Author name: Shannon Garcia

after-npr-and-pbs-defunding,-fcc-receives-call-to-take-away-station-licenses

After NPR and PBS defunding, FCC receives call to take away station licenses

The CAR complaints were dismissed in January 2025 by then-FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and then revived by Carr after Trump appointed him to the chairmanship. Carr has continued making allegations of news distortion, including when he threatened to revoke licenses from ABC stations that air Jimmy Kimmel’s show.

During the Kimmel controversy, Carr said he was trying “to empower local TV stations to serve the needs of the local communities.” The FCC subsequently opened a proceeding titled, “Empowering Local Broadcast TV Stations to Meet Their Public Interest Obligations: Exploring Market Dynamics Between National Programmers and Their Affiliates.”

The FCC invited public comments on whether to adopt regulations “in light of the changes in the broadcast market that have led to anticompetitive leverage and behavior by large networks.” This could involve prohibiting certain kinds of contract provisions in agreements between networks and affiliate stations and strengthening the rights of local stations to reject national programming.

FCC criticized for attacks on media

The “Empowering Local Broadcast TV Stations” proceeding is the one in which the Center for American Rights submitted its comments. Besides discussing NPR and PBS, the group said that national networks “indoctrinate the American people from their left-wing perspective.”

“The consistent bias on ABC’s The View, for instance, tells women in red states who voted for President Trump that they are responsible for putting in office an autocratic dictator,” the Center for American Rights said.

The FCC proceeding drew comments yesterday from the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), which criticized Carr’s war against the media. “The Public Notice frames this proceeding as an effort to ‘empower local broadcasters’ in their dealings with national networks. But… recent FCC actions have risked using regulatory authority not to promote independent journalism, but to influence newsroom behavior, constrain editorial decision-making, and encourage outcomes aligned with the personal or political interests of elected officials,” the NHMC said.

The group said it supports “genuine local journalism and robust competition,” but said:

policies that reshape the balance of power between station groups, networks, and newsrooms cannot be separated from the broader regulatory environment in which they operate. Several of the Commission’s recent interventions—including coercive conditions attached to the Skydance/Paramount transaction, and unlawful threats made to ABC and its affiliate stations in September demanding they remove Jimmy Kimmel’s show from the airwaves—illustrate how regulatory tools can be deployed in ways that undermine media freedom and risk political interference in programming and editorial decisions.

After NPR and PBS defunding, FCC receives call to take away station licenses Read More »

cable-channel-subscribers-grew-for-the-first-time-in-8-years-last-quarter

Cable channel subscribers grew for the first time in 8 years last quarter

In a surprising, and likely temporary, turn of events, the number of people paying to watch cable channels has grown.

On Monday, research analyst MoffettNathanson released its “Cord-Cutting Monitor Q3 2025: Signs of Life?” report. It found that the pay TV operators, including cable companies, satellite companies, and virtual multichannel video programming distributors (vMVPDs) like YouTube TV and Fubo, added 303,000 net subscribers in Q3 2025.

According to the report, “There are more linear video subscribers now than there were three months ago. That’s the first time we’ve been able to say that since 2017.”

In Q3 2017, MoffettNathanson reported that pay TV gained 318,000 net new subscribers. But since then, the industry’s subscriber count has been declining, with 1,045,000 customers in Q2 2025, as depicted in the graph below.

MoffettNathanson pay TV subscriber losses

Credit: MoffettNathanson

The world’s largest vMVPD by subscriber count, YouTube TV, claimed 8 million subscribers in February 2024; some analysts estimate that number is now at 9.4 million. In its report, MoffettNathanson estimated that YouTube TV added 750,000 subscribers in Q3 2025, compared to 1 million in Q3 2024.

Traditional pay TV companies also contributed to the industry’s unexpected growth by bundling its services with streaming subscriptions. Charter Communications offers bundles with nine streaming services, including Disney+, Hulu, and HBO Max. In Q3 2024, it saw net attrition of 294,000 customers, compared to about 70,000 in Q3 2025. Other cable companies have made similar moves. Comcast, for example, launched a streaming bundle with Netflix, Peacock, and Apple TV in May 2024. For Q3 2025, Comcast reported its best pay TV subscriber count in almost five years, which was a net loss of 257,000 customers.

Cable channel subscribers grew for the first time in 8 years last quarter Read More »

after-key-russian-launch-site-is-damaged,-nasa-accelerates-dragon-supply-missions

After key Russian launch site is damaged, NASA accelerates Dragon supply missions

With a key Russian launch pad out of service, NASA is accelerating the launch of two Cargo Dragon spaceships in order to ensure that astronauts on board the International Space Station have all the supplies they need next year.

