11 C
London
Friday, May 15, 2026
Home Blog

Internal Pentagon Report Reveals Hegseth Is Willfully Putting Civilians in Danger

0
internal-pentagon-report-reveals-hegseth-is-willfully-putting-civilians-in-danger
Internal Pentagon Report Reveals Hegseth Is Willfully Putting Civilians in Danger


The Pentagon’s top watchdog says cuts to civilian harm mitigation and response efforts have been so severe under War Secretary Pete Hegseth that the United States cannot adequately protect civilians in conflict zones. 

Thursday’s scathing analysis by the Department of War’s inspector general came on the same day that the top U.S. commander overseeing the war in Iran dismissed reports of civilian casualties and said the U.S. had no means to corroborate reports of strikes on hospitals and schools. The inspector general specifically notes that the military stopped funding a database that tracks civilian harm that could be used for such verification.

While damning, the former chief of harm assessments at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence nonetheless called the new report a “whitewash” that downplays the evisceration of the Center and the entire enterprise devoted to reducing civilian casualties.

The report focuses on the implementation of the Pentagon’s 2022 Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, or CHMR‑AP, which was mandated by the department to take full effect by the end of 2025. The inspector general found serious deficiencies and a chronic failure to meet timelines for 11 objectives consisting of 133 incomplete “implementing actions” by the end of last year. The inspector general found that the Department of War “did not fully implement any of the CHMR-AP objectives by the end of FY 2025.”

“This is a crisis of the Trump Administration’s own making: They slashed the staffing and funding for civilian harm mitigation, and now they can’t adequately follow the law and implement the CHMR-AP, leaving civilians and our own military personnel at risk,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the co-chair of the Protection of Civilians in Conflict Caucus, told The Intercept. “The Inspector General’s report is clear about what that means: wasted munitions, failed strikes, damaged alliances, and propaganda wins for our adversaries. The Trump Administration needs to reverse course immediately so we can save lives and protect our national security.”

The Intercept has previously reported on Hegseth’s gutting of CHMR efforts. More than a year ago, five current and former Defense Department officials described Pentagon efforts to eliminate or downsize offices, programs, and positions focused on preventing civilian casualties.

The 43-page inspector general report details continuing efforts to hamstring protections for civilians in war zones, noting that “DoW Components ended funding for the CHMR data management platform, stopped holding Steering Committee meetings, lost or reassigned many of the personnel dedicated to CHMR, and lost personnel and leadership” at the Center of Excellence, which is focused on training and employing tools for preventing civilian casualties.

“What exists of the Center of Excellence since March 2025 is a shell on paper with no budget, no mandate or real mission, no authority.”

Wes Bryant, who until last year served as the chief of civilian harm assessments and senior analyst and adviser on precision warfare, targeting, and civilian harm mitigation at the Center of Excellence, is one of those “lost personnel,” having been forced out of his job after blowing the whistle on efforts to dismantle CHMR efforts.

“It is completely whitewashed of the truth,” Bryant said of the report. “It reads as if the IG is completely deliberately ignoring the fact that the center and the entire CHMR enterprise was targeted for immediate shutdown, that 90 percent of billets were either terminated or forced out, and that what exists of the Center of Excellence since March 2025 is a shell on paper with no budget, no mandate or real mission, no authority and is completely locked out of visibility and oversight on all investigations and operations.”

The watchdog’s evaluation noted that Hegseth’s War Department “may not comply with its civilian casualties and harm policy” — which is required under federal law. The investigation also found that eliminating CHMR funding and personnel also “decreases readiness and increases risk to DoW personnel, mission success, and military objectives,” according to officials at the Joint Staff, which is headed by Gen. Dan Caine, and at geographic combatant commands, which oversee U.S. operations in various corners of the world.

While couched in stilted language, the report details dangers to civilians due to cuts to CHMR efforts. It makes note of deficiencies in “personnel and capabilities” to protect civilians under Pentagon regulations that are mandated by federal law. And it mentions a lack of necessary “tools” at the Center of Excellence, including a “data management platform” meant to track civilian harm incidents. The report notes that “according to Joint Staff and [combatant command] officials, eliminating CHMR funding and personnel makes mitigating or responding to civilian harm more difficult.” Such officials also noted that “eliminating CHMR funding and personnel reduces battle space awareness and increases the risk of civilian casualties, damaged coalitions and alliances, loss of legitimacy, increased local resistance, propaganda opportunities for adversaries, prolonged conflicts, and failed strikes.”

“This report makes it clear that the DoD is not complying with the law, nor its own policies, both of which were built on a bipartisan basis upon years of hard-learned lessons from wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria,” Madison Hunke, the U.S. program manager of the Center for Civilians in Conflict, told The Intercept. “As Congress develops the budget for the upcoming fiscal year, they must ensure that it not only provides the DoD with the resources it needs to comply with law and policy but also conduct rigorous oversight to keep the DoD accountable for implementing these critical programs.”

Reporting by The Intercept found a combatant command that has gone from a military backwater to one engaged in regular kinetic activity — U.S. Southern Command — is unable to cope with the volume of civilian casualty reports. After the U.S. attacked Venezuela in January , the U.K.-based watchdog group Airwars attempted to submit documentation of civilian casualties to SOUTHCOM, which oversees military operations in Latin America. The organization learned that SOUTHCOM has no mechanism for submitting these reports. After reaching out to the Pentagon, Airwars was told to submit documentation to the Center of Excellence.

The report specifically mentions the Center’s “support for organizations such as the U.S. Southern Command,” despite the fact that the Center “lost large numbers of personnel and leaders,” does not have “the tools designed to meet its statutory roles and duties,” and that the Army had developed plans, early last year, to euthanize it.

The report notes that an official from an unnamed combatant command “stated that they largely divested their CHMR personnel, functions, and responsibilities as of March 2025.” Another said that they did not “want to spend resources on actions or make future commitments for a program that may be significantly changed.”

As the Pentagon has starved the CHMR enterprise, the U.S. has killed more than 2,000 civilians across the world — from Latin America to Africa to the Middle East — during Trump’s second term. “This is unprecedented in terms of the sheer number of theaters where harm to civilians has been reported within such a short space of time,” Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen, a policy specialist with Airwars, told The Intercept, referencing attacks in the Caribbean Sea, the Pacific Ocean, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

Airwars tracked reports of at least 224 civilians in Yemen killed during the Trump administration’s campaign of air and naval strikes — codenamed Operation Rough Rider — against Yemen’s Houthi government in the spring of 2025. This nearly doubled the civilian casualty toll in Yemen from U.S. attacks since 2002, meaning that almost as many civilians were reportedly killed in 52 days as the previous 23 years of airstrikes and commando raids.

The preliminary findings of a U.S. military investigation revealed by The Intercept and other outlets determined that the United States conducted an attack on the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, Iran, in February, contradicting assertions by President Donald Trump that Iran struck the school. More than 150 civilians were killed, most of them children.

Almost 115,200 civilian homes, commercial properties, and other civilian sites have been damaged in the U.S.–Israel war on Iran, according to a report from the Iranian Red Crescent Society last month; this includes 763 schools. The Red Crescent also reported that more than 334 medical, health, pharmaceutical, and emergency centers have been damaged, including 18 of its own centers. Twenty-four health workers have been killed and 116 injured, according to Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education.

“U.S.–Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 2,362 civilians, including 383 children, and injured over 32,314 civilians, according to official figures,” Raha Bahreini, a regional researcher with Amnesty International’s Iran Team told The Intercept and other journalists during a press briefing late last month.

On Thursday, Adm. Brad Cooper — the senior officer overseeing U.S. combat operations in Iran — told senators that the strike on the school in Minab was the only civilian casualty incident he knew of after more than 13,600 U.S. strikes.

Airwars has chronicled more than 300 civilian casualty incidents in Iran since the start of the conflict.

“How do you explain the publicly available information that 22 schools have been hit and multiple hospitals?” asked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., citing a New York Times report. “There’s no way we can corroborate that,” Cooper replied.

The inspector general’s report specifically says that a database used for tracking civilian harm — which could be used in verification efforts — was abandoned. The “Army stopped funding the data management platform,” it notes.

Cooper said that preventing civilian harm is “a matter that I’m passionate about.”

Hegseth has launched overlapping efforts to weaken transparency, scuttle accountability, hobble military justice, and undercut protections for civilians in conflict — from replacing the Pentagon press corps with pro-administration sycophants and firing the top legal authorities of the Army and the Air Force last year, reportedly pursuing changes that would encourage lawyers to approve more aggressive tactics and take a more lenient approach to those who violate the laws of war.

Late last month, Hegseth repeatedly dismissed congressional concerns about civilian harm and respect for the laws of war in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. “The Department of War fights to win,” Hegseth replied when asked if he stood by his statement that the U.S. would afford enemies “no quarter” — a war crime.

While the U.S. has been clinging to a rickety ceasefire with Iran for more than a month, Trump has previously threatened to commit genocide there. “We’ll go back and finish them off. And, by the way, more than that,” he said on Friday.

Bryant believes that efforts by congressional Democrats and press coverage of civilian casualties — and the ensuing pressure on Hegseth — has kept the lights on at what remains of the Center of Excellence and held CHMR on life support. “Given all the controversy and heat that Hegseth and the administration have since received for civilian casualties, it has behooved them to be able to technically say that some semblance of the program still exists,” he told The Intercept. “However, I can tell you with 100 percent confidence that it exists at this point entirely on paper and as a legal CYA,” or cover your ass.

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

0
at-17,-he-was-tear-gassed-at-selma-at-78,-he’s-watching-kids-tear-gassed-during-trump’s-deportation-campaign.
At 17, He Was Tear-Gassed at Selma. At 78, He’s Watching Kids Tear-Gassed During Trump’s Deportation Campaign.

Charles Mauldin remembers that his lungs felt like they were imploding when he breathed in tear gas more than 60 years ago. It was Sunday, March 7, 1965, when Mauldin, who was 17, joined hundreds of other demonstrators in a march from Selma, Alabama, to the state Capitol in Montgomery to demand voting rights for Black Americans.

Mauldin stood near the front of the line — just two rows behind John Lewis, who would go on to become a civil rights icon and U.S. representative — when the march attempted to cross Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge. Law enforcement officers waited on the other side. They ordered the group to disperse. After about a minute and half, Mauldin said, police began to attack the demonstrators with billy clubs. They also launched tear gas into the crowd, which included teenagers like Mauldin. 

“We didn’t know what to expect,” Mauldin recalled. “I was fearful. We had to put ourselves in a place beyond fear.”

Now 78, Mauldin watches the news and sees videos and pictures of children being tear-gassed again — not by local police in 1965, but by federal immigration officers in 2026.   

“Having people like ICE treat people the way we were treated 61 years ago, it’s horrible,” Mauldin said. “It’s traumatizing for young kids, and I’m just starting to realize how traumatizing it is for me.”

Hands hold a framed black-and-white photograph of a line of people walking across a bridge.
Mauldin holds a photograph of demonstrators crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965. Mauldin is in the third row of people, in the center of the photograph, looking at the camera. Civil rights icon John Lewis is in the first row at the right. Charity Rachelle for ProPublica
A black-and-white photograph shows a line of police officers advancing from the left side with billy clubs drawn and a group of Black men standing together on the right side. A crowd of people look on in the background.
Police advance on the demonstrators. Mauldin is second from the right. “I was fearful. We had to put ourselves in a place beyond fear,” he said. Spider Martin/The Spider Martin Civil Rights Collection

We reached out to Mauldin because we recently published an investigation that found at least 79 children have been physically harmed by tear gas and pepper spray during President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts. The children include a 6-month-old baby who briefly stopped breathing, a 12-year-old boy who developed hives and a 17-year-old who suffered from a severe asthma attack. 

They were mostly going about their days when they were exposed to the tear gas or pepper spray. The 6-month-old was in his family’s car when a tear gas canister rolled underneath it, and the 12- and 17-year-olds were in their respective homes. 

There is no national standard governing the use of tear gas and pepper spray, leaving federal immigration officers with more latitude to deploy the weapons than some local police departments have. 

In many of the cases where children were harmed, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said, the officers were justified in using tear gas or pepper spray, but they did not address how the weapons affected bystanders, including children. “DHS does NOT target children,” the agency said in a written statement.

Read More

“DHS is taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters,” a spokesperson for the agency said. “We remind the public that rioting is dangerous. Obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime and assaulting law enforcement is a federal crime and felony.”

We interviewed dozens of witnesses and people with firsthand knowledge of the harm, reviewed videos from bystanders and officer-worn cameras, and closely examined lawsuits. And we kept asking experts: Have children ever been harmed by tear gas or pepper spray on the scale we’re seeing now? Is this unprecedented? 

We quickly realized there is no single entity that tracks every instance when law enforcement officers use tear gas or pepper spray. There is no requirement to identify or follow up with the people who were harmed. We also learned that there isn’t much research on the long-term consequences of exposure to these weapons.

Some historians we spoke with suggested the Civil Rights Movement as a point of comparison. So, we turned to Mauldin to help us understand how being tear-gassed as a teenager during that time has affected him.

A black-and-white photograph of a scene that is obscured by a cloud of tear gas. Two police officers and one other man are visible. Another person is barely visible in the haze as they fall to the ground.
Tear gas fired by police wafts through the air on “Bloody Sunday.” Spider Martin/The Spider Martin Civil Rights Collection

As police began beating people around him, Mauldin said, he remembers Lewis being struck over the head with a club. 

“I’ll never forget the sound of his head being cracked,” he recalled. 

Then, troopers turned to tear gas. 

“What tear gas does, it makes your skin burn, it forces you to run away from it — it makes your lungs seem to implode,” Mauldin continued. 

He got as low to the ground as possible. Then, he said, he and others ran to the river and  eventually made their way back to the Brown Chapel A.M.E. Church

There was “nothing to do unless you can escape it,” Mauldin said. “It’s a pretty harrowing experience, especially for kids.”

In the years after Mauldin was tear gassed, he was diagnosed with asthma. There’s no research that shows tear gas as the cause of an asthma diagnosis, but it’s technically possible since the chemicals can cause lung injury, Sven Jordt, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine who’s an expert on tear gas, told ProPublica. In one of the court declarations we read as part of our reporting, the mother of the 12-year-old who broke out in hives said her son also  developed “chronic respiratory issues” and now needed an inhaler after months of breathing in tear gas that seeped into their home. The family lives near an ICE facility in Portland, Oregon, where federal officers routinely shot chemical munitions at protesters. 

Another parent living near an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, told us she’s taken her 7-year-old daughter to urgent care about five times since last fall, when officers repeatedly used tear gas against protesters. “She’s been complaining about her throat,” the mother said of her daughter. “It gets to the point she can’t breathe.”

For Mauldin, who said he is the last living person from the front of the line on that Sunday in 1965, being tear-gassed at a young age left an emotional toll — one he said he is still coming to terms with.

Experts we spoke with emphasized how important it is for children who were recently tear-gassed or pepper-sprayed to seek help for their mental health. That includes children who were not only directly harmed by these chemicals but also those who saw other people hurt by law enforcement, said Dr. Sarita Chung of Boston Children’s Hospital, who studies pediatric disaster preparedness and response. “Without support, this could be a lifelong burden.”

At first, children may struggle to sleep or eat, or have difficulty concentrating after experiencing a traumatic event, said Dr. Andrew Racine, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. That’s especially true for younger children who can’t grasp what’s happening, he said. These reactions may dissipate over time, but the core event may stick with a child for much longer: “Some of them will remember this for a very, very, very long time.” 

Mauldin only recently began sharing his experience about what happened at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, an event of police brutality that became known as “Bloody Sunday.” Processing that trauma began after visiting the bridge some years ago with historians, who Mauldin said helped get him to open up memories and emotions he had suppressed. 

“If you don’t realize it, and you don’t get help with it … it’ll limit your experience to grow and be the best that you can be,” Mauldin said. “You have to be able to kill a part of yourself to be able to sustain that trauma.”

Rearming Japan: Ambition, constraints, and limits

0
rearming-japan:-ambition,-constraints,-and-limits
Rearming Japan: Ambition, constraints, and limits

Originally published by Pacific Forum, this article is republished with permission.

In barely half a year, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has pushed Japan’s defense policy into unfamiliar territory. The FY2026 main defense budget has reached ¥9.04 trillion (approximately $58 billion), with total security-related spending at roughly ¥10.6 trillion, at about 1.9% of GDP.

The 2% threshold, long treated as sensitive, has effectively been reached ahead of schedule. At the April 2026 LDP convention, she signaled that constitutional revision is imminent, with a proposal targeted for 2027.

This is more than higher spending. It is a compressed phase of military normalization under pressure. The driver is a China-Taiwan trilemma: Japan must deter China, prepare for instability around Taiwan and hedge against uncertainty in US commitments, all without provoking escalation or exhausting its own capacity.

While a stronger military posture can enhance deterrence and reassure the United States, rapid acceleration still creates inherent trade-offs, and prioritizing one objective can weaken another in practice.

The pressing question is whether Japan can transform this accelerated buildup into enduring military capability before structural limits impose constraints.

Acceleration beyond predecessors

Japan’s trajectory did not begin with Takaichi. Under long-serving Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the outer boundaries of postwar security policy were stretched, most notably through the 2015 legislation that reinterpreted Article 9 to permit limited collective self-defense.

Fumio Kishida, prime minister from 2021-2024, consolidated that trajectory, committing Japan to reach 2% of GDP in defense spending by FY2027 while revising core strategic documents.

Takaichi has forced execution under time pressure. Her February 2026 supermajority mandate allowed her to compress what had been a gradual process. Speed has reduced political resistance, but it has also limited the time available for institutions to absorb change.

The March 2026 reorganization of the Self-Defense Forces reflects this shift. A centralized Fleet Surface Force concentrates naval command, while a new Amphibious and Mine Warfare Group sharpens the focus on island defense. The Air Self-Defense Force has expanded into an Air and Space Self-Defense Force.

Procurement has accelerated, including Tomahawk acquisition and upgrades to indigenous systems. Restrictions on arms exports have been eased, signaling a more active role in defense industrial cooperation.

The emphasis has moved beyond preparing for contingencies and toward shaping them. That transition brings initiative, but also greater exposure to miscalculation and institutional strain.

The China-Taiwan trilemma as the central driver

The strategic logic behind this acceleration is rooted in geography and timing. China’s military modernization continues at scale, accompanied by persistent gray-zone activity around the Senkaku Islands. At the same time, a Taiwan contingency, whether through blockade or direct force, has become a planning scenario rather than a remote possibility.

Japan sits uncomfortably close to this potential flashpoint. The Nansei Islands (also called the Ryukyus) extend toward Taiwan, with some points only about 110 kilometers (68 miles) away. Critical sea lanes passing through the Miyako Strait and the Bashi Channel carry the vast majority of Japan’s energy imports. Disruption in these corridors would register immediately as an economic shock.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi speaks with the press Friday about her phone call with US President Donald Trump as he flew home from his summit with Chinese leadaer Xi Jinping. Photo: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan

Tokyo increasingly treats Taiwan as strategically aligned but operationally constrained.

Political gridlock and readiness gaps raise doubts about its ability to sustain a prolonged defense.Japan cannot assume time or US availability will be on its side, particularly under an administration that frames alliances in more transactional terms.

These pressures cannot be reconciled cleanly. Strengthening deterrence risks escalation. Preparing for a Taiwan contingency demands resources that strain sustainability. Hedging against US uncertainty requires autonomy that can complicate coordination. The result is a managed tension rather than a balanced strategy.

Geographic focus and operational shift

Japan’s response is most visible along its southwestern arc. The islands of Yonaguni, Ishigaki, and Miyako are being fortified with missile deployments, surveillance systems and logistical infrastructure designed to support sustained operations. Forward arming and refueling points extend air coverage. Unmanned systems improve surveillance while reducing risk to personnel. Electronic warfare capabilities aim to disrupt adversary targeting.

Island chain strategy. Map: ResearchGate

This “southwestern wall” is a distributed network designed to complicate movement through the First Island Chain and raise operational costs. The emphasis lies on denial – slowing and constraining an adversary rather than defeating it outright.

From Beijing’s perspective, such a network complicates rapid coercive options but does not eliminate them. Saturation tactics or blockade strategies could still impose severe pressure, especially if Japan struggles to sustain operations. Denial depends as much on endurance as on initial positioning.

The core constraints: Human resources, demographics, and doctrinal legacy

The ambition of Japan’s defense buildup faces structural limits that are harder to overcome than budget ceilings.

The most immediate is manpower. As of the end of FY2024, the Self-Defense Forces stood at 89.1% of authorized strength, with recruitment shortfalls persisting despite expanded eligibility and retention measures. This gap already affects readiness.

A denial strategy built on dispersed, high-tempo operations across the southwestern islands is manpower-intensive. It requires rotation, redundancy and the ability to absorb attrition. Japan is weakest where its strategy demands the most.

Demographic trends reinforce this constraint. The pool of recruitment-age citizens continues to shrink, as it is projected to decline by another 30% or so by the mid-2040s, while competition from the civilian labor market remains strong. Expanding the force will be difficult regardless of budget growth.

Doctrine presents a different challenge. The long-standing emphasis on an exclusively defense-oriented policy under Article 9 has become increasingly detached from operational practice. Counterstrike capabilities and force restructuring point toward a more flexible doctrine. Takaichi’s push for constitutional revision seeks to reconcile this gap, but the process remains politically sensitive.

Even where funding exists, conversion into capability is uneven. Roughly ¥1 trillion in defense allocations goes unspent annually due to procurement delays, industrial bottlenecks, and currency effects. The constraint is no longer willingness to spend, but the ability to sustain capability over time. These pressures concentrate risk in long-duration operations, where initial gains are hardest to maintain.

Historical echoes as cautionary restraint

Japan’s postwar identity continues to shape both domestic debate and external perception. The legacy of World War II and the normative weight of pacifism remain embedded in political culture. They no longer function as an outright barrier, but they define the boundaries of acceptable policy.

Public protests in April 2026, including a large demonstration outside the Diet and coordinated actions nationwide, reflect persistent unease. Coalition dynamics reinforce the need for caution. Younger voters appear more open to a stronger defense posture, but this openness does not translate into unconditional support.

Externally, China continues to frame Japan’s military developments through historical narratives, while other regional actors watch more quietly. Tokyo’s challenge is to signal restraint externally while expanding capability internally. Perception remains integral to deterrence.

Forward outlook: 2026–2035 inflection points

The upcoming revisions to Japan’s National Security Strategy will shape the next decade. Technology will play a larger role, particularly in unmanned systems and AI-enabled support, offering partial relief from manpower constraints. Partnerships will deepen, including with the Philippines and Australia.

Several trajectories stand out. Prolonged gray-zone pressure in the East China Sea would test operational endurance, exposing weaknesses in personnel and logistics. Economic coercion by China, combined with fiscal constraints, could slow expansion. A successful constitutional revision could strengthen legal clarity and alliance coordination, while testing domestic cohesion.

Each path stresses a different dimension of Japan’s strategy – operational endurance, fiscal sustainability or political legitimacy. None can be managed through spending alone.

Realism must match resolve

Takaichi has supplied what Japanese defense policy long lacked: urgency backed by resources. The challenge has shifted. It is no longer about overcoming political hesitation or breaking fiscal taboos.

Japan’s rearmament now depends on whether the state can sustain what it has chosen to begin. The constraints it faces are enduring, not transitional. How they are managed will determine whether this acceleration produces lasting military capacity or a force that expands quickly but struggles to endure when it is tested most.

Tang Meng Kit (mktang87@gmail.com) is a Singaporean freelance analyst and commentator. He graduated from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU, Singapore in 2025. By profession, Meng Kit works as an aerospace engineer. He has keen interest in geopolitics and cross-straits affairs.

US says Israel-Lebanon ceasefire extended by 45 days after Washington talks

0
us-says-israel-lebanon-ceasefire-extended-by-45-days-after-washington-talks
US says Israel-Lebanon ceasefire extended by 45 days after Washington talks

The United States announced Friday that the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will be extended by 45 days following what Washington described as “highly productive” talks between the two sides, Anadolu reports.

“The April 16 cessation of hostilities will be extended by 45 days to enable further progress,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said on the US social media platform X.

The announcement came despite continued Israeli attacks in Lebanon since the US-mediated ceasefire took effect.

Pigott said the State Department will reconvene the political negotiations track June 2-3.

He also announced that a separate “security track” involving military delegations from both countries will be launched at the Pentagon on May 29.

READ: Israeli minister announces illegal settlement plans in Lebanon, displacements in Gaza, West Bank

“We hope these discussions will advance lasting peace between the two countries, full recognition of each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and establishing genuine security along their shared border,” Pigott said.

The announcement followed a third round of US-mediated negotiations held at the State Department.

A State Department spokesperson described the discussions to Anadolu as “very positive, even exceeding expectations.”

According to a State Department official, the United States was represented in the talks by State Department Counselor Michael Needham, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa.

Lebanon was represented by Ambassador Nada Hamadeh Moawad and Lebanese presidential envoy Simon Karam, the official said.

READ: Israeli attacks kill 200 children in Lebanon since March 2: UNICEF

Solar power production undercut by coal pollution

0
solar-power-production-undercut-by-coal-pollution
Solar power production undercut by coal pollution

Coal is by far the most polluting fuel that we use. It produces the most carbon emissions per unit of energy, and impurities in the coal produce a lot of sulfur dioxide aerosols, as well as nitrous and nitrogen oxides. Then there’s the coal ash that’s left behind, which typically contains a lot of toxic metals. The health benefits of displacing coal power are typically estimated to be well above the costs of the new generating equipment. 

But a new study suggests that the problems with coal-derived pollution go beyond health; it interferes with other power sources. Researchers have found that aerosols, both natural and human-derived, significantly reduce the power we could be getting from solar panels, to the tune of hundreds of terawatts a year. And a lot of those aerosols come from burning coal.

A big impact

The new work, done by a team in the UK, is based on a new global inventory of solar facilities. This started with known inventories of solar facilities, and was supplemented with AI-analyzed satellite imagery and crowdsourced records of locations. Satellite images were then used to determine the size of these facilities, and location-tagged weather data could then be used to estimate their power production.

That could then be used to estimate what the facilities would be producing if clouds and/or aerosols weren’t scattering the sunlight that would otherwise reach the panels. This produced some significant numbers. In 2023, for example, over a quarter of the potential solar power production was lost, with over 20 percent due to clouds and another 6 percent from aerosols. That works out to be a bit over 500 terawatt-hours, or the full annual output of 84 coal plants (each with a 1 GW generating capacity). 

Aerosols alone are a major contributor to these losses. The researchers note that, for the five years leading up to 2023, we installed enough solar capacity to produce an average of 250 TW-hr of additional power per year, but were losing 75 TW-hr of that to aerosols. (Obviously, solar production kept going up because the existing capacity rose each year.)

Regional differences

The researchers note that aerosols can also contribute to cloud formation, which also causes further losses. But the degree of that contribution is much harder to estimate, so the researchers focus on aerosols for much of the analysis. Some of those aerosols occur naturally, typically from dust kicked up by winds in desert regions. However, despite deserts’ reputation as sunny paradises, the world as a whole hasn’t built much solar infrastructure in the desert yet, so this isn’t as much of a factor as you might expect. 

Coal appears to be a major contributor. It’s estimated that sulfur dioxide aerosols, primarily produced through coal burning, account for nearly half of the aerosols analyzed here. Carbon-rich material, which also typically comes from fossil fuels, accounts for another 18 percent. 

The impact of aerosols, however, is not evenly distributed. In China, the researchers estimated that aerosols were reducing solar production by 7.7 percent overall and offsetting anywhere from a third to half of its annual growth. The researchers note that “the spatial distribution of photovoltaic losses in China mirrors that of its coal-fired power capacity,” and an analysis of pollution data from China shows that 30 percent of the losses due to aerosols can be attributed to coal burning. 

In contrast, most solar production in the US takes place in the south and west, while coal plants are more common in the east and northeast. As a result, the annual losses in the US were less than half of those seen in China (3 percent).

The good news is that things are getting better in China. In response to some severe pollution problems, the country built a new generation of high-efficiency coal plants and retired some of the worst polluters. And the data show that this is also benefiting solar power, with the impact of aerosols dropping over the last few years.

Even with the improvements, it’s striking that coal appears to be the only power source that actively reduces the productivity of what’s shaping up to be its primary competitor. It should also provide an impetus to move off coal more quickly, as at least some of the loss of coal production will be offset by enhanced productivity from solar.

Nature Sustainability, 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-026-01836-5

Beloved Teacher Dies in School in Front of Horrified Students

0
beloved-teacher-dies-in-school-in-front-of-horrified-students
Beloved Teacher Dies in School in Front of Horrified Students


A beloved teacher at a school in England tragically died after suddenly collapsing in front of stunned students as they were taking exams Thursday morning.

The shocking incident happened at Kings’ School in Winchester shortly after students arrived for the school day.

According to reports, the female staff member collapsed during GCSE exams — major standardized tests taken by British high school students — triggering an emergency response and forcing the school into lockdown procedures.

An air ambulance landed at the campus just before 9 a.m. as emergency crews rushed to save her.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Air Ambulance later confirmed that a doctor and two advanced paramedics were flown to the school after receiving reports of a medical emergency.

Police said the woman, who was in her 40s, was sadly pronounced dead at the scene.

Authorities have not publicly confirmed her identity, but she has been identified locally as Mrs. Bamford, the school’s head of business and computing.

Hampshire Police said the death is not considered suspicious and that a report is being prepared for the coroner.

Following the heartbreaking incident, school officials emailed parents informing them that students would be sent home early while Year 11 exams would continue as scheduled.

“Due to an ongoing situation in school today related to an urgent medical situation involving a member of staff, we have taken the decision to close the school early,” the message reportedly said.

The school remained closed for a second straight day Friday as grieving students, parents and former classmates gathered outside the campus gates to leave flowers, candles and emotional handwritten tributes.

One student wrote: “You were a wonderful teacher and will forever be remembered.”

Another heartbreaking note described the teacher as “sweet, kind, lovable” and someone who “made such an impact on many people’s lives.”

Former students also flooded social media with tributes remembering her as one of the most compassionate teachers at the school.

“Thank you for being the kind of teacher that inspired and taught with kindness and compassion,” one former student wrote online. “You will be so missed.”

Another described her as “one of the kindest and caring teachers,” while a current student called her “a beautiful lady who always had a lovely aura about her.”

In a statement, Kings’ School said its main focus remains supporting the teacher’s family, staff and students during the devastating tragedy.

“Our focus remains on supporting the family, our staff and pupils at this difficult time,” a school spokesperson said.

Vietnam’s power bill hides a market economy lie

0
vietnam’s-power-bill-hides-a-market-economy-lie
Vietnam’s power bill hides a market economy lie

The proposal to gradually pass nearly 45 trillion dong (about US$1.8 billion) in accumulated losses from Vietnam Electricity (EVN) into future electricity prices reveals a deeper contradiction at the center of Hanoi’s economic strategy.

For years, while Hanoi has persistently lobbied Washington to recognize Vietnam as a “market economy”, the country’s electricity sector has continued to operate under a hybrid model in which risks are socialized while market competition remains tightly controlled.

The issue is not simply about rising electricity bills. It raises a broader question: can Vietnam convincingly present itself as operating under market principles while maintaining politically managed pricing mechanisms and the dominance of state-owned enterprises in strategic sectors?

The debate is heating up at a sensitive moment. Vietnam faces growing risks of expanded US trade investigations related to subsidies, dumping practices and transshipment linked to China-centered supply chains.

Hanoi has therefore ramped up efforts to secure Washington’s market-economy recognition in hopes of reducing the likelihood of anti-dumping duties on Vietnamese exports.

Yet the decision to shift more than 45 trillion dong in EVN losses onto Vietnamese consumers inadvertently highlights why such recognition remains politically difficult and increasingly doubtful in Washington.

Political electricity market

Under the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s proposal, EVN’s losses would not be addressed through deep restructuring, shareholder dilution or genuine market competition. Instead, the costs would gradually be incorporated into retail electricity prices paid by households and businesses.

This reflects a longstanding feature of Vietnam’s economic governance model: electricity prices are neither fully market-driven nor entirely subsidized. They are politically calibrated.

For years, Hanoi maintained relatively low electricity prices in order to: contain inflation, support exports, preserve social stability, and sustain GDP growth.  However, this policy has also created mounting financial pressure inside EVN, especially following global fuel price shocks and rising generation costs.

Vietnam now faces a difficult balancing act. If electricity prices remain artificially low, EVN’s financial position will continue to deteriorate. But if prices rise too quickly, inflationary pressure and public dissatisfaction will intensify.

The result is a compromise model in which losses are distributed across society while the electricity sector itself remains only partially liberalized.

This creates a paradox that US policymakers are unlikely to ignore. In market economies, price increases are generally justified by market competition, transparent cost structures, investment risks and consumer choice. Vietnam’s electricity sector does not fully meet those conditions.

Although Vietnam has partially opened the solar energy and independent power generation sectors to private investment, EVN still retains dominant control over transmission infrastructure, grid management, and retail pricing mechanisms. Consumers cannot freely choose electricity providers.

Nor do they have meaningful influence over how prices are determined. Yet when the system accumulates losses, the burden is transferred to consumers through administrative pricing adjustments.

From Washington’s perspective, this raises broader questions about how Vietnam defines “market principles.”

If electricity prices are tightly controlled in the name of economic stability when necessary, but suddenly adjusted according to “market pricing” once losses become unsustainable, many US lawmakers may view the system as selectively market-oriented rather than genuinely competitive.

US skepticism

Vietnam’s effort to gain market-economy status has long faced skepticism from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Conservative trade hawks increasingly see Vietnam as an extension of China-centered supply chains. Meanwhile, progressive lawmakers and labor advocates continue to raise concerns about state-owned enterprises, labor rights and unequal market competition.

The EVN case further reinforces these concerns because electricity prices directly affect export competitiveness. Electricity is a core input for industries such as steel, electronics, chemicals, solar equipment and industrial manufacturing.

If US authorities conclude that electricity prices are distorted by state intervention rather than driven by market competition, they may argue that Vietnamese exporters continue to benefit from advantages inconsistent with the standards of a market economy.

This matters greatly because in anti-dumping investigations, Washington closely examines whether domestic prices genuinely reflect market conditions.

To be fair, Vietnam is not the only country facing this type of power challenge. Many developing economies struggle to liberalize strategic sectors without triggering social instability. Even advanced economies intervene heavily in energy markets during periods of crisis.

The difference, though, lies in institutional structure. In more mature market economies, electricity price increases are typically accompanied by stronger independent regulators, greater financial transparency, more meaningful competition and clearer accountability mechanisms.

Vietnam, by contrast, still operates under a more centralized system in which state-owned enterprises remain closely tied to macroeconomic management and social stability objectives.

This hybrid model helped Vietnam industrialize rapidly over the past two decades. But it also complicates Hanoi’s current effort to convince Washington that Vietnam’s economy now operates primarily on market principles and dynamics.

Larger market questions

The debate surrounding EVN ultimately reflects a broader strategic challenge facing Vietnam.

Hanoi wants greater access to Western markets, recognition as a market economy and deeper integration into global supply chains. At the same time, however, the state remains reluctant to relinquish strong control over sectors considered strategically and politically sensitive.

This approach may continue to provide domestic stability in the short term. But internationally, especially in an era of rising economic protectionism and intensifying geopolitical competition,  the space for “partial marketization” is narrowing.

As US-China competition becomes increasingly intertwined with supply chains and trade standards, debates that once appeared purely domestic, such as EVN’s electricity pricing policies, are now becoming part of a much larger geopolitical equation.

Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, also known as Mother Mushroom, is a Vietnamese writer, human rights commentator and former political prisoner based in Texas, United States. She is the founder of WEHEAR, an independent initiative focusing on Southeast Asian politics, human rights and economic transparency.

US plans to indict Cuba’s Raul Castro

0
us-plans-to-indict-cuba’s-raul-castro
US plans to indict Cuba’s Raul Castro


The United States plans to indict Cuba’s Raul Castro, a U.S. Department of ​Justice official said late on Thursday.

The timing of the potential indictment, ‌which would need to be approved by a grand jury, was not immediately clear, but the official said it sounds imminent.

The potential indictment of the 94-year-old former ​president of Cuba and brother of Fidel is expected to focus ​on the downing of aircraft, the official said on condition ⁠of anonymity.

CBS previously reported that the case relates to Cuba’s deadly ​1996 shootdown of planes operated by humanitarian group Brothers to the Rescue.

Representatives for ​Cuba’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside of normal business hours.

A U.S. Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request ​for comment.

Trump’s administration has called Cuba’s current communist-run government corrupt and ​incompetent and is seeking to replace it. The latest move comes as President Donald Trump ‌has ⁠heaped pressure on Cuba, effectively imposing a blockade on the island by threatening sanctions on countries supplying it with fuel, igniting power outages and delivering blows to its economy.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District ​of Florida has ​been overseeing an ⁠effort to examine potential criminal charges against senior Cuban government officials.

Officials from both countries acknowledged earlier this year ​that they were in talks, but the negotiations appeared ​to founder ⁠amid the ongoing U.S. fuel blockade.

However, on Thursday, the Cuban government confirmed it had met with CIA chief John Ratcliffe.

Ratcliffe told intelligence officials in Cuba that ⁠the U.S. ​was prepared to engage on economic security ​issues if Cuba makes “fundamental changes,” a CIA official said.

Source: Reuters

Nebraska wonders which is riskier: The fires it starts, or the fires it fights

0

This story is made possible through a partnership between Grist and The Flatwater Free Press, Nebraska’s first independent, nonprofit newsroom focused on investigations and feature stories.

As the fast-moving blaze rolled toward Fire Chief Jason Schneider’s district in Cozad, Nebraska, he and his crew faced a literal uphill battle.

The Cottonwood Fire was tearing through the Loess Canyons, an area defined by steep slopes, narrow valleys, few roads, and pockets of invasive eastern red cedar trees, which can throw embers and ash and even explode when they burn.

“You think you would have it put out, and you keep on moving north, and you’d look back south and it’s just going again behind you,” Schneider said of the March blaze.

But the situation started to improve when Schneider’s crew connected with the South Loup Burn Association, a group of landowners and ranchers who were also fighting the fire. They showed Schneider and his volunteer crew how to do back burns — setting controlled, low blazes in the path ahead of the Cottonwood Fire to consume any flammable material — to contain the wildfire. About 92 percent of Nebraska’s fire departments listed with the National Fire Department Registry are volunteer-based.

A drip torch owned by Austin Klemm was used to help contain the Cottonwood Fire that burned in Nebraska's Dawson, Lincoln, and Frontier counties in March.

A drip torch owned by Austin Klemm was used to help contain the Cottonwood Fire that burned in Nebraska’s Dawson, Lincoln, and Frontier counties in March. Courtesy of Austin Klemm

“It would have burned a lot more if they hadn’t showed up and helped us get it stopped where we did,” Schneider said.

Unlike other parts of the country where wildfire season peaks in summer and late fall, Nebraska is set ablaze in the spring. This year has marked the state’s worst on record. As of May 6, conflagrations burned about 981,502 acres and dealt a blow to ranchers. They also brought to the forefront the growing debate over a controversial and centuries-old land management practice: using fire to fight fire. 

The Cottonwood Fire, contained by prescribed burn techniques and past prescribed fires, made the case for the practice. But during the same month, separated by just a county, heavy winds turned the smoldering remnants of a prescribed burn in the Nebraska National Forest into the Road 203 wildfire, which devoured nearly 36,000 acres.

Decades of fire mismanagement and climate change have primed America’s landscapes to burn. Today, fire districts, land managers, and local authorities from California to Florida to New Jersey are increasingly embracing the use of prescribed burns to prevent the most severe blazes. According to the National Association of State Foresters and the Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina burned between 250,001 and 1 million acres, while California, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona burned between 50,001 and 250,000 acres, in 2020 alone. In the Great Plains, these burns are now common practice in states like Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, said Dirac Twidwell, a rangeland and fire ecologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 

In Nebraska, too, particularly in east and central parts of the state. The Nebraska Prescribed Fire Council estimates that 2025 saw the most acres burned by prescribed fire in one year during recent times. 

But in areas of the state like the western Sandhills, the practice has sparked backlash.  

“There was a [prescribed burn] group that tried to establish a couple of years ago up around the Tryon, Mullen area up in there. And they almost lynched that group,” Keystone-Lemoyne Fire and Rescue Chief Ralph Moul said. “They said ‘No, we do not want fire in the Sandhills,’ because there’s nothing to stop it up here.”

Despite the fear, there is overwhelming evidence that prescribed burns, when done correctly, can help prevent massive wildfires by burning up volatile fuels like cedar trees. They can also replenish nutrients in soils, making the land ecologically healthier, boosting plant and wildlife diversity and saving ranchers money. The grass that comes back after a burn is often preferred by cattle.

“The wildfires you’ve seen here in Nebraska the last few years are also a consequence of removing fire from the landscape,” said Kent Pfeiffer, program manager for the Northern Prairies Land Trust. “You don’t get rid of fire, you just change the nature of it … instead of having frequent low-intensity fires, you end up with infrequent, high-intensity fires.”

a map of Nebraska showing drought extremity levels by color alongside shapes of wildfires

Nebraska’s mild and dry winter set up the state for major wildfires early this spring. Graphic by Quentin Lueninghoener of Hanscom Park Studios for the Flatwater Free Press. Source: U.S. Drought Monitor and wildfire.gov

The issue is growing more urgent as the state faces dual threats. Suppression of natural fires has allowed cedar woodlands to creep into Nebraska’s native grasslands, with more large swaths at risk and an already costly headache for ranchers. Meanwhile, climate change is bringing more extreme conditions, including intense stretches of drier and hotter weather that can fuel more destructive, less controllable blazes.

“What we know is that overall, our fire management is not working,” Twidwell said.


Tucker Thompson was in his 30s back in the early 2000s when he first helped out on a prescribed burn on another person’s property near Gothenburg. The rancher, who summers cattle in the Loess Canyons, knew some neighbors would be upset, but cedar trees were starting to sprout across his land. He wanted to get ahead of the problem, and he was curious.

By today’s standards, the group’s equipment was basic and their knowledge limited. Even though everything went fine, Thompson left thinking the entire practice was insane. He went home and took a chainsaw to the cedar trees across about 400 acres of his property.  

“I’m like, ‘I am never going to be responsible for another fire,’” Thompson said. “And then five years later, they all start coming back. Ten years later, it’s like, I have no choice. There’s no way of killing these dang things, so I burned them.”

Now, Thompson continues the practice and is a member of two burn groups. He helped firefighters contain the Cottonwood Fire, even as it ravaged his grazing lands.

Prescribed burns “decrease the fuel load in these canyons, so we can control these fires to some degree,” Thompson said.

The Loess Canyons area has one of the most advanced prescribed fire cultures in the entire country, Twidwell said. It has reduced the risk of catastrophic fire and made the land more suitable for grazing, which has boosted landowners’ profits.

Up until the last 150 years, fire was common in Nebraska. Wildfires would naturally control species like eastern red cedar, and Indigenous peoples would run prescribed burns to clear underbrush, remove dead biomass, replenish soil nutrients, and encourage new plant growth. 

Prescribed burn associations, nonprofits, and state, federal, and municipal agencies burned more than 92,700 acres in prescribed fires in the first six months of 2025 alone, according to a survey by the Nebraska Prescribed Fire Council. It’s likely the most acres burned through prescribed fire in the state in one year during recent times, the council said.

But conducting these burns requires a lot of planning, monitoring, money, machinery, and manpower. And even when it comes together, a change in weather can cancel the whole operation on a moment’s notice.

Brian Sprenger checks on his cattle Wednesday, June 21, 2023, in Sidney, Neb.

Brian Sprenger checks on his cattle in 2023, in Sidney, Nebraska. Cedar trees are creeping into the state’s grasslands, fueling more several wildfires. AP Photo / Brittany Peterson

Semi-retired rancher Jon Immink coordinates burns across multiple landowners’ properties near the Nebraska-Kansas border to help manage cedar trees. He plans years ahead as he maps out which plots of land need to burn when, typically in the stretch from January to March.

“I do not sleep well in burn season. You wake up 4 o’clock in the morning and all you can think of is … you prepare for what could go wrong,” Immink said. 

In order to conduct a land management burn, a landowner or tenant has to apply for a permit and submit a burn plan to their local fire chief, who decides whether to waive Nebraska’s standing open burn ban. By law, the plan requires a lot of documentation and forethought, including a list of on-hand equipment and a description of the weather conditions needed to burn safely.

Fairbury Fire Chief Judd Stewart’s jurisdiction is filled with landowners and managers who use prescribed burns. Stewart had to cancel 40 to 50 burn permits in March when Governor Jim Pillen ordered a temporary statewide halt in issuing due to the devastating wildfires. Stewart wishes the governor would have given more consideration to areas like southeast Nebraska, where fire danger was lower.

“These areas that people had this heavy vegetation, and now they still have that heavy vegetation, but they’ve got new grasses growing in it, and it makes it very difficult to burn,” Stewart said. “As we approach mid- to late summer, when we start getting high temperatures … that vegetation will carry fire again, and now we’ve got those heavy fuel loads that are going to be hard to contain.”

The governor’s order has impacted landowners and managers who have invested thousands of dollars, conducted years of planning, and deferred grazing for prescribed burns that might now have to wait another year, said Austin Klemm, board member of the South Loup Burn Association, the group that helped Schneider and others contain the Cottonwood Fire.

Right now, he is working with about six landowners who have invested roughly $250,000 to $275,000 to plan a burn that might not happen this year.

“Some of these guys have invested tens of thousands of dollars in prep work to be able to burn,” Klemm said. “These guys have deferred grazing, did not graze at all last year, had to go find a place to stick cows or feed cows all last year.”


Becky Potmesil doesn’t have to look far to see the devastation wildfire can cause. Potmesil raises cattle in the Alliance area of the Panhandle, on the western edge of the Sandhills. To the south, the Morrill Fire burned an estimated 642,000 acres, making it the largest on record in the state’s history. To the southeast, the Ashby Fire burned another 36,000 acres.

The winds have blown away the black, burnt grass, leaving behind only sand dunes. It looks like a moonscape, she said. 

“Anybody who’d do a prescribed burn out here in the [western] Sandhills in western Nebraska is crazy, and it’s dangerous,” she said. While she sees how there could be benefits in some parts, like the meadows, she doesn’t think it would be worth the risk in her area.

Moul, the Keystone-Lemoyne Fire Chief, is cautious about issuing burn permits in his district, especially in the Sandhills. He likes for there to either be snow or green grass on the ground. Unlike in other parts of the state, the Sandhills have fewer fire breaks, less infrastructure, and more extreme weather conditions like high-speed winds and very little humidity, Moul and Potmesil noted.

A prescribed burn conducted south of Callaway, Nebraska in 2022 by the South Loup Burn Association.

Send the arXiv AI-generated slop, get a yearlong vacation from submissions

0
send-the-arxiv-ai-generated-slop,-get-a-yearlong-vacation-from-submissions
Send the arXiv AI-generated slop, get a yearlong vacation from submissions

AI-generated slop has shown up everywhere, including in the peer-reviewed literature. Fake citations, unedited prompt responses, and nonsensical diagrams have all slipped past editors and peer reviewers, and it’s not always clear if there are any consequences for the people responsible.

Now, it appears that a number of scientific fields will be enforcing rules against AI-generated problems even before peer review or journals get involved. One of the people involved in the physics and astronomy preprint server arXiv used a social media thread to announce that any inappropriate AI-produced content submitted to the server will result in a one-year ban and a permanent requirement that future publications undergo peer review before the arXiv will host them.

Thomas Dietterich, in addition to being an emeritus professor at Oregon State University, is heavily involved with arXiv, serving on its editorial advisory council and on its moderation team. So he’s in a good position to understand the organization’s policies, although we have also reached out to arXiv leadership for confirmation, but have not yet received a response.

In a thread on X (also screenshotted on Bluesky, for those without X accounts), Dietterich described the new policy as arising directly from the arXiv’s moderation standards. “Submissions to arXiv must comply with appropriate standards of scholarly communication in form, including appropriate and carefully prepared sections, figures, tables, references, etc.,” those standards read. “General scrupulousness and care of preparation are required.”

Dietterich also notes that all authors of a manuscript are responsible for its content. So, if they carelessly submit material generated by an AI that violates these guidelines—Dietterich cites “inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content”—then they’re responsible, not the AI. Should violations be discovered, all of the manuscript’s listed authors will now receive a one-year submission ban, and any future manuscripts will only be accepted after they’ve been through peer review by a journal.

For fields that rely heavily on the arXiv, those are severe sanctions. Posting preprints in areas like astrophysics is widely considered part of the normal publication process, and scientists will often get feedback on preprints that helps them improve what they submit for peer review. The unfortunate problem is that, like most other things, the system can be gamed—people could submit flawed content that lists people as authors who have never been involved. Fortunately, its moderation system includes an appeal process.

One obvious question that arises when these problems are found in publications is why nobody caught them sooner. Now, we can at least know that someone is trying to.

0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -
Google search engine

Recent Posts