McDonald’s.

Derrick Nash and his family live a block and a half east of an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. Even from that distance, they felt the effects inside their homes when officers tear-gassed protesters. Each time the tear gas seeped in, the kids — ages 6 to 17 — coughed, and their throats often burned. The eldest, a high school senior with asthma, would hide out in his second-floor bedroom. One evening, his face turned red as he coughed uncontrollably and sucked on his inhaler without relief.

“He was wigging out, saying, ‘I can’t breathe,’” Nash recalled. The family considered calling an ambulance, but the street was closed.

No national standard for use of tear gas exists.

Law enforcement policies governing the use of tear gas and pepper spray differ widely by location, and no federal standard exists. The DHS policy on force says officers must use tactics that “minimize the risk of unintended injury” and should be guided by “respect for human life.” The CBP’s policy says officers “should not use” pepper spray or “less-lethal” chemical munitions against “small children.” ICE’s policy says “the presence of other officers, subjects, or bystanders” are a factor in determining whether an officers’ use of force is reasonable.

Read More

Kids Are Being Harmed by Tear Gas, Pepper Spray Under Trump. There Could Be Long-Term Consequences.

At 17, He Was Tear-Gassed at Selma. At 78, He’s Watching Kids Tear-Gassed During Trump’s Deportation Campaign.

U.S. Lawmakers Demand Reforms to Immigration Officers’ Use of Tear Gas and Pepper Spray

Compare that with tear gas policies in two cities that have experienced Trump’s immigration crackdown firsthand. In Portland, police officers who consider using tear gas must take into account their proximity to homes. Meanwhile, Minneapolis forbids officers from using chemical munitions for crowd control unless authorized by the police chief — even when officers fear they will be physically harmed.

Requiring all law enforcement agencies to adopt uniform policies and training methods would go a long way, experts told ProPublica. At the same time, they acknowledge that this would likely require Congress to pass a bill mandating that federal law enforcement entities adopt stricter practices and incentivize local police departments to do the same.

Bills that seek to strengthen use-of-force training on such a wide scale and legislation that targets DHS and its use of these weapons have thus far failed to even make it to a vote in Congress. Following ProPublica’s investigation, U.S. lawmakers have begun demanding reforms to immigration officers’ use of these weapons.

The post What You Need to Know About How Tear Gas Harms Kids appeared first on ProPublica.

The shallow, sunny waters of the reflecting pool are an ideal incubator for algae growth in the summertime. Experts say the recent renovation may have helped accelerate it.

(Image credit: Chip Somodevilla)

The shallow, sunny waters of the reflecting pool are an ideal incubator for algae growth in the summertime. Experts say the recent renovation may have helped accelerate it.

(Image credit: Chip Somodevilla)

The shallow, sunny waters of the reflecting pool are an ideal incubator for algae growth in the summertime. Experts say the recent renovation may have helped accelerate it.

(Image credit: Chip Somodevilla)

As Christian Pulisic sat with a hurt calf, the U.S. dominated the first half to remain undefeated in group play. If Turkey draws or loses tonight, the Americans will be guaranteed to win their group.

(Image credit: Emilee Chinn)

The FIFA World Cup is thought to bring an economic windfall to the cities and regions where games will be played during four weeks this summer. How true is that?

No full content extracted yet.

NPR's Steve Inskeep speaks with tech journalist Joanna Stern about the release of new augmented reality glasses from Snap and the future of wearable technology.

Rep. Nydia Velázquez's retirement has opened up a competitive primary in a New York City Congressional district. The race to replace her is a proxy battle about the future of the Democratic Party.

Tournament has completed its first week and while the logistics have sometimes been challenging, the people and the football have been good

It was quite a contrast touching down in sleepy Kansas City hours after having witnessed the bedlam on the streets of New York when the Knicks won the NBA Finals and Brazil drew with Morocco. But this is a World Cup full of contrasts, from Fifa’s never-ending quest to make a quick buck ($5 a pop for a bottle of water in the media centre) to the warmth shown by locals I’ve encountered in the Big Apple, Kansas City and Dallas. Then there’s the football. It’s been hard to keep up with the volume of matches, but the opening round served up some classics, with DR Congo’s draw against Portugal on the same day as England beat Croatia capping a thrilling first week of action. Let’s hope it continues. Ed Aarons

It took nearly the full opening round, but a US scene that is usually focused on other sports has fully turned its eyes to socc– sorry, I mean football, forgot to code-switch. Fitting, actually, because at times this state of affairs has been awkward, like when the standard “loud men yelling” sports talk shows are forced to reckon with international football being the No 1 talking point and employing nobody that knows the scene. But these are growing pains. The sport is on at bars and delis, it is being discussed at school pickups and on the rides home. It’s beautiful and exactly what so many of us here in the States have been fighting for. Alexander Abnos

In ‘middle Israel’ there are fears Iran could rebuild stronger – and there is particular ire for Donald Trump

In the Tree brasserie off Herzl Street in Rehovot, there was much that almost everyone agreed on. Few contested that the ceasefire deal concluded by Iran and the US a few days earlier was very bad for Israel. “We were betrayed by President Trump,” said Avi Perez, 55.