According to the space agency’s internal schedule, the next Dragon supply mission, CRS-34, is moving forward one month from June 2026 to May. And the next Dragon supply mission after this, CRS-35, has been advanced three months from November to August.

A source indicated that the changing schedules are a “direct result” of a launch pad incident on Thanksgiving Day at the Russian spaceport in Baikonur, Kazakhstan.

The issue occurred when a Soyuz rocket launched Roscosmos cosmonauts Sergei Kud-Sverchkov and Sergei Mikayev, as well as NASA astronaut Christopher Williams, on an eight-month mission to the International Space Station. The rocket had no difficulties, but a large mobile platform below the rocket was not properly secured prior to the launch and crashed into the flame trench below, taking the pad offline.

Repairs require at least four months

Russia has other launch pads, both within its borders and neighboring countries, including Kazakhstan, that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. However, Site 31 at Baikonur is the country’s only pad presently configured to handle launches of the Soyuz rocket and two spacecraft critical to the space station, the cargo-only Progress vehicle and the Soyuz crew capsule.

Since the accident Russia’s main space corporation, Roscosmos, has been assessing plans to repair the Site 31 launch site and begun to schedule the delivery of spare parts. Roscosmos officials have told NASA it will take at least four months to repair the site and recover the capability to launch from there.

After key Russian launch site is damaged, NASA accelerates Dragon supply missions Read More »

impeachment-articles-filed-against-rfk-jr.,-claiming-abuse-of-power

Impeachment articles filed against RFK Jr., claiming abuse of power

“Reckless”

Stevens’ impeachment articles were directly supported by a grassroots political organization advocating for the country’s scientific community, called Stand Up for Science.

Colette Delawalla, the group’s founder and CEO, was quoted in Stevens’ press announcement, saying Kennedy’s actions are “negligent and will result in harm and loss of life. He must be impeached and removed.”

In the 13-page impeachment articles filed, Stevens accuses Kennedy of high crimes and misdemeanors, citing a lengthy list of actions Kennedy has taken that have been widely decried by public health, scientific, and medical experts as harmful. Those include gutting funding for research, including cancer, addiction, and mRNA vaccine technology; making the work of the US Department of Health and Human Services less transparent by ending public comment periods for some actions; making false and misleading health statements, particularly about vaccines; firing the entire panel of vaccine advisors for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; hiring a slew of his fellow anti-vaccine activists to undermine public health from within the health department in roles for which they are unqualified; and making unilateral changes to federal vaccine recommendations.

“Under his watch, families are less safe and less healthy, people are paying more for care, lifesaving research has been gutted, and vaccines have been restricted,” Stevens said. “His actions are reckless, his leadership is harmful, and his tenure has become a direct threat to our nation’s health and security.”

Impeachment articles filed against RFK Jr., claiming abuse of power Read More »

nasa-astronauts-will-have-their-own-droid-when-they-go-back-to-the-moon

NASA astronauts will have their own droid when they go back to the Moon

Artemis IV will mark the second lunar landing of the Artemis program and build upon what is learned at the moon’s south pole on Artemis III.

“After his voyage to the Moon’s surface during Apollo 17, astronaut Gene Cernan acknowledged the challenge that lunar dust presents to long-term lunar exploration. Moon dust sticks to everything it touches and is very abrasive,” read NASA’s announcement of the Artemis IV science payloads.

A simple rendering a small moon rover labeled to show its science instruments

Rendering of Lunar Outpost’s MAPP lunar rover with its Artemis IV DUSTER science instruments, including the Electrostatic Dust Analyzer (EDA) and Relaxation SOunder and differentiaL VoltagE (RESOLVE). Credit: LASP/CU Boulder/Lunar Outpost

To that end, the solar-powered MAPP will support DUSTER (DUst and plaSma environmenT survEyoR), a two-part investigation from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The autonomous rover’s equipment will include the Electrostatic Dust Analyzer (EDA), which will measure the charge, velocity, size, and flux of dust particles lofted from the lunar surface, and the RElaxation SOunder and differentiaL VoltagE (RESOLVE) instrument, which will characterize the average electron density above the lunar surface using plasma sounding.

The University of Central Florida and University of California, Berkeley, have joined with LASP to interpret measurements taken by DUSTER. The former will look at the dust ejecta generated during the Human Landing System (HLS, or lunar lander) liftoff from the Moon, while the latter will analyze upstream plasma conditions.

Lunar dust attaches to almost everything it comes into contact with, posing a risk to equipment and spacesuits. It can also obstruct solar panels, reducing their ability to generate electricity and cause thermal radiators to overheat. The dust can also endanger astronauts’ health if inhaled.

“We need to develop a complete picture of the dust and plasma environment at the lunar south pole and how it varies over time and location to ensure astronaut safety and the operation of exploration equipment,” said Xu Wang, senior researcher at LASP and principal investigator of DUSTER, in a University of Colorado statement. “By studying this environment, we gain crucial insights that will guide mitigation strategies and methods to enable long-term, sustained human exploration on the Moon.”

NASA astronauts will have their own droid when they go back to the Moon Read More »

in-a-major-new-report,-scientists-build-rationale-for-sending-astronauts-to-mars

In a major new report, scientists build rationale for sending astronauts to Mars

The committee also looked at different types of campaigns to determine which would be most effective for completing the science objectives noted above. The campaign most likely to be successful, they found, was an initial human landing that lasts 30 days, followed by an uncrewed cargo delivery to facilitate a longer 300-day crewed mission on the surface of Mars. All of these missions would take place in a single exploration zone, about 100 km in diameter, that featured ancient lava flows and dust storms.

Science-driven exploration

Notably, the report also addresses the issue of planetary protection, a principle that aims to protect both celestial bodies (i.e., the surface of Mars) and visitors (i.e., astronauts) from biological contamination. This has been a thorny issue for human missions to Mars, as some scientists and environmentalists say humans should be barred from visiting a world that could contain extant life.

In recent years, NASA has been working with the International Committee on Space Research to design a plan in which human landings might occur in some areas of the planet, while other parts of Mars are left in “pristine” condition. The committee said this work should be prioritized to reach a resolution that will further the design of human missions to Mars.

“NASA should continue to collaborate on the evolution of planetary protection guidelines, with the goal of enabling human explorers to perform research in regions that could possibly support, or even harbor, life,” the report states.

If NASA is going to get serious about pressing policymakers and saying it is time to fund a human mission to Mars, the new report is important because it provides the justification for sending people—and not just robots—to the surface of Mars. It methodically goes through all the things that humans can and should do on Mars and lays out how NASA’s human spaceflight and science exploration programs can work together.

“The report says here are the top science priorities that can be accomplished by humans on the surface of Mars,” Elkins-Tanton said. “There are thousands of scientific measurements that could be taken, but we believe these are the highest priorities. We’ve been on Mars for 50 years. With humans there, we have a huge opportunity.”

In a major new report, scientists build rationale for sending astronauts to Mars Read More »

a-massive,-chinese-backed-port-could-push-the-amazon-rainforest-over-the-edge

A massive, Chinese-backed port could push the Amazon Rainforest over the edge


“this would come with a road”

The port will revolutionize global trade, but it’s sparking destructive rainforest routes.

CHANCAY, Peru—The elevator doors leading to the fifth-floor control center open like stage curtains onto a theater-sized screen.

This “Operations Productivity Dashboard” instantaneously displays a battery of data: vehicle locations, shipping times, entry times, loading data, unloading data, efficiency statistics.

Most striking, though, are the bold lines arcing over the dashboard’s deep-blue Pacific—digital streaks illustrating the routes that lead thousands of miles across the ocean, from this unassuming city, to Asia’s biggest ports.

Inside the Chancay port, a digital dashboard displays detailed statistics of shipments and shows the direct routes across the Pacific from Peru’s coast to major ports in Asia, including Shanghai, the world’s largest. Credit: Georgina Gustin/Inside Climate News

Chancay sits at a curve along the ocean, about 50 miles north of Lima. Until recently, it was best known for its medieval-themed amusement park, a crescent of beach, and a row of seaside restaurants. Now it’s home to South America’s newest, most technologically advanced deepwater megaport and the epicenter of China’s bid to control the flow of goods to and from this commodity-rich continent.

For Peru, the recent opening of the port here was the realization, nearly two decades in the making, of a dream to position itself as South America’s global transportation hub, the continent’s primary launching point for a straight shot across the Pacific to Asia’s biggest economies.

For China, the port delivers a strategically direct route for the critical minerals and agricultural commodities coming off the continent, and in the other direction, a more expedient channel for its cars, machinery, and electronics to stream into South American markets.

The port represents Peru’s first project under the banner of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing’s $1.3 trillion bid to remake how the world travels and trades, and collectively speaking, the most ambitious infrastructure project in history. It is China’s flagship infrastructure investment in South America—and a crucial node in Beijing’s global strategy for securing access to critical commodities.

It also brings China logistically closer to one of its chief goals: direct access to neighboring Brazil and the massive amounts of timber, soy, and beef produced in the Amazon rainforest. Now, in theory, these commodities no longer have to travel through the politically fraught Panama Canal or around the continent’s southern tip. The new megaport, the only one in South America that can manage the largest class of fully loaded container ships, cuts the transport time by 10 days or more.

First, though, these commodities have to make their way to the port—and to do that, they have to somehow cross the Andes, the vertiginous mountain system that traces the western edge of the continent, from Venezuela to Chile.

There is no good, easy way to haul goods over the Andes now. That is changing.

The port has reawakened old ambitions of roads, railways, and water routes that could connect the riches of the Amazon to the continent’s west coast and the world’s largest ocean. The prospect of a fast track across the Pacific has sparked new momentum—a willingness to reconsider the engineering challenge posed by the world’s longest mountain chain.

“The port is a magnet,” said Luis Fernandez, executive director of Wake Forest University’s Center for Amazonian Scientific Innovation. “They’ll find more efficient ways to get over the Andes, to plug into Chancay.”

But environmental scientists and forestry experts warn that the economic pull of the port will speed the destruction of the Amazon, the planet’s most critical, climate-stabilizing terrestrial ecosystem.

The port and its faster link to massive Asian economies, they warn, will deepen and expand an extractive network of roads, railways, and waterways that have already eaten into the rainforest, a web of arteries carrying oil, gold, timber, beef, and soy to markets around the world.

The operating landscape at the Chancay port, north of Lima, is China’s biggest port project in Latin America and one of the most technologically sophisticated and automated ports in the world. Credit: Georgina Gustin/Inside Climate News

The pressure could push the rainforest over the edge, transforming it from the world’s largest terrestrial carbon sink into a massive emitter of planet-warming gases. Some research suggests the forest is already at or near this potentially catastrophic tipping point.

“China wants everything in the Amazon,” said Julia Urrunaga, director of Peru programs for the Environmental Investigation Agency, an international nonprofit that investigates environmental crimes. “And in one way or another, all these routes are connected to the port.”

In July, seven months after the port’s inauguration, China and Brazil formally announced they would explore the possibility of a railway leading from Brazil’s Atlantic coast directly to Chancay. China has already committed $50 billion toward infrastructure in the region.

The massive undertaking would ultimately create a beeline for commodities to flow more directly from Brazil to China, already its biggest trading partner, and augment a notoriously troubled and underutilized highway, completed in 2011, that runs from Brazil’s western Amazon to the Peruvian coast.

Even if the newly proposed cross-continental railway is never built—and some analysts think it won’t be—the lure of China’s appetites and wealth will stress the Amazon ecosystem, simply because the port will spark investments in other road, rail, or waterway projects to serve it, whether China is directly involved or not.

“When you start talking about these big corridors, it creates incentive for a lot of small routes,” said David Salisbury, an associate professor of geography at the University of Richmond who has extensively studied the impact of infrastructure on deforestation in the Amazon. “In a world where carbon storage is absolutely necessary for sustaining a stable planet, increasing the axes of forest degradation—whether it’s a road or a railway—is a big mistake.”

A port is just a port until there are roads and railways leading to it, and China has made clear that access to its biggest South American infrastructure project is a priority. Although China is clearly the world’s clean energy leader, there’s little, if any, research into the climate impact of its infrastructure investments, including any kind of holistic analysis of the port and its potential impact on the Amazon or neighboring and equally vulnerable ecosystems, including Brazil’s Pantanal and Cerrado. Most of China’s infrastructure investments, meanwhile, are in the world’s equatorial midriff—in nations that are rich in resources and climatically critical, but with weak, often corrupt governments and few environmental safeguards.

When China wants to build something, countries—including Peru—are quick to ease or overlook environmental standards and requirements for public participation, critics say, even if that means destroying natural resources or communities.

“Unquestionably any infrastructure, and any attempts at development, will put a lot of pressure on the Amazon,” said Enrique Ortiz, a Peruvian tropical ecologist who runs the Washington, DC-based Andes Amazon Fund. “Are there safeguards? That’s where we’re so weak.”

In Chancay, residents say, the developers of the port tore their city apart. In their zeal to embrace its economic promise, city leaders ignored local complaints, residents told Inside Climate News. The project proceeded without the legally required public input and access to information, advocacy groups found, ruining lives and homes in the process.

Hundreds of miles to the east of Chancay, in a rainforest so lush and filled with species that scientists haven’t yet catalogued them all, new worries are percolating. Chinese investment is increasingly prominent, with Chinese machinery, trucks, and workers seemingly everywhere.

Chris Fagan runs the Peru- and US-based Upper Amazon Conservancy. His main objective right now is to stop a roadway from running through a pristine section of the Amazon, which would decimate Indigenous cultures and the rainforest itself.

“The influence of Chinese money on the Amazon can’t be overstated,” he said.

Roads and a revolution

When the Chinese shipping conglomerate COSCO signed the deal to buy a 60 percent stake in the Chancay port, most people guessed what would come next.

“They need the roads,” Urrunaga said. “We knew that from the beginning—that this would come with a road.”

What no one yet knows for sure is where exactly the new roads—or railways or waterways—might be. The port will likely beget many.

The Brazilian government last year announced its plans to build five major new routes through the Amazon to connect with Pacific ports, including Chancay. The roads are part of a larger project that includes modernizing or building 65 highways, 40 waterways, 35 airports, 21 ports and nine railways.

From the Brazilian town of Cruzeiro do Sul, in the western Amazon, a long-discussed 430-mile roadway could finally be paved westward to the city of Pucallpa, the heart of Peru’s timber industry. From there, a road already leads to Chancay.

The new road would cross the region where the Amazon begins—the famously disputed source of the massive arterial sprawl of coffee-colored waterways that form the Amazon basin and its namesake river. This region, which straddles parts of the Andes and the Amazon rainforest, also contains two national parks that are home to 10 Indigenous tribes, including some living in voluntary isolation.

“It’s this huge, intact roadless area and one of the most biodiverse landscapes in the world,” said Fagan, of the Upper Amazon Conservancy, which is headquartered in Pucallpa. “It’s a really important place for global conservation and climate goals.”

It is, according to Fagan, among the biggest, wildest places left in the world. And the road could transform it irrevocably, with its effects spreading far beyond the region itself. If the road is built—as local politicians are pushing for now—it will connect to a handful more major roadways that cut across the wider Amazon, and to yet more that are still in the planning stages.

Since the Brazilian military cut roadways into the Amazon to facilitate its exploitation in the 1960s, a growing body of research has tracked the effects of infrastructure on the rainforest. Deforestation here occurs in a “fishbone” pattern where a primary road leads to secondary roads spiking off it, fragmenting and weakening the forest. This pattern, clearly visible from satellite images, crosshatches across much of the region. Researchers say it’s even more destructive than clearcutting big swaths of forest.

Adding to the pile of research, a study earlier this year found that every one-kilometer (or roughly half-mile) stretch of primary road cut into the rainforest led to 50 kilometers (31 miles) of secondary road—and that the secondary roads triggered more than 300 times more forest degradation or loss.

“The area is experiencing this incredibly rapid expansion of secondary, or unofficial, roads,” the University of Richmond’s Salisbury said, referring to the region where the Pucallpa road would be completed.

This May, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing to discuss the new railway that would cut more than 3,000 miles across the continent, from the Atlantic port at Ilheus to Chancay.

“This represents a revolution,” Simone Tebet, Brazil’s minister of planning and budget, said at the time. “The plan is, in fact, to rip Brazil from east to west.”

In July, Brazil and China formally announced a five-year technical study to determine what route the railway would take—a sign that the countries are serious about making the project happen.

One of the possible routes, researchers say, is along the same stretch from Cruzeiro do Sul to Pucallpa where the road is again under discussion.

“If it comes through Pucallpa that’s going to be a huge disaster, ecologically and socially,” Salisbury said, noting the especially pristine nature of the area.

Another possible route is along an already problematic road, known as the Interoceanic Highway, that leads from the western Brazilian Amazon, over the Andes, to Lima. Road and railway ecologists say that while rail is seen as less damaging to forests, its potential impacts are underestimated.

“Are railways better than roads?” said Elizabeth Losos, an adjunct professor at Duke University who runs the ISLe Initiative, a network of educational efforts to make infrastructure more sustainable. “They take up the same amount of space, but for the most part, people get off at stations and can’t get off at multiple places in between. But when they build the railways they create service roads that serve them.”

Salisbury has considered the same question. “Railways are a lot less environmentally and culturally impactful than roads—and that’s crucial,” he said. “But how are you able to control that they remain purely railways? Once you make a linear clearing through the rainforest—how can you stop people from expanding beyond that?”

Automatic, electric, and huge

Jason Guillén Flores is the Chancay port’s safety and environment manager, an engaging evangelist for the state-of-the-art technology that will bring the continent’s raw materials to China and Chinese goods containing those raw materials, transformed, back to the continent.

One day this July, dozens of Chinese-made electric cars had just disembarked from a massive roll-on/roll-off ship and were awaiting distribution into the expanding Latin American market.

From the moment the ships arrive in the docks, their payloads are controlled from the fifth-floor command center. From a giant observation deck, visitors can watch as a fleet of 500 driverless electric trucks shuttle goods from the docks to waiting vehicles.

“All this port is electric—all the different equipment and trucks. All electric,” Guillén Flores said. “This is the fifth port in the world to be all automatic. The other four are in China.”

Guillén Flores walked from the Area de Centro de Control to the Area de Control Remoto where half a dozen women sat at desks, remotely maneuvering the massive cranes that hover in the wintry gray at the docks’ edges. Operating a crane from within its cockpit is exhausting work, Guillén Flores explained, leaning over to demonstrate the hunched position operators often sit in.

“Here there is air conditioning and coffee,” he said. “Six people control 50 cranes.”

Beyond the command center, the loading platforms, and the docks, a 1.7-mile breakwater curves through the ocean, creating a protected area for ships to enter the port. It stands nearly 30 feet high—enough to withstand a tsunami caused by a 10-degree quake. “No problem,” Guillén Flores said.

Constructing the port, he said, required dredging the approach to a depth of nearly 60 feet, moving 7.6 million cubic yards of dirt and rocks and digging a more than mile-long tunnel under the city. Altogether it took 438 explosive blasts.

Guillén Flores stressed that the goal of the port, at least initially, was to help turn Peru into an agricultural powerhouse, ready to supply hungry Asian markets with produce.

“It’s a general vision for Peru to improve ports and agriculture so we can position ourselves as a top country in exporting agricultural products,” he said. Now, he added, a refrigerated container full of Peruvian blueberries or asparagus can reach Shanghai in a mere 23 days.

But the port is designed to handle more than fruits and vegetables.

In 2007 a Peruvian ex-Navy admiral named Juan Ribaudo de la Torre launched an ambitious plan for turning this modest bump of oceanside land into a major port. With his deep connections in the military and government, he eventually found a strategic and willing partner—the Peruvian mining giant Volcan, the world’s fourth largest silver producer and Peru’s largest producer of zinc.

Already some local fishermen were concerned about the fate of their fishing grounds and Volcan’s long track record of environmental violations. In 2011, through a subsidiary, Volcan acquired 50 percent of the port project, from the company launched by Ribaudo, for $450 million. Around the same time, lawyers with connections to Volcan formed an offshore company, based in the British Virgin Islands, to secretly begin purchasing plots of land for the port.

Fishing boats sit anchored in Chancay’s harbor with the new port’s cranes. Credit: Rommel Gonzalez via Getty

When Ribaudo died in 2013, Volcan took full control of the project under the name Terminales Portuarios Chancay. That same year, Peruvian regulators approved an environmental impact study for the project, but residents in Chancay were not given adequate opportunities to access hearings or participate in the review process, advocates say.

“The study was approved in an irregular manner because the civil population didn’t take part as required,” said Alejandro Chirinos, a researcher with the Lima-based environmental and social justice group CooperAcción. “And why were the people not considered? Because people didn’t want Volcan.”

In 2019 officials from Volcan and the Peruvian government attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. By the end of the event, China’s COSCO Shipping Ports Ltd. had signed a deal to buy 60 percent of Terminales Portuarios Chancay.

As the scope of the project expanded with Chinese involvement, so did the price tag. New estimates put the cost of the project at $3.6 billion over three phases. Now, with the financial commitment, the pressure was on regulators to smooth over any potential bumps in the approval process and make sure opponents in the community didn’t stand in the way—though they tried.

Even though it’s a privately operated port, Peruvian government entities—the national police, immigration, health and various inspection services—are already in place here, to expedite inspections and speed shipping. Their presence suggests how deeply integrated the Peruvian government and China have become.

Eventually, the Chancay port could be encompassed by a special economic zone, giving tax breaks to companies with operations there. “Apple, GE, Samsung will move to Peru and establish hubs here for all of South America,” Guillén Flores said, explaining the broader plan.

But many people who live here believe too much has been given away already.

A city torn apart

Miriam Arce said the explosions just began one day in 2016, without any warning or explanation.

Then, quickly, the construction of the massive deepwater megaport disfigured her city. Over the course of the next two years explosions shook Chancay and its 60,000 residents several times a day. Entire hills and bluffs at the ocean’s edge were blasted away to accommodate the port’s facilities. Walls in peoples’ homes cracked. Foundations crumbled. Houses collapsed when workers blasted an access road that leads to a tunnel under the city. Some species of birds left the city’s oceanside wetlands and never came back.

“They were exploding the hills, the tunnels, at the port—all at the same time,” Arce said. “Can you imagine? It was crazy.”

At the edge of the Santa Rosa wetlands, a hill was blasted away to create room for the megaport. A barrier fence was erected to minimize construction sounds, but local advocates say it did little to dampen the noise. Credit: Georgina Gustin/Inside Climate News

Arce, an artist who runs a small general store out of her house, organized a community group—Frente de Defensa de Chancay (Chancay Defense Front)—in 2014, after learning about the plans for the port. She was particularly concerned about an environmental impact statement that advocates say the government approved in 2013 without releasing a summary to the public or getting adequate public input, as the law requires.

“I started to investigate the consequences—how it will impact people and the environment,” she said. “We discovered many irregularities with the authorizations and the lack of transparency.”

Petite and bespectacled, with a penchant for yellow Snoopy-festooned sneakers, Arce has become a feisty agitator, a persistent burr in the sides of local politicians.

She petitioned for access to public meetings. She pushed for documents. Amid the groundswell of protest Arce and others were stirring up, she became a target. She said she got death threats on the phone. Arce and other Chancay residents say that the then-builders of the port hired a subcontractor to harass and threaten them so the threats couldn’t be traced back to the developers. After she was roughed up during a protest and her phone was taken, Arce filed a complaint with police.

As Arce dug into the situation, she learned that she may have been clueless about the port owner’s plans before 2014, but not everyone was. Terminales Portuarios Chancay, anticipating concerns from local fishermen—a powerful, well-organized cohort in Chancay and Peru more broadly—had already contacted fishing unions, according to Chancay residents. They offered the members scholarships for their children’s education. Many took it.

“They paid to divide us,” Arce said. “We lived in peace for so many years, since we were children. But this project broke things.”

Standing outside the blue concrete box that houses the Association Sindicato de Pescadores Artesanales del Puerto de Chancay, one of several associations that represent fishermen here, Julio Perez said that fish populations near and off the coast of Chancay have plummeted because of the port’s construction and the ongoing flow of ship traffic. But he said he and most other members of the 300-plus member association have made peace with that.

Many of them got 12,000 Peruvian soles (about $3,400), earmarked to pay for tuition, he said. The developers also pay for the occasional party at the association’s headquarters.

“We’re happy,” he said, scanning the street in front of him.

Not everyone is, however.

In a square in the city of Huaral, north of Chancay, fisherman Antonio Luis sat on a curb, wearing the uniform of most local fishermen—a matching track suit and running shoes. He came equipped with data showing the decline in fish populations and the marine species on which those populations depend.

Luis, president of another association called the Artisanal Fishermen of the Small North, said whatever payments the developers offered were not worth the declines.

“Before 2018, we put the net in and we fished enough in order to not fish for two or three days. Enough to live comfortably,” he said, adding that a typical day’s catch was 200 kilograms or more. “Nowadays you go to the beach and it’s nothing like that. I put in a net and if I’m lucky, I can get 15 to 20 kilograms a day. I catch enough to eat. Not enough to sell, which is what I need.”

The “luxury fish,” like corvina and sole that are prized for ceviche, the national culinary mainstay, are especially rare these days.

Luis said that the developers only consulted with a handful of the many fishing associations along this stretch of coast—not his or several others. He sees the payments offered to the other groups as bribes to shut up.

“I’m not opposed to investment,” Luis added. “I’ve just asked for development … between the city and the government without stepping all over the environment.”

Today, with the first phase of the port in full operation, this upended city seems to be in suspension as residents wait for the next wave of construction.

On a quiet July weekday, in the southern hemisphere’s winter, restaurant workers waved menus at passersby, trying to lure them into mostly empty seats. At the beach, dozens of colorfully painted wooden fishing boats were lodged on the sand. No one was out on the water. The fishermen milled around, staring out at an ocean that used to provide an abundant livelihood.

“Mining companies pay people for invading their land. We’d like to get paid for our ocean,” said one fisherman, who would only give his first name, Elias. “The Chinese are just like the US. They’re the big power. If they invest here, if they shared their profits, we’d be happy.”

Near the end of the beach, a handful of tourists climbed little footpaths that lead up a giant bluff to get a view of the sprawling port complex hidden on the other side.

Some fishermen have started a side hustle: Charging a few soles to guide visitors to the top.

On the November day last year when the port was lavishly inaugurated, Arce was not in attendance. Nor was Luis. In fact, Arce said, few of Chancay’s ordinary citizens were there because the celebration was cordoned off. Busloads of police were brought into town to enforce the perimeter of the port, which by then had been encircled with a tall fence.

The message was clear: The city’s new port did not belong to the city.

The perfect place

Wendy Ancieta, a lawyer with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law, has deep expertise with the country’s environmental impact review process—and its loopholes. She remembers interviewing a gas station owner who was required to get an environmental review for his business. When she asked him who oversaw the review process, he admitted it was a cook at a nearby restaurant.

The country has an abundance of environmental laws, but they’re rarely enforced, according to Ancieta. If a company wants to sail through the environmental review process in pursuit of a massive project—with as little pushback as possible—Peru is a good choice.

China, she said, “came to the perfect place.”

The port’s developer—now called Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú (CSPCP), 60 percent owned by COSCO and 40 percent by Volcan—hired a contractor to conduct the required environmental analysis. In theory, such a document gets thoroughly picked apart by SENACE, the government agency responsible for reviewing the environmental impacts of big projects.

But in practice, that rarely happens.

The Peruvian government allows developers of major construction projects to pick from a registered list of consulting companies that they can hire to conduct an environmental assessment. When the developer gets an assessment they don’t like—that might stand in the way of a project’s completion—they can withhold payment.

When the port’s developers were required by law to do a secondary environmental review, advocacy groups, including Arce’s, hired a researcher named Stefan Austermühle to analyze it for flaws and omissions.

Of the review process, Austermühle said, “You tell them: You will make a nice document for me, where there’s no impact, so I get this project approved. And if you don’t do that, I don’t pay you.”

Austermühle identified 50 problems with the environmental review’s findings. The groups then asked SENACE not to approve the project until these problems were corrected. Ultimately, fewer than half of them were addressed by COSCO—inadequately, according to the groups. The agency approved the project in 2020, two days before Christmas, when few people were looking.

In July of this year, the Peruvian media reported that six SENACE employees were charged with environmental crimes for approving parts of the project without COSCO addressing them first.

In a written response, SENACE said the agency held at least eight meetings and workshops with the public and with local fishing associations in 2019 and 2020, during the development and evaluation of the secondary environmental assessment. The agency recorded at least 1,800 individual attendances across the meetings. The agency also said it forwarded the problems that Austermühle identified in his analysis to the “project owner,” in accordance with federal laws.

In a written response, CSPCP said it had complied with all laws and that the approvals process “went well beyond regulatory requirements regarding public participation, both in the number and diversity of mechanisms implemented.”

The company said it categorically rejects “as completely false” the allegations that it hired a subcontractor to harass opponents of the port project. “At no time has the company hired or instructed subcontractors to harass, intimidate, or interfere with citizens’ participation during protests or demonstrations related to the Project. On the contrary, CSPCP maintains a permanent policy of respect for the right to free expression, peaceful coexistence, and open dialogue with all social stakeholders in the district of Chancay.”

Volcan and the Chinese embassy in Peru did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Climate News. The Peruvian Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which approved the first environmental assessment, before COSCO’s involvement in the port project, also did not respond to questions from Inside Climate News.

Juan Luis Dammert is a Lima-based researcher who studies government corruption and the evolution of infrastructure projects, including the Interoceanic Highway. Like most Peruvians, he is a keen observer of the country’s political ups and downs.

“There’s always corruption here, but we’re at a low point in Peruvian politics,” he said. “It’s corruption’s happy hour.”

The country has had seven presidents in the last decade, including two who are currently in jail for taking bribes from the Brazilian construction company that built the highway. In 2018, the country’s judiciary system was rocked by a corruption scandal. Former President Dina Boluarte, who presided over the port’s inauguration, was highly unpopular and accused of deadly anti-democratic crackdowns against protesters. She was impeached by the Peruvian Congress in October. Two other former Peruvian presidents were jailed on conspiracy and corruption charges in late November.

“We have, as a country, built a number of systems and structures for environmental protection, but now it basically doesn’t exist,” Dammert said. “Congress and the government—if they decide to do anything, they go ahead. They change the law. That’s the context in which this is happening: Now let’s build roads and railways through the Amazon!”

Chinese companies, Dammert said, aren’t necessarily worse or better than any others in their adherence to environmental laws. China’s position on environmental laws in other countries is, largely, not to meddle with them, in alignment with its “non-interference” policy. And, indeed, Chinese-backed companies have stopped a handful of projects, including a dredging project in Peru, over potential violations of environmental laws.

It just happens that Chinese companies are operating in parts of the world where those laws are weak. “There’s no difference between China and other countries in their concern for the environment,” Dammert said. “It very much depends on the host country. In this case, Peru.”

Or Brazil, where environmental safeguards are also collapsing.

The government is currently challenging the legality of a nearly 20-year-old pact, known as the Soy Moratorium, in which grain traders agreed to not buy soybeans grown on land deforested after 2008. The moratorium has been credited with slowing rates of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

In July, the Brazilian Congress approved a new bill that would ease licensing requirements for infrastructure projects deemed to be national priorities. Environmental groups called it the “devastation bill” and said the damage to the rainforest and to broader climate goals would be irreversible.

“It would make it easier getting infrastructure, like railways, approved without requiring environmental studies,” said Meg Symington, vice president of global integrated programs at the World Wildlife Fund. “That’s unfortunate.”

Symington noted that