18.9 C
London
Thursday, September 3, 2026
Home Blog

ICE Is Paying a Controversial AI Firm to Hide the Identities of Agents

0
ice-is-paying-a-controversial-ai-firm-to-hide-the-identities-of-agents
ICE Is Paying a Controversial AI Firm to Hide the Identities of Agents


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is launching a new “Doxing Mitigation Initiative” using AI to help ICE personnel keep their identities hidden from the public, according to an email addressed to all agency employees on Monday.

The memo, signed by Acting ICE Director David Venturella and leaked to The Intercept by ICE employees, identifies a company called ZeroFox as the tech firm behind the initiative. The communication describes ZeroFox as “a modernized protective technology solution designed to strengthen safeguards for our most valuable resource: You and your families.”

The Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, quietly entered a $15 million contract with ZeroFox in July for software licenses to support ICE operations and investigations, according to public procurement records. The records indicate that ZeroFox will provide services for the Office of Intelligence at ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations division.

ZeroFox develops AI-driven software aimed at stopping data leaks across social media and the dark web, according to its website. “ZeroFox never stops finding, mapping, and monitoring your digital presence,” the company vows. It’s not clear from the contract or the internal email how, precisely, the new initiative will function, and neither ICE nor ZeroFox responded to requests for comment.

“It sounds like inside surveillance,” said an ICE official who spoke to The Intercept on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

ZeroFox has used its tech in the past to identify and categorize people engaged in political activism, including during public unrest in Baltimore after the 2015 police killing of Freddie Gray and the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The ICE official expressed concern that ZeroFox tech could now be used to weed out whistleblowers and critics of the Trump administration.

“If things go sideways they may just throw all your info out there, make you out to be the problem or dox you,” the official said. “I don’t trust it.”

According to Richard Forno, associate director of the cybersecurity institute at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, it’s not shocking that ICE would contract with AI companies that “may have checkered histories.”

“It’s plausible that this tech could be used to seek out whistleblowers,” Forno told The Intercept. “For example, if ICE internal affairs or leadership can seed information that gets leaked, and then that information is then passed along to a reporter, you’re kind of setting up a honey pot situation to figure out who the leakers are.” He pointed out that the White House has already set a precedent for targeting critics as “terrorists” or “extremists” on fairly broad terms.

In 2015, ZeroFox offered its services to Baltimore officials for free, sending Baltimore Police a list of “threat actors” identified by its social-media monitoring system, which classified peaceful BLM protest organizers as physical threats. (ZeroFox’s co-founders told the press at the time that the classifications were likely based on their social media follower counts, and that they were labeled “physical” because they were “acting in real life” rather than online.)

After the January 6 attack, the FBI struggled to identify online extremist activity using its recently acquired ZeroFox technology, which the bureau’s agents referred to with “a derisive nickname,” according to the Washington Post, that involved “replacing the ‘Fox’ with a similar-sounding expletive.”

ZeroFox’s relationship with ICE, according to the leaked memo, seems to be focused on detecting information online that could identify or “dox” ICE employees. It’s understandable for a person to want to limit the personal information published about them online, said Sophia Cope, a senior staff attorney at the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“However,” she said, “if ICE is instituting this program to shield officers and the agency itself from public accountability, especially when information is already publicly available, then that’s a serious concern and flies in the face of our democratic values.”

ICE officials who spoke to The Intercept said some ICE personnel already use third-party services to keep their information private.

“I frankly don’t trust the feds with that,” said a second ICE official, who spoke to The Intercept under anonymity to protect his livelihood. “I’m not really keen on giving my PII” — personally identifiable information — “to a company that doesn’t have a solid track record with government contracts.”

ZeroFox is owned by private equity firm Haveli Investments, which bought the company for roughly $350 million in 2024. Bryan Ware, a former assistant director for cybersecurity for the Department of Homeland Security during the first Trump administration, currently serves as an executive at ZeroFox.

Trump may be forced to reveal secret rules feds use for AI safety testing

0
trump-may-be-forced-to-reveal-secret-rules-feds-use-for-ai-safety-testing
Trump may be forced to reveal secret rules feds use for AI safety testing

Four federal agencies have been sued amid calls to release information about the secret framework that the Trump administration uses to conduct safety reviews of frontier AI models prior to release.

In a Wednesday press release announcing the lawsuit, a nonpartisan nonprofit called Protect Democracy alleged that “almost no details” have been released to the public or Congress. To everyone except a few vague “trusted partners,” it remains unclear what the government’s review process looks like, which companies are involved in constructing the framework, or what legal authority Trump officials have to conduct the reviews.

“Neither the identities of those entities nor the criteria by which they were selected have been made public,” Protect Democracy said.

That’s a problem, Protect Democracy alleged in a statement to Ars, since decisions about “which AI models are approved and released may be the most important policy question of this White House.” And it appears that at least one AI firm, OpenAI, has “negotiated a private agreement with the Federal Government to limit distribution of its cutting-edge AI models to government-vetted partners.”

The group’s lawsuit is seeking an order requiring officials to produce all information sought by September 30. That includes “unclassified procedural and contractual architecture: the framework’s text, the terms of participation, the identity of participants, and the process and criteria by which access to frontier models is granted or withheld,” the complaint said. They also want an injunction restraining officials from improperly withholding records that aren’t classified.

“The executive branch is now choosing which companies can release their products and which customers get access to a technology that could shape the future of not only American industry and national security, but economies and governments abroad as well,” Protect Democracy’s release said. “All with no oversight from Congress, the public, or tech experts outside of the executive branch.”

Secret rules allegedly hide corruption

According to Protect Democracy, the framework could potentially be “corrupt,” with officials from the Office of the National Cyber Director, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Treasury Department, and the Commerce Department potentially favoring rapid deployments for AI firms that Trump likes. And on the flip side, the public has already seen Trump retaliate against an AI firm for being too woke, Protect Democracy noted, pointing to a judge’s recent ruling that it was illegal for Trump to blacklist Anthropic.

As AI technology advances and cybersecurity risks escalate—OpenAI’s model hacking Hugging Face is the most obvious recent example—the public can’t afford to blindly trust Trump to act in good faith when choosing which frontier models should be rigorously tested, Protect Democracy said. And perhaps even worse, the public cannot know if new vulnerabilities discovered in the real world are due to agencies failing to complete a proper review, running outdated or ineffective tests, missing important checks, or missing steps that align with the latest mitigation strategies advanced by leading AI safety experts.

“We deserve to know what’s in the framework,” the group said, joining other calls for the agencies to be more transparent about AI model deployments.

In a post on X last month, US Representative Greg Casar (D-Tx.) accused Trump of “completely failing to keep us safe from the dangers of AI” while taking “millions from AI billionaires.”

“Now, in the wake of extremely dangerous AI cybersecurity problems, he says he’s set up ‘voluntary’ review that no one has seen,” Casar said. “Asleep at the wheel. Too busy cashing in to protect our jobs or national security.”

More recently, another Democrat, California state Senator Josh Becker, urged the court to grant Protect Democracy’s request. In a declaration supporting their complaint, Becker noted that California is mulling a bill, SB 813, that would establish a process where independent organizations would set baselines for AI safety standards. If passed—unlike Trump’s approach—California’s plan would make the latest benchmarks, standards, and methodologies used to evaluate risks posed by AI systems transparent to the public, Becker said. Already, public input has shaped the bill, he noted, with one provision withdrawn following public backlash.

“In contrast to the Administration’s approach, every step of SB 813’s development has been public,” Becker wrote, emphasizing that “we are accountable for the framework we have set.”

No one knows Trump’s “trusted partners”

The Trump administration has been rushing to set up the voluntary safety review process ever since the government flagged Anthropic’s Mythos 5 model as too dangerous to release earlier this summer. The plan was to rapidly expand industry collaborations so that government teams at the Center for AI Standards and Innovation could review prerelease models with reduced or removed safeguards to “thoroughly evaluate national security-related capabilities and risks.” But that would be impossible, Trump realized, without industry experts being fully transparent and explaining what exactly new models could do.

In July, the White House launched a clearinghouse, GOLD EAGLE, that relies on industry partners to help agencies flag cybersecurity vulnerabilities across many sectors and industries. Again, Protect Democracy noted that the “White House did not identify any company participating in GOLD EAGLE, the terms on which they are participating, or any legal authority for the program.”

Then, on August 3, the White House announced that it had completed the voluntary framework for reviewing AI models before their public release. Both the framework and GOLD EAGLE are actively being used to review frontier models as the technology advances, the White House has confirmed.

Some parts of the government’s review process are classified. The executive order explained that Trump planned to develop “a classified benchmarking process” that would assess advanced capabilities of AI models and determine when models should be designated as frontier AI.

However, Protect Democracy’s complaint said the framework itself is notably not designated as classified. Despite that, the White House has refused to share details with the public. Instead, a spokesperson told reporters that “just because things are unclassified, that doesn’t mean we are going to broadcast them to everyone.”

Additionally concerning, the term “covered frontier model” is not defined, Protect Democracy said. If the definition is too narrow, some dangerous AI models could slip through the cracks, and if it’s too broad, agencies recently gutted by DOGE cuts may be spread too thin to assess too many models at once. Without more clarity, the public “can only hope this powerful technology is being governed safely and in the public interest,” Protect Democracy alleged.

So far, the framework has only been shared with “a select set of AI companies,” which excludes meaningful stakeholders, such as AI safety groups currently warning of emerging societal risks, as well as smaller or emerging AI firms whose input or model reviews may be just as critical.

Protect Democracy regularly relies on making FOIA requests in its mission to “prevent American democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government,” the complaint said. Fearing that Trump was seizing too much power over AI, the group sent identical FOIA requests to four US agencies, urgently seeking only non-classified information and requesting that their request be expedited. So far, no agency has produced any records, the complaint said. Only the National Cyber Director’s office responded, but it denied the group’s request to expedite the process, which Protect Democracy is now challenging as improper.

Congress is in the dark, too

On top of leaving the public in the dark—and independent researchers, advocacy groups, AI investors, and businesses in many industries with a stake in AI—lawmakers have been blocked from assessing the executive branch’s AI safety framework.

That matters, Protect Democracy alleged, because Trump’s AI safety operation may be destabilized if Congress is not on the same page. Right now, Congress is mulling whether to renew the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015, which seemingly is the sole legal basis allowing AI firms to share information with the government through GOLD EAGLE, the complaint said.

Those protections are part of a CISA provision that lapsed once, and Congress must soon decide if the provision should be extended. There’s discord between the House of Representatives and the Senate on the deadline to vote on the extension, but the earliest that could happen is September 30 and the latest is December 11.

“In either event, Congress will soon need to decide whether to extend CISA’s liability protections that, by the administration’s own account, sustain the GOLD EAGLE program that the administration has announced but has yet to explain,” Protect Democracy’s complaint said. “Indeed, a senior administration official publicly acknowledged at GOLD EAGLE’s launch that, absent that reauthorization, ‘this effort is fundamentally challenged.’”

Deana El-Mallawany, director of Impact Programs & Counsel at Protect Democracy, told Ars that “neither Protect Democracy nor Congress has enough information about the GOLD EAGLE program to make a fully informed decision on extending CISA. Our concern is that the White House is putting Congress in the position of voting on a CISA extension without knowing how the GOLD EAGLE program is operating, who’s involved, or what statutory authority is being invoked. That’s why we’re seeking these records.”

Protect Democracy alleged that without these records, the Trump administration could escape accountability for AI safety review.

“Congress cannot meaningfully oversee programs whose terms and asserted authority it has not been shown” and “courts cannot review action they cannot identify,” the complaint said.

El-Mallawany told Ars that if Protect Democracy gets access to the framework, all documents will be posted publicly. Without more transparency, the list of concerns that Protect Democracy has about Trump’s potential ability to leverage the voluntary framework over the AI industry is long, El-Mallawany said, adding:

The risks are abundant, including the risk that the White House could use the secret process to coerce AI companies over decisions like whether to deploy AI for lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance (as we saw with the clash between the Pentagon and Anthropic), to extort certain investors and employees for political and financial support or punish others for perceived political opposition, or to force AI companies to incorporate politicized viewpoints into their models—not to mention the risk that the review framework is simply ineffective, creating a false sense of security.

Trump’s DOJ Blocked Serious ICE Shooting Charge Over Federal Prosecutor’s “Strongest Possible” Objections

0
trump’s-doj-blocked-serious-ice-shooting-charge-over-federal-prosecutor’s-“strongest-possible”-objections
Trump’s DOJ Blocked Serious ICE Shooting Charge Over Federal Prosecutor’s “Strongest Possible” Objections

Over the “strongest possible” objections from the federal prosecutor handling the case, leaders at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., quashed plans to bring civil rights charges against an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent accused of shooting a Venezuelan immigrant and then lying about it. 

The agent, 52-year-old Christian Castro, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in Minneapolis this January during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration blitz that sent thousands of federal agents into the state. The incident was one of three shootings by immigration agents in the city, the other two of which were fatal. 

Federal prosecutors in Minnesota had been preparing to charge Castro with deprivation of rights under color of law for the shooting of Sosa-Celis, according to several people familiar with the case. Those charges are similar to the ones leveled against Minneapolis police officers accused in George Floyd’s killing and can carry hefty prison sentences. 

Late on Tuesday, Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims to prepare for Castro to be charged “only with False Statements,” according to an email that was reviewed by ProPublica. 

That charge would likely carry a far less severe punishment if he were convicted.

“This is being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney,” Evans wrote in a remarkably candid account of internal deliberations. “I objected in the strongest possible terms and fought it as hard as I could. It wasn’t enough.” 

He wrote that the false statement charges could come soon and would likely be filed under seal.

“It has been an honor and a privilege to try to get justice for your clients,” Evans concluded the email.

A DOJ official said civil rights charges require consultation with the civil rights division in Washington, and “any charging decisions that come out of such investigations are collaborative and deliberative and adhere to the facts and law of that specific case and controversy.”

The agency “has not yet reached a conclusion on this matter and will never rush an investigative process and the thorough review of all evidence,” the official said. 

Evans and a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota declined to comment. An attorney for Sosa-Celis did not return phone calls from a reporter. Castro, who has an outstanding warrant in Minnesota for this case, could not be reached for comment.

Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department’s civil rights division has been thinned and has dropped some Biden-era oversight of law enforcement agencies. This move by the DOJ is likely to fuel further concerns that the department is operating more in support of President Donald Trump’s political agenda than to preserve the rule of law. Earlier this year, a ProPublica analysis found that in almost every instance of immigration agents shooting people, Trump’s administration blamed the injured and dead within hours of the incident. In many of those cases, federal or local police declined to investigate the agents.

Castro, who was put on leave by the Department of Homeland Security, is also facing multiple state felony charges in Minnesota, including assault with a dangerous weapon. After he left Minneapolis and returned to Texas, Minnesota officials had requested state officials there extradite Castro to face the charges, but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott refused to cooperate. Castro had been held for 90 days in jail while the two states fought over the extradition. He was released last week. 

Sosa-Celis was shot on Jan. 14, as Castro and another ICE agent chased Alfredo Aljorna, an immigrant from Venezuela, after a traffic stop. Aljorna ran to his home, which he shared with Sosa-Celis. The two men made it inside after a brief scramble, and Castro fired through the closed door, “knowing [the home] was occupied by several people,” according to state charging documents. One witness said there were two children in the house when Castro shot into it. Sosa-Celis was hit in the leg. 

ICE agents then deployed tear gas into the home and took the men and their partners into custody, according to the documents and other court records.

DHS originally said Castro and the other agent were ambushed by the men and beaten with a shovel or broomstick, making Castro fear for his life and fire in self-defense. DHS called Sosa-Celis and Aljorna “violent criminal illegal aliens,” and federal prosecutors charged them with assault. 

The next month, however, they dropped the charges against both men, and the DHS backed off its narrative in a rare admission of possible wrongdoing of its officers. “Video evidence has revealed the sworn testimony of the two agents appeared to be false,” then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons said in a statement.  

After Castro’s release from jail, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who is leading the state’s prosecution against him, said she worried that Castro will flee to Mexico.

Reached for comment Wednesday, Moriarty compared the Justice Department’s decision to overrule Evans to its actions after ICE agents killed Renee Good. A week before shooting Sosa-Celis, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Good in her car. Agents alleged she drove toward them, but video of the incident showed Good’s wheels turned away from them when they shot her. Federal authorities first agreed to a joint investigation, but Justice Department officials later refused to cooperate with state police, deeming any review of the fatal shooting unnecessary.

Syria’s Unexploded Weapons Kill or Injure a Person Every 6 Hours

0
syria’s-unexploded-weapons-kill-or-injure-a-person-every-6-hours
Syria’s Unexploded Weapons Kill or Injure a Person Every 6 Hours


Syria’s postwar recovery is being slowed by a danger that does not announce itself: mines and unexploded weapons scattered through homes, fields, roads and ruined neighborhoods are killing or injuring one person about every six hours, according to the HALO Trust, a mine-clearance charity working in the country.

The threat has grown more visible since the December 2024 fall of former President Bashar Assad, when displaced Syrians began returning to damaged towns and villages. Families seeking firewood, farmers returning to land and construction crews clearing rubble have encountered explosive remnants from nearly 15 years of conflict.

The United Nations Mine Action Service and humanitarian organizations say at least 2,375 people have been killed or injured in such incidents since the change of government, including more than 850 children. The actual toll is believed to be higher because many accidents in remote areas go unreported.

A preliminary Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor report found that Syria recorded the world’s highest number of casualties from land mines and explosive remnants of war last year, with about 1,600 victims.

“This year has seen almost 700 casualties from explosive accidents,” Simon Jackson, the HALO Trust’s Syria program manager, said. He said roughly one-third of the victims had died and about one-third were children.

More than 60% of incidents have occurred on agricultural land or grazing areas, Jackson said. That makes the crisis more than a security problem: It limits food production, delays rebuilding and discourages families from returning permanently.

“Unexploded ordnance prevents people from rebuilding their homes, rebuilding their businesses. It prevents farmers from re-sowing crops,” Jackson said.

Clearance teams, working with Syria’s new authorities, face an immense task. In former front-line districts, destroyed buildings contain layers of metal, shrapnel and ammunition that make detection difficult. In many areas, minefield maps are incomplete or nonexistent.

A Syrian Defense Ministry engineering official said operations are prioritizing populated areas, roads and farmland, but new contaminated sites are discovered daily. Since the new government took power, 47 soldiers have been killed and more than 90 injured during mine-clearance work, according to the ministry.

Jackson warned that even doubling the sector’s capacity would leave Syria facing at least a decade of work, and possibly two or three. For Syrians returning home, peace remains dangerously unfinished.

Trump becomes first sitting US president to appear on a coin as Mint releases $1 piece

0
trump-becomes-first-sitting-us-president-to-appear-on-a-coin-as-mint-releases-$1-piece
Trump becomes first sitting US president to appear on a coin as Mint releases $1 piece


The US Mint confirmed on Thursday that the “golden dollar” featuring the likeness of US President Donald Trump has been released, urging people to check their pocket change while collectors can buy it in rolls and bags sold exclusively through its own channels.

The products are priced at $61 for a 25-coin roll and $154.50 for a 100-coin bag.

In practice, finding one in everyday change may take patience, since dollar coins have caught on widely with American shoppers and circulate far more sparsely than notes.

Collectors also have another detail to chase as the US Mint struck 250,000 of the coins on 4 July carrying a special “July 4th” privy mark, dispersed through the rolls and bags.

Despite its colour, the coin contains no gold, being 88.5% copper with smaller quantities of zinc, manganese and nickel.

The coin was struck in Philadelphia and carries no mint mark.

Chief Engraver Joseph Menna designed the obverse from an official White House photograph, showing Trump facing almost directly forward beneath the inscriptions “LIBERTY”, “IN GOD WE TRUST” and the dual date 1776 to 2026.

The reverse carries the Presidential Seal, originally sculpted by former chief engraver Frank Gasparro, with the numeral 250 added to the eagle’s shield to mark the country’s 250th anniversary.

There is one precedent for this initiative, though an imperfect one.

Calvin Coolidge appeared alongside George Washington on a 1926 half dollar marking 150 years of independence, making him the first living president on American coinage.

However, that was a commemorative issue rather than a coin intended for daily use. The legal basis for placing a Trump coin in circulation has been contested.

US law generally bars portraits of living people from coins, and the administration has relied on the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020, signed by Trump during his first term, which permits $1 coins bearing designs emblematic of the anniversary throughout 2026.

The design process also drew criticism.

The US Commission of Fine Arts had recommended a profile portrait and a different eagle design, neither of which was adopted, while the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, which normally reviews Mint designs, declined to consider it.

66 Palestinian villages forcibly expelled by Israel from West Bank since October 2023: Rights group

0
66-palestinian-villages-forcibly-expelled-by-israel-from-west-bank-since-october-2023:-rights-group
66 Palestinian villages forcibly expelled by Israel from West Bank since October 2023: Rights group

Israel has forcibly displaced residents of Khirbet al-Taban in the southern occupied West Bank, making it the 66th Palestinian village to be completely emptied of its residents since October 2023, Israeli rights group B’Tselem said Wednesday.

The group said in a statement that Israeli forces raided the village, south of Hebron, Wednesday morning and demolished the homes of all its residents within hours.

Khirbet al-Taban is home to 12 families totaling about 70 people, including 28 children, it said.

“The forces did not leave a single home standing,” B’Tselem said.

Israeli forces also demolished sheep pens, water tanks and storage facilities and destroyed caves in the area, according to the group.

B’Tselem said Khirbet al-Taban was the “66th Palestinian village that Israel has forcibly displaced since October 2023,” while residents of 18 other villages have been partially displaced.

The group said the displacement operations have forcibly removed about 4,931 Palestinians from their homes, including approximately 2,339 children and teenagers.

READ: Palestinian commission records 2,030 Israeli army and settler attacks in West Bank in August

B’Tselem Executive Director Yuli Novak said Israel was “continuing to erase Palestinian communities at an accelerating pace as part of the ethnic cleansing it is carrying out in the West Bank.”

Novak said the international community was standing “idly by while Palestinian lives are left exposed to Israeli violence.”

The demolition of Khirbet al-Taban comes amid an escalation in the seizure of Palestinian land across the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, alongside occupiers’ attacks and the establishment of illegal settlement outposts and projects.

In July, Israeli authorities issued 31 orders to seize about 831,000 square meters of Palestinian land in the West Bank, according to The Palestinian Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission.

The Israeli army and occupiers also carried out 2,256 attacks against Palestinians, their land and property during the month, including 1,458 by the army and 798 by occupiers, according to the commission.

Since Israel began its genocide on the Gaza Strip on Oct. 8, 2023, Israeli forces and occupiers have intensified attacks in the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, through killings, arrests, forced displacement, home demolitions and illegal settlement expansion.

READ: Settler fire attacks damage 11 mosques in West Bank in 2026

Wary of Artemis IV timeline, NASA is changing lunar spacesuit design

0
wary-of-artemis-iv-timeline,-nasa-is-changing-lunar-spacesuit-design
Wary of Artemis IV timeline, NASA is changing lunar spacesuit design

NASA has decided to use a simpler spacesuit for its initial missions to the lunar surface, Ars has learned.

The agency announced the decision during an internal meeting this week as it seeks to accelerate its program to land humans at the south pole of the Moon as early as 2028. At the direction of Artemis Program Manager Jeremy Parsons, NASA will work with Axiom Space to develop a “Sortie Suit” variant of the planned spacesuit for the lunar surface.

Sources said the Sortie Suit will be used for the initial landing missions flown on landers developed both by SpaceX and Blue Origin. Among the goals of the initiative are to lower the mass of the spacesuit, reduce its complexity, and simplify interfaces between the spacesuits and lunar landers.

Accelerating Artemis

Since arriving at NASA in December 2025, Administrator Jared Isaacman and his team have been reviewing the space agency’s Artemis Program, which had fallen significantly behind schedule. At the time, it appeared increasingly likely that NASA would not return to the Moon before at least 2030 and that this would allow China to reach the lunar surface in advance of NASA’s return.

Isaacman has been searching for ways to get Artemis back on track and, with the blessing of Congress, has already made some major changes, including streamlining production of the Space Launch System rocket, canceling the Lunar Gateway to reduce the burden on lunar landers, and working aggressively with SpaceX and Blue Origin to understand their needs and how NASA can help.

Less has been publicly reported about NASA’s work with Axiom Space, which, under a spacesuit-as-a-service contract, is the agency’s only current provider of suits for astronauts to venture out onto the lunar surface.

This does not mean suits are unimportant, however. For NASA to have a meaningful mission to the lunar surface, it needs more than a spacecraft, a rocket, and a lander—it needs modern spacesuits capable of allowing astronauts to wander around outside, take pictures, and conduct science.

Slimming down the suit

About four years ago, NASA awarded spacesuit development contracts to two providers, Axiom Space and Collins Aerospace. In 2024, after falling behind schedule and presumably because it was having difficulty making the finances work, Collins dropped out, leaving Axiom as the sole provider of suits. Axiom has remained committed to the process, but private sources have expressed concerns about its rate of progress.

We began to get some answers about progress this week during the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. One of the panel’s members, former astronaut Charlie Precourt, revealed that NASA leadership is meeting with Axiom six days a week, often in person, to address concerns about schedule and performance. Precourt added, “Requirements are being adjusted to reflect near-term mission needs, including shortening the spacesuit certification duration requirements.”

Although he did not name the “Sortie Suit,” this now clearly appears to be a reference to a slimmed-down version of Axiom’s AxEMU suit. Ars has reached out to Axiom for comment and will update this story if a response is received.

There have been repeated industry rumors that Axiom’s current design is significantly over its mass budget. One reason for this is the requirements NASA initially established for these suits, which the space agency’s inspector general later characterized in a 2024 report as “over-burdensome.”

Initial requirements asked … a lot

Among these challenging requirements, NASA mandated that the lunar spacesuits be capable of six spacewalks over a 6.5-day mission; that even after being stowed in a dormant condition, the suits must still be capable of further spacewalks for a period of 210 days; and have a thermal system capable of not just shedding heat from an astronaut exerting themselves but also operate nominally for at least two hours in an exceptionally cold, permanently shadowed region.

These and many other requirements led Axiom toward a suit design that was complicated, necessitated many layers of protection that drove mass upward, and had a stiffer design that reduced astronaut mobility. The result was a much heavier suit, one that was more difficult to build, was falling behind schedule, and cost more.

Essentially, with the “Sortie Suit” design, NASA is seeking to pare back requirements to allow Axiom to develop a suit that is good enough for initial Artemis missions and becomes more capable over time as NASA and Axiom learn about conditions on the surface of the Moon and can fold operational experience into upgrades.

Such an approach would better suit NASA’s needs now.

Will Ukraine attack civil aviation in Russia?

0
will-ukraine-attack-civil-aviation-in-russia?
Will Ukraine attack civil aviation in Russia?

President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned airlines, insurers and foreign governments that Russian airspace “will be de facto closed” because of Ukrainian drones.

Although Ukraine does not threaten civil aviation, he said, carriers flying to Moscow, St. Petersburg, or other major hubs must factor in the risk of drones in Russian skies.

“The safe days in Russia’s skies are over,” he said, and Ukrainian drones will operate “on a scale that has to be taken into account.”

Either Zelensky’s statement was simply propaganda or his warning had more dire implications. The Russians understood Zelensky’s statement as a threat to commercial aviation. Vladimir Putin called it “state terrorism.”

Shutdowns of Russian commercial airports due to drone and missile attacks are nothing new. They have been quite common during the Ukraine War.

Russia has taken protective action around civil aviation facilities since drone attacks on Russian territory began in the spring of 2022.

The Moscow and St. Petersburg airports are strictly for commercial aviation and are not used for military operations. Both cities have nearby military airports.

In the past year Russia has halted airport operations during swarm drone attacks. Mass-scale incursions – such as sweeping multi-hundred-drone barrages targeting Moscow and surrounding oblasts – have forced successive closures and temporary ground stops.

For instance, international carriers’ operations have been disrupted often, leading to rolling cancellations, terminal evacuations and passengers being directed to emergency shelters.

Between February 2023 and May 2025, Russian airports closed at least 366 times under emergency “Carpet” protocols.

“Carpet” (or Kovyor) protocols are a standard emergency aviation safety procedure in Russia designed to immediately clear airspace when an unauthorized object or security threat – such as an incoming drone – is detected.

A Ukrainian drone found outside of Moscow.

These disruptions have heavily impacted major aviation hubs like Moscow’s airports (Vnukovo, Domodedovo, Sheremetyevo, and Zhukovsky) as well as regional facilities across western and southern Russia, such as Kazan, Saratov and Sochi. Major regional shutdowns also occur from targeted strikes, such as when 13 southern airports simultaneously halted operations after a drone hit an air navigation facility in Rostov-on-Don.

There are about 60 foreign commercial carriers that fly to Russian airports. These include Emirates, Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways, flydubai, Oman Air, Gulf Air, Air Arabia, and Flynas. Regional operators like El Al (Israel) and Royal Jordanian also maintain service.

Turkish Airlines (along with subsidiaries like AJet and Southwind Airlines) and low-cost carrier Pegasus Airlines operate extensive networks connecting multiple Russian cities directly to Turkish hubs.

Major Chinese airlines – Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines, and Hainan Airlines (alongside regional carriers like Beijing Capital, Sichuan, and Tianjin airlines) – run regular routes connecting China and Russia. Other Asian operators like Sri Lankan Airlines and Vietnam Airlines also maintain service.

Airlines from neighboring friendly states maintain heavy flight schedules into Russian hubs, including Air Serbia, Belarus’s Belavia, Azerbaijan Airlines, Uzbekistan Airways, Kazakhstan’s SCAT Airlines, and multiple carriers out of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Several African airlines operate routes into Russia, including EgyptAir, Ethiopian Airlines, Royal Air Maroc, Air Algérie, and Egyptian carriers like Air Cairo.

Russian airlines offer significant service in Russia and internationally and include Aeroflot, Pobeda, Rossiya, S7 (Siberia), Ural, Azimuth, Nordwind and Utair plus smaller specialized carriers.

Aeroflot crew.

The United States, the European Union, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other Western nations banned Russian aircraft and airlines from entering their airspace when the war began. In retaliation, Russia closed its airspace to carriers from over 30 countries, including all EU member states and the U.S. from the end of February, 2022.

Moscow’s four commercial airports handle between 1,500 and 1,800 flights per day. St. Petersburg handles 400 to 500 flights daily.

While Russia’s commercial airports remain in business, all of Ukraine’s commercial passenger air facilities have been closed since the start of the war. Travelers must fly into neighboring countries (such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, or Moldova) and cross into Ukraine by land via train or bus. The Ukrainian government’s primary presidential aircraft—an Airbus A319 operated by the state enterprise “Ukraine”—is based at a secure facility at the Krakow John Paul II International Airport in Poland.

While Russia’s commercial airports remain in business, all of Ukraine’s commercial passenger air facilities have been closed since the start of the war.

Ukrainian swarm drone attacks on Russian territory are an effort to raise the cost of the war for Russia and demoralize the public and push Russia’s leaders into negotiations. Zelensky wants a ceasefire and the eventual withdrawal of Russia’s army from Ukraine’s territory. Putin says he will not negotiate with “terrorists.”

A Russian Geran-3 jet-powered kamikaze drone lying in a cornfield after being recovered intact in Ukraine on Sept. 16, 2025. Photo: HUR MO

It is possible Ukraine can further step up drone attacks on Russian territory, but the Ukrainians also know that the Russians will retaliate and step up their own attacks. Russia has a range of weapons, including UAVs, that it can use and Russia has developed a new version of the Geran (Geran 3) which is jet powered and appears to be faster than any Ukrainian interceptor drone.

Increasingly the Russians are focusing on striking manufacturing and storage sites around Kyiv and energy and port operations in Odesa. Such attacks recently destroyed an important weapons storage site in a Kyiv suburb, and the Odessa attacks have all but halted grain and cooking oil exports from Odesa and stopped incoming arms shipments.

It is uncertain whether Zelensky’s warning will change the current pattern of attacks and retaliations. It is hard to see how Ukraine can keep launching hundreds of drones (sometimes as many as a thousand) every night against targets inside Russia, so it could be that Zelensky is saying more than he can do. The Russians are intensely focusing on Ukraine’s drone production facilities and warning outside suppliers, especially in the UK, that it might take action against them. What he really may do, Putin says, is a “military secret.”

This article by former US Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Bryen originally appeared on Weapons and Strategy, his newsletter.

FCC plans robocall scorecard to grade phone companies on spam call blocking

0
fcc-plans-robocall-scorecard-to-grade-phone-companies-on-spam-call-blocking
FCC plans robocall scorecard to grade phone companies on spam call blocking

The Federal Communications Commission today said it will create a robocall mitigation scorecard to rate phone companies on how effectively they block illegal spam calls.

The scorecards could include call-blocking statistics along with data on customer complaints and enforcement actions. The FCC said scorecards could grade providers on a number scale, with letter grades, or by classifying providers as low risk, medium risk, or high risk.

“The Scorecard will empower consumers and encourage providers to continue to combat illegal robocalls by providing the public with an assessment of the effectiveness of voice service providers’ efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls,” the FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau said in a public notice.

The proposed tool would rate wireless, wireline, and VoIP providers on efforts to block robocalls and their “actual results in protecting [consumers] from illegal robocalls,” the FCC said. “In practice, that means moving beyond a simple administrative checklist (i.e., did the provider file the right paperwork, did they offer the right tools) and toward a composite set of metrics that reflects both operational practices and measurable outcomes, including how often legitimate calls are blocked.”

Whether the tool is useful for consumers will depend on how it’s designed, how easy each provider’s scorecard is to find, and what data sources it relies on. The proposed scorecard would apply to domestic voice service providers with retail customers, but not telcos that operate solely as wholesale or intermediate providers.

“Combatting the scourge of illegal robocalls remains the FCC’s top consumer protection priority… As proposed in today’s public notice, the FCC aims to develop a scorecard that will give consumers more information about the measures providers are taking to fight illegal robocalls, and it will also incentivize providers to improve their efforts,” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in a press release.

Scorecards need “the right information”

The FCC is seeking public comment on what sources of data to use for the robocall scorecard. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the commission’s only Democrat, said the “scorecard could increase consumer awareness of how providers fight illegal robocalls” if it includes “the right information.”

The robocall scorecard won’t be the first FCC initiative designed to give consumers useful data about telecom providers. The FCC requires Internet providers to display pricing information on publicly accessible broadband labels, though Carr recently led a vote to stop requiring that ISPs list all their discretionary fees on those labels.

Consumer advocacy groups are likely to weigh in on the call for public comments, and so are phone companies that won’t want the scorecards to rate them poorly. The docket is available at this FCC webpage.

“We applaud the FCC’s possible renewed interest in cracking down on scam and spam robocalls. The FCC’s efforts have been disappointing for years, going back to even before Congress passed the robocall crackdown law in 2019,” Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director for Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), told Ars today.

Murray, who wrote a report in February 2025 grading providers on their blocking efforts, said she is concerned about what information the FCC will use and whether it will be useful to consumers.

“Phone customers should absolutely feel empowered to speak with their wallets if they’re unhappy with their phone service,” Murray told Ars. “But switching cellphone or VoIP providers isn’t as easy as choosing to shop at a different grocery store next week, even if someone isn’t in a phone contract. Maybe the point of the scorecard would be to shame providers into doing better. And that would be a good thing.”

Complaints and other data

The FCC proposes using conduct-based metrics and outcome-based metrics. The first category measures “whether a provider has taken specific steps or responded to specific requests related to illegal robocall mitigation,” while the second examines “whether a provider’s efforts actually reduce illegal robocalls reaching consumers, such as whether the number, rate, or severity of illegal robocalls… is measurably lower because of something the provider did.”

The FCC appears likely to use data from the providers themselves and from third parties. The public notice said:

Specifically, we seek comment on what sources we can use for the metrics we choose to use… Are providers themselves a good source of such data? In some cases, are they the only source? Are there other sources, such as call analytics companies, that providers may use to help with labeling and blocking? Are there other parties that might have helpful data, including private companies or other governmental entities? Do such parties have data on all providers we would include in the Scorecard or just a portion of them? Are such data sources unbiased, i.e., do not have an interest in skewing results in favor of certain providers?

The FCC said the scorecards may show data from consumer complaints filed with the FCC, Federal Trade Commission, and other government bodies. It asked for comments on the limitations of using complaint data, since “the mere filing of a complaint does not necessarily indicate a failure to stop an illegal call from reaching a consumer.”

“Is a complaint sufficient evidence that a consumer is unhappy with the robocall protection their provider is giving them?” the FCC asked.

The FCC proposed measuring the accuracy of blocking tools and is seeking comment on how to do that. The proposed tool would rate providers both on blocking illegal robocalls and on avoiding erroneous blocking of legitimate calls.

“Data on provider blocking practices specifically, tracked over time, may also help identify which approaches are most effective at minimizing erroneous blocking of legitimate calls while still stopping illegal robocalls, and could inform best practices across the industry,” the FCC said.

Caller ID verification and robocall tracebacks

Other proposed sources of data include FCC enforcement actions; filings with the Robocall Mitigation Database, in which providers certify their implementation of STIR/SHAKEN technology for Caller ID verification; and data from the Industry Traceback Group, a telecom industry group that traces the sources of illegal robocalls.

Murray said she wants scorecard information to include traceback requests and complaints about phone companies that have potentially violated state or federal laws; warnings issued by the FCC or state attorneys general to phone providers about patterns of illegal calls; and specific details about companies’ deployment of STIR/SHAKEN.

The scorecard should show whether there are “services the company can legally offer to help customers that the company isn’t offering or it’s charging for,” Murray said. Phone companies should have to disclose the scorecards in prominent places, like their websites, billing statements, or marketing materials, she said.

“Perhaps this is just the start of a new conversation about what regulators and lawmakers can do about this horrific problem,” Murray said, noting that victims of phone scams have suffered “devastating losses,” while phone users in general face “daily annoyances of unwanted robocalls.”

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

Recent Posts