They believed, too, that Israel, more than ever, was surrounded by danger that it would have to confront alone. “It is strange. One day we were in the [bomb] shelters with our children … The next day, everything is supposed to be normal. But nothing has been resolved,” said Shaham Nowick, 35, as he studied the menu.

In ‘middle Israel’ there are fears Iran could rebuild stronger – and there is particular ire for Donald Trump

In the Tree brasserie off Herzl Street in Rehovot, there was much that almost everyone agreed on. Few contested that the ceasefire deal concluded by Iran and the US a few days earlier was very bad for Israel. “We were betrayed by President Trump,” said Avi Perez, 55.

They believed, too, that Israel, more than ever, was surrounded by danger that it would have to confront alone. “It is strange. One day we were in the [bomb] shelters with our children … The next day, everything is supposed to be normal. But nothing has been resolved,” said Shaham Nowick, 35, as he studied the menu.

Ten-man Paraguay clung on after Matías Galarza’s early strike to secure a famous win and ensure Turkey will go home at the end of the group stage

A surprise start for attacker Isidro Pitta, who was so certain he wouldn’t be called up to Paraguay’s squad for the World Cup that he had already booked a holiday to Spain with his family during the tournament.

Nicknamed ‘Viking’ due to his long hair and big ginger beard, he’s found form at Red Bull Bragantino and is described as “a fighter, a tireless worker and a constant nuisance for opposition defences” in the Guardian’s World Cup player guide.

Ten-man Paraguay scored the fastest goal of the World ⁠Cup so far to beat a hapless Turkey 1-0 in a dramatic Group D match, breathing life into their campaign ⁠and condemning their opponents ⁠to a miserable ​early exit.

Fired up after their humiliating 4-1 opening match defeat by the USA, Paraguay went ahead 64 seconds in when ⁠Matías ⁠Galarza rifled in a long-range shot, then clung on for the entire game against a tide of Turkish attacks.

⚽️ Matías Galarza’s early strike seals win that sends Turkey for early exit
⚽️ Player guide | Bracketology | Golden Boot | Mail Sam

A surprise start for attacker Isidro Pitta, who was so certain he wouldn’t be called up to Paraguay’s squad for the World Cup that he had already booked a holiday to Spain with his family during the tournament.

Nicknamed ‘Viking’ due to his long hair and big ginger beard, he’s found form at Red Bull Bragantino and is described as “a fighter, a tireless worker and a constant nuisance for opposition defences” in the Guardian’s World Cup player guide.

A quickfire Matheus Cunha double was added to by Vinícius Júnior as Brazil secured a comfortable win over their Caribbean opponents

Neymar would probably not even be in North America this summer had Rodrygo been fit. Instead the Real Madrid winger is recuperating from an ACL injury by penning thoughtful columns.

The pressure of wearing the Brazil shirt can be heavy but also creates a positive kind of responsibility. That pressure exists solely because of the greatness of our football, the titles we’ve won, and our historic standing in the sport. The fans’ mood often hinges on the result, which is only natural in a country so used to winning regularly.

So, as a player you have to realise that a barrage of criticism isn’t the end of the world, just as a massive wave of praise doesn’t mean everything is sorted out and that you will win the tournament. It is crucial to distinguish facts and balanced analysis from comments born of raw emotion and frustration.

If Vinícius is now Brazil’s undisputed star, the 25-year-old has also yet to really make the team his own. He has turned in frustrating and often fruitless performances at major international tournaments, while scoring a mere nine goals in 49 appearances entering this, his second World Cup.

He has yet to wrest top billing from Neymar, whose jersey was worn by huge swaths of the Brazilian fans in their draw with Morocco on Saturday.

Yes there’s the party side, the buoyant side, one that makes friends everywhere it goes. But there’s the other side too

In a disconcerting development, Americans have started wearing kilts. Some of them are even doing it on the TV as they try to wrap themselves around the Tartan Army. On the local Boston news on Thursday night, things were so giddy that people were predicting victory over Morocco and a passage out of the group for the first time. It was only when the camera returned to the news anchor that she reminded everyone; actually Morocco are African champions and World Cup semi-finalists.

The US has a bit to learn about football still and maybe more to understand about the Scots. Yes there’s the party side, the buoyant side, the one that makes friends everywhere it goes. But there’s the other side too, the sceptical one (some call it realist), the one that knows you should party now because things will find a way of going wrong in a minute. The one that spies a challenge like Morocco with foreboding.

Long a hotbed of American soccer, Seattle showed on Friday why it should no longer be a rare visit for the national team

One does not have to go far in Seattle, Washington, to be reminded that it’s a soccer town. Two days before Friday’s 2-0 win for the US over Australia, all I had to do was get on the train.

Riding the light rail to lunch on Wednesday and hopping off at Westlake Station, I was a few blocks from Pike Place Market, the city’s famous waterfront gathering spot. The train car I’d arrived on had been overflowing with US jerseys and Australia kits. Riding the escalator up into the resplendent afternoon sun, someone tugged at my bag.

Guardian readers in the US share concerns about how the SpaceX IPO and AI boom affect their retirement accounts

Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire last week after SpaceX debuted on the stock market with a valuation of $1.77tn.

Millions of Americans could soon become indirect investors in SpaceX and other emerging AI-focused companies as US markets increasingly shift toward AI-driven investments.

The United States has gotten used to specific ways of ending wars. Sometimes the U.S. military decisively forces the enemy state to surrender, imposes a new political order, and gets it to stick, as in Germany and Japan in the 1940s or Panama in the 1990s. Other times, rebels wear down U.S. resources and willpower before decisively kicking out U.S. forces, as in Vietnam in 1975 or Afghanistan in 2021.

But the Iran war is ending with something quite unfamiliar to Washington: compromise. The United States and Iran were unable to defeat each other in the first round, and, staring at an unacceptably costly escalation, they came to the table. While a final deal hasn't been agreed to, the ceasefire memorandum commits both sides to giving things up, with the U.S. promising to lift all economic sanctions if Iran negotiates away its nuclear program.

Big parts of Washington are not taking it well, with Republicans and Democrats alike calling the peace a "blunder" or even a "surrender." It's one thing to object to specific terms of the truce. The U.S. may be promising too much and demanding too little at the outset. But some criticisms would apply to any kind of two-sided deal with a former enemy. For hawks, failure to secure the enemy's surrender is itself a form of U.S. "surrender." Simply put, hawks have forgotten how to make peace.

Conservative journalist and presidential confidante Mark Levin claims that the memorandum makes the mistake of "trying to incentivize the behavior of 7th century barbaric Islamists with promises of money" and that "the West is being conquered" by agreeing to stop the war short of Iranian surrender. Others have argued that a deal shouldn't have any benefits for Iran, regardless of what Iran is offering in return. Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) said that a deal shouldn't "give Iran any money," because "they're not great actors."

To borrow a Russian turn of phrase, this mentality is недоговороспособность, or "agreement incapability." An agreement-incapable actor approaches diplomacy as nothing but a weapon "to delay, deceive, and destabilise its opponents." (Levin, for example, suggested using the current negotiations to buy time for restarting the war after the U.S. midterm elections.) The agreement-incapable mind cannot imagine talks leading to "a mutually beneficial settlement."

In fact, this mindset is baked into U.S. law. Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has repeatedly bragged about his role in creating a "sanctions wall" to prevent a deal. He pushed the first Trump administration to impose layers of economic sanctions on Iran under different pretexts, from the nuclear issue to human rights, so that a future administration could not resume trade with Iran without resolving all of those issues.

To be clear, sanctions relief costs American taxpayers nothing, and some of it will benefit American business interests. For example, the U.S. government will immediately license Iran to spend $6 billion in its own oil revenues on American agricultural products, according to the Financial Times.

But hawks are alarmed at giving away U.S. leverage. Former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D–N.J.) complained that Iran would get relief from sanctions "on human rights abusers and sponsors of terror, with zero Iranian concessions on those issues." Dubowitz's sanctions wall worked. In order to offer Iran normal economic relations, President Donald Trump will have to pick a domestic political fight over inflammatory issues like human rights and terrorism.

There are serious criticisms to be made about the memorandum. It is vague about the nuclear concessions Iran has to make to unlock full sanctions relief. Vice President J.D. Vance has implied that there are unwritten "gentleman's agreements," which is not exactly reassuring. While the memorandum forces Iran to stop extorting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz in the immediate term, it leaves the "future administration" of the strait up for negotiations.

Any conversation over the costs and benefits of the deal also has to take into account the costs and benefits of the alternatives. In fact, it was trying those alternatives that gave Iran leverage in the first place. Trump started down the road hawks wanted by bombing Iran, calling for regime change, and promising "no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER." The war didn't collapse the Iranian government, but it did give Iran the opportunity to harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, holding the world's oil economy hostage.

Trump searched in vain for a cost-free escalation, only to discover that none existed. A ground raid to take away Iran's sources of leverage, its enriched uranium and its oil export terminal, would expose U.S. troops to serious casualties. Escalating the air war by bombing critical Iranian infrastructure would provoke Iran to do the same to its oil-rich neighbors. Trying to sneak ships through the strait during the ceasefire was provoking near-nightly naval combat.

Even maintaining the status quo was rapidly depleting oil inventories around the world, which would have forced either rapid price hikes or outright shortages by the beginning of July, as oil executives were warning. Trump ultimately concluded that the deal was the least bad option. That conclusion, of course, is up for debate. But much of the hawkish rhetoric is meant to shut out debate with emotional cries about surrendering to evil and losing honor.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan—which, unlike the stalemate with Iran, involved an unambiguous U.S. surrender—is a cautionary tale. After the U.S. military overthrew the Taliban government in 2001, the Bush administration declared that it was "not inclined to negotiate surrenders" and turned down the chance to integrate Taliban supporters into the new government.

Nearly two decades of civil war later, the Taliban underground had gained so much strength that both Trump and Joe Biden decided that Afghanistan was a lost cause. Trump cut a deal for an orderly withdrawal, which Biden upheld, only for it to become violent chaos anyway when the Taliban stormed Kabul while U.S. troops were still there in August 2021.

The Bush administration similarly turned down a deal with Iran itself, which offered up a "grand bargain" including everything from its nuclear program to its support for Hamas and Hezbollah in 2002. In return, Iranian leaders wanted an end to U.S. sanctions and a guarantee of noninterference in U.S. politics. A quarter-century and two wars later, the Trump administration is getting less than Iran was offering in 2002 for the same price. Unlike in Afghanistan, the administration is at least getting something from Iran.

Again, the rhetoric about surrender and humiliation is not about weighing the relative merits of that deal or whether a better one is possible. It is about ensuring that there will be no deal at all. And, ironically, that strategy has already led to an actual U.S. surrender at least once.

The post Compromise With Iran Isn't 'Surrender' appeared first on Reason.com.

The latest attack brings the number of people who have been killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military to at least 211 since the Trump administration began targeting those it calls "narcoterrorists" in early September.

(Image credit: Jacquelyn Martin)

The U.S. is allowing ships to enter and exit Iranian ports and coastal areas as the countries move to a new phase of negotiations over the next 60 days.

(Image credit: Amirhossein Khorgooei)

Frank Ssekamwa says the United States presented his country with an impossible choice. If it accepted the terms of a new health agreement, Uganda would have to give the U.S. access to the data of millions of his fellow citizens — a decision he worries would make their personal information more vulnerable to breaches and possible exploitation.

But if it refused, the East African nation would likely lose out on more than a billion dollars to address HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and other illnesses, even as its people face ongoing threats from Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases. 

So, on Dec. 10, it agreed.

“If you take the deal, you’re going to be exploited. If you don’t take it, you’re going to die,” said Ssekamwa, an attorney and digital rights expert in Uganda. “It’s the essence of digital colonialism.”

Across Africa, countries have faced similar dilemmas as the U.S. has held a series of closed-door negotiations in which lifesaving aid has been conditioned on access to citizens’ health data. The negotiations come in the wake of the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which — in contrast with the new contracts — provided billions of dollars in aid with few strings attached. Officials in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Ghana have been so outraged by the demands that they rejected the initial deals. 

The demand to access health data is central to the Trump administration’s new America First Global Health Strategy, an openly transactional approach that seeks to leverage the desperate need for medical treatments abroad. Aid will now be given “in a way that directly benefits the American people and directly promotes our national interest,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in September.

The State Department declined to publicly release global aid and data-sharing agreements it has signed with more than 30 countries as part of its new approach. But a ProPublica analysis of nine of the deals offers a window into the extensive U.S. demands for access to data — and the potential risks and vulnerabilities for the citizens of countries that have signed them. ProPublica also reviewed a data-sharing agreement struck with Uganda, which has not previously been reported; a data agreement with Kenya; six agreements over the sharing of pathogens that can cause pandemics that were made public by the State Department this week; generic templates of deals for sharing both data and pathogens that can cause pandemics; and an analysis of the documents the advocacy group Public Citizen shared exclusively with ProPublica. 

ProPublica also consulted more than a dozen experts in data privacy and global health, including several with direct knowledge of U.S. policy who said that the insistent demands for data access and other resources as a condition of aid are unprecedented. Without seeing the full suite of agreements, they could not identify all vulnerabilities. But they spotted some red flags: The terms of the deals are vague and lack language standard in most data-sharing agreements that adequately limits what data is collected and how it can be used. That increases the risk that individuals’ personal data could be exposed, misused or commercialized without their consent.  

In the Ugandan data deal, the U.S. will get direct, real-time access to nine of the nation’s health data systems for seven years, including the central repository that stores all of its health information, lab data, data collected by community health workers and, critically, its system for managing individuals’ electronic medical records. The agreement calls for the sharing of aggregated data with all personally identifiable information removed. It also says the data should be used for delivering and auditing healthcare services. 

But lawyers and digital privacy experts argue that the deal raises questions about who will have access to the massive cache of health data and whether it could be inappropriately accessed and exploited.

Some expressed concern that, because it is possible to reverse-engineer data that has been anonymized, people with HIV, tuberculosis and other diseases could have their records exposed.

Stephanie Psaki, who served as the U.S. coordinator for global health security under President Joe Biden, described the Trump administration’s approach as a “blunt instrument of ‘just give me the login to your data systems.’” 

“The U.S. would never agree to that,” she said, if the deal were offered in reverse.

In Uganda, the U.S. will provide up to $1.7 billion over five years for global health security and the treatment and prevention of deadly conditions such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV and polio. In the past, the U.S. gave this aid without asking for direct benefits in return, saving an estimated 170,000 Ugandan lives per year. 

While a significant investment, it is less than the U.S. previously spent in Uganda and will decrease every year of the agreement. By 2030, the African nation will receive 45% less global health funding than when Trump retook office, according to an analysis by Vincent Lin of Partners in Health, which provides healthcare in poor countries. 

Several experts said there is broad support for some of the goals of the new plan for aid, including reducing African countries’ dependence on the U.S. for healthcare needs. But they worry the transactional nature of the approach could backfire by undermining trust or, in some cases, driving nations to reject deals altogether.

After withdrawing from the World Health Organization and losing access to its global network that tracks and combats disease outbreaks, the U.S. is attempting to obtain the information necessary to address potential pandemics through a patchwork of deals with individual countries. Each of the agreements ProPublica reviewed includes a section on responding to outbreaks. And some countries have signed separate pathogen-sharing agreements, which state that countries must “initiate sharing specimen(s) and related data” within five days of a U.S. request. The Trump administration is also planning unprecedented involvement of private companies to manage and process data.

The State Department told ProPublica that it needs access to the data to improve health outcomes in recipient countries and keep Americans safe. The new approach also requires countries to invest more in their own health systems in exchange for the aid, a promise many countries will likely struggle to fulfill. And, in some cases, including the deal with Uganda, it aims to boost local manufacturing through partnerships with American companies.

The State Department said it took multiple factors into account to ensure the required investments from other countries were “realistic and achievable.”

“The United States is investing billions of dollars in other countries’ health systems to fight infectious disease. In return, we expect governments to increase their own spending on health, so programs are sustainable and under genuine national ownership, not permanently financed by U.S. taxpayers. For the first time, both sides are putting skin in the game to ensure lasting impact,” a State Department spokesperson said in response to questions about the agreements.  

In response to follow-up questions from ProPublica, spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the agreements “share only the same kinds of aggregated, de-identified data that has been shared and used for years in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases. All data sharing is consistent with each country’s laws and approvals. No personally identifiable information is being received or shared by the United States government.”

Uganda’s Ministry of Health, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Personal Data Protection Office and embassy in Washington, D.C., did not respond to questions for this article. 

In the age of artificial intelligence, large health data sets have become so valuable they’ve been referred to as the new gold. The precise value of the health data of an entire nation is unclear, but it could be extremely valuable to AI-driven companies for training models. The industry of buying and selling such information troves is worth billions. And countries around the world have come to regard their citizens’ health records as national assets that deserve special protections and can confer economic and strategic advantages. 

Yet the agreements, which are part of a strategy the State Department openly states is intended to make America “more prosperous” and “promote American health innovations,” provide no guarantee that Africans subject to them will have a say in what happens with their data or receive a fair share of its benefits. “Once companies get this data, the value is being accrued. But there’s no way for the [African] population to know how companies will use it,” said Jane Munga of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has argued that the agreements may violate African privacy laws.

Africans have also expressed concern that they will not be able to access and benefit from medicines and vaccines developed from pathogen samples shared with the U.S. Five of the six specimen-sharing agreements reviewed by ProPublica state that, in the event that a medical product is developed primarily from a specimen from the country, the U.S. government “shall prioritize” a request from that government behind the needs of the U.S. Only one of the agreements, with Nigeria, commits the U.S. to facilitating “priority access” to — and the donation of — any medical products developed using the specimens.

The phenomenon of extracting information and samples from less-resourced populations and failing to credit and compensate them for their contributions to medical developments is well known enough to have several names, including “parachute science.” Just a few years ago, countries, including some in Africa, hosted COVID-19 vaccine trials, only to later struggle to access the shots they helped to develop.

Each agreement includes “benefit-sharing provisions,” the State Department said in response to questions. 

After the Trump administration dismantled USAID, the world’s largest provider of humanitarian assistance, it also drastically reduced funding for international health work done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and severely scaled back the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which combats HIV globally. In addition to withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. removed itself from international negotiations over a pandemic agreement intended to affirm countries’ sovereign rights to their biological resources and ensure equitable access to medical interventions.

Brad Smith, an entrepreneur who served in the first Trump administration, is now in charge of creating the system that would rise from the ashes. Before joining this administration, Smith founded three companies with business models that rest in part on using data to reduce healthcare costs, including CareBridge, a home care provider that sold for a reported $2.7 billion in 2024. During the presidential transition that year, Smith led the government efficiency panel that would become Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. After Trump took office, he presided over some $67 billion in sweeping cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services before being brought on as an adviser to the State Department. 

Although the humanitarian aid system had been largely dismantled, Congress required the executive branch to continue providing aid. So Smith and his team had to find new ways to get the funding to countries, ensure that it was being spent wisely and address potential pandemics — all without most of the international partners and staff the government had previously relied on to carry out this complex work. 

A Rhodes scholar known for his intense work ethic, Smith threw himself into the effort. State Department staff fielded calls from him at all hours of the night to explain budget items on spreadsheets. Through his personal lawyer, Smith referred questions to the State Department.

One of the greatest challenges lay in the handling of health data. In the past, PEPFAR, the HIV program, built its own systems to handle anonymized data, separate from government health records — a setup that Trump administration officials and others have criticized as inefficient.

The America First plan proposed standardizing data collection and processing within countries. The Ugandan data agreement requires the country to provide the U.S. — and its contractors — with logins “or other secure access mechanisms” to directly enter the country’s data systems. The new approach, U.S. officials say, will enable the U.S. to continue auditing programs and track outbreaks. 

The agreements ProPublica reviewed include statements about the U.S. government’s intent to ensure data security and say that the data is being accessed for the purposes of addressing diseases and auditing that work, but they leave open the possibility that sensitive information could be revealed, according to the data privacy experts ProPublica consulted. 

At particular risk are countries that don’t have national data privacy laws, such as Liberia, whose memorandum of understanding requires “interlinked and interoperable” data systems for “surveillance, laboratory, response, health, environment, agriculture.” That country’s main health agreement doesn’t require the U.S. to limit the amount of data it takes to the least needed, a standard clause in U.S. contracts, according to Abdoul Jalil Djiberou Mahamadou, a recent postdoctoral fellow focusing on bioethics at Stanford University. (Neither Liberia nor the State Department has released the supplemental data-sharing agreement.) “Once data is breached, it’s nearly impossible to get it back,” Mahamadou added.

The Liberian government did not respond to a request for comment.

The Ugandan data-sharing agreement says it will comply with the laws of both nations and permits the sharing of “sensitive personal data” if the consent of individuals whose data is shared is obtained, there is a compelling public health emergency of international concern and it is the only way information can be provided in a “timely and accurate format.”

Ssekamwa, the digital rights expert who also founded and runs the African Centre for Digital Justice, said there are important questions that haven’t been answered by the Ugandan government.

“Does the U.S. have appropriate data protections? Can the systems provide anonymized data? Are they really up to that standard?” said Ssekamwa. “If I’m someone who has had health issues, can you deny me a visa because of the health issues I’m having?”

Psaki, the former global health security coordinator, worried about the haste with which the changes to data access are happening. “Even in the best of circumstances, you can’t go from having parallel data systems that were established over 20-plus years to finding some way to integrate those data systems in six months.” 

Speed has been a hallmark of the America First global health effort. In September, just a month after Smith joined the State Department, it launched the strategy at an event co-sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and five large pharmaceutical companies. By November, Smith was crisscrossing the African continent with a small team of negotiators, trying to persuade dignitaries to agree to deals. 

The State Department said the deals were “negotiated in a thoughtful and strategic way over many months.” 

On Dec. 4, Kenya became the first country to sign, during a triumphant celebration with Rubio and President William Ruto in Washington. Outcry over the agreement had already begun two days earlier, when a Kenyan activist named Nelson Amenya announced on the social platform X that he had seen a sample of the specimen-sharing agreement as well as a legal analysis that showed it would violate Kenyan law.

As a condition for receiving $1.6 billion in aid, the Kenyan government agreed to provide access to seven years’ worth of health records — two years longer than the U.S. would provide financial support. 

Although the Kenyan data-sharing agreement states that the U.S. will take “all reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of information” and abide by American and Kenyan laws, Amenya worried that wouldn’t be enough. “Every HIV test, TB diagnosis, malaria case – accessible to US officials,” he wrote in the post, which now has one million views. “Your medical records, your children’s health data – all exposed.”

A few days later, a Kenyan senator named Okiya Omtatah sued members of the Kenyan government over the agreement, arguing that it poses a threat to citizens’ constitutional right to privacy by “allowing broad foreign access to sensitive data.” A Kenyan nonprofit also sued, and more than 50 groups weighed in on their side, describing the document as giving the U.S. “excessive access” to African data and raising the possibility of serious human rights violations. 

In court filings, the Kenyan government argued that it is obligated to achieve the “highest attainable standard of health” and that it is unable to do that on its own. After blocking the deal for months, in May, the Kenyan court temporarily allowed implementation of the agreement to proceed while it considers the case.

Since outrage bubbled up in Kenya, some other countries have negotiated shorter terms for sharing data and pandemic specimens, and have inserted additional protections, according to the Public Citizen analysis.

Still, groups across Africa have sounded alarms about dangers inherent in these provisions, including data breaches. Examples of such unauthorized access to personal data abound, including a recent case where the healthcare data of some 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank wound up listed for sale on the Chinese website Alibaba. 

Revealing whether someone has had an abortion, mental health condition, substance use treatment or sexually transmitted disease can be devastating anywhere. In Africa, research has shown it can lead to discrimination and violence. And even when personal information has been removed, individuals in “anonymized” data can be reidentified using AI and other tools. 

The Ugandan data-sharing agreement calls for the U.S. government to “promptly notify the Government of Uganda of any unauthorized access” in such cases and requires the parties to conduct a joint breach assessment and remediation plan afterward. But by that point, it may be too late, Ssekamwa fears. “Once the data gets out of Uganda, we are skeptical that the government of Uganda will actually have any power to control it,” he said.

The secrecy around both the negotiations and the agreements has raised further suspicions. The State Department has declined to share the agreements, telling ProPublica the agency will release them when negotiations with all partner governments are complete and describing its actions as “protecting sensitive negotiations—not ‘secrecy.’” In response to a public records request filed by ProPublica, the State Department said it planned to provide the documents in September 2027. The advocacy group Public Citizen recently filed suit against the federal government in an effort to obtain the documents. 

“Why are they hiding the agreement if they think the terms are OK?” asked Bernard Okpi, a Nigerian lawyer who sued his government in March, alleging that the deal violates the country’s constitutional right to privacy and promotes religious discrimination by prioritizing funding for Christian faith-based health facilities. That suit is pending, and the Nigerian government did not respond to questions from ProPublica.

The State Department said that the agreement with Nigeria “was negotiated in connection with reforms the Nigerian government has made to prioritize protecting Christian populations from violence.”

The Trump administration says that its new global health strategy is designed to save lives and keep the U.S. — and the world — safe from disease outbreaks. But ultimately its hard-driving and secretive negotiations may work against those goals.

While the administration aspired to strike agreements with 50 nations, including the three countries that walked away from negotiations in part over concerns about data sharing, it has fallen far short of that number. (In Zambia, officials also balked at U.S. demands for critical minerals.) The loss of aid in those countries is already proving to be devastating. 

Despite the Trump administration’s stated goal of putting “America first,” the U.S. may feel the consequences of those failed negotiations, too, as mistrust compounds the loss of long-standing systems that provided care and responded to disease outbreaks. 

“It’s in everyone’s interest to have a comprehensive approach to respond to an outbreak early,” said Psaki, who pointed to the quickly escalating number of Ebola cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo as evidence. While that country struck a healthcare deal with the U.S., five of the nine countries bordering it have not. “We need to get data and samples from all nine countries to collaborate effectively on that outbreak, and now we don’t have that.”

The State Department said the U.S. has responded swiftly to the outbreak and has provided over $270 million to the global fight against Ebola.

In Uganda, where people have also fallen sick and died from Ebola, Ssekamwa said that his country needs all the help that the healthcare deal can bring, including improved protection from outbreaks, but there needs to be more robust protection of people’s personal data.  

“We are happy to benefit from the technological advancement and the fruits of big data,” he said. Instead, he said, “the U.S. has left so many gaps within the agreement, which can be exploited in their favor.”

The post “Digital Colonialism”: U.S. Demands to Access Africans’ Data Raise Privacy, Sovereignty Concerns appeared first on ProPublica.

When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) teased his new AI bill in The New York Times, he undersold the socialist vision he had for the tech industry. Now that the bill text has been released, we know just how much government ownership of AI he wants.

On Thursday, Sanders unveiled the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would impose a 50 percent tax, paid through stock, on any AI company with annual "gross receipts" of at least $200 million. Taxing gross receipts rather than revenue is a savvy move by Sanders, since most businesses traditionally considered AI companies aren't yet profitable, and gross receipts allow him to include total money earned from all sources, widening the pool of companies subject to the tax.

Under the bill, the Treasury Department would also get a 50 percent stake in all applicable AI companies through newly issued shares, and the federal government would be allowed to tax any shares issued after the initial seizure, so the government's half stays at half over time.

Each fiscal year, every "man, woman and child" in the U.S. will receive direct payments from the fund, paid for by a 5 percent draw of the average value of the total stock held by the government. According to Sanders, that could mean as much as "$1,000 to everyone in America." 

Sanders claims that the fund could raise $7 trillion based on "current valuations" of the companies he hopes to tax. But a company's gross receipts are tied to its economic worth, which this bill would likely depress.

While the bill's name might make one think that companies like Anthropic and OpenAI would be subject to the tax, Sanders doesn't spare any sector of the tech industry. Instead, his bill would apply to any "corporation or partnership" engaged in a "trade or business" tangentially related to data centers, computing infrastructure, AI services, or the research, production, or manufacturing of advanced robotics. Companies like Tesla, Waymo, Nvidia, and Dell would all be subject to the 50 percent tax, even though their business models predate those of companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, the types of AI companies Sanders has railed against.

Adam Thierer, resident senior fellow of technology and innovation at R Street Institute, says Sanders' bill is "the most hideous form of crony capitalism." He tells Reason the bill contains a "lot of counterintuitive reasoning." 

Indeed, the bill makes no distinction between private and public ownership and overrides any corporate charter limits, forcing companies to create and surrender stock to meet the 50 percent mark, regardless of their shareholders' wishes. 

It also requires AI companies to spin off their AI businesses as stand-alone entities. It bars them from conducting non-AI business, entering into joint ventures with non-AI companies, or sharing personnel or financing with non-AI companies.

As if seizing property weren't enough, the bill also creates an entirely new regulatory regime for the AI industry and the tech sector in general. It establishes an Independent Commission for Democratic AI within the Treasury, consisting of seven presidentially appointed commissioners nominated by congressional leadership for a term of five years. Five of the commissioners must have specific expertise, including an expert in "labor interests," the AI industry, national security, privacy, and management of a comparable fund. 

No more than four commissioners can be from the same political party, and they can "exercise all voting and governance rights" inherent in the government's ownership stake through appointed representatives on each company's board of directors. The number of representatives must be commensurate with the government's stake in the company, and representatives may cast their votes only in ways that advance the interests of "worker welfare, public safety, fair competition among applicable AI companies, environmental sustainability, and financial solvency." 

In a warped recasting of fiduciary duty, the bill requires commissioners and their representatives to vote for these interests even when doing so "conflicts with the financial interests of the company or its other equity holders." Here, Sanders contradicts the very purpose of his bill. A business acting against its financial interests can hardly expect to remain profitable, which would ensure that its wealth fund would fail. 

Sanders isn't the only one pushing the idea of a sovereign wealth fund. The leaders of OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI, as well as President Donald Trump, have all naively called for a system of formalized direct payments funded by the AI industry. 

The president has also made a habit of taking "golden shares" in companies he deems vital to the country's economic or security interests. Now, Sanders has taken the next logical step in the socialist ladder, from voluntary disbursement to outright seizure of property.

The post Bernie Sanders Proposes AI Tax To Give Everyone $1,000 a Month. His Bill Would Do a Lot More Than That. appeared first on Reason.com.

"Italy and I do not beg," Meloni said in a video rebuke posted on social media Friday. Italy's top diplomat, meanwhile, said he was cancelling a visit to the U.S because of the alleged remarks.

(Image credit: Geert Vanden Wijngaert)

"Italy and I do not beg," Meloni said in a video rebuke posted on social media Friday. Italy's top diplomat, meanwhile, said he was cancelling a visit to the U.S because of the alleged remarks.

(Image credit: Geert Vanden Wijngaert)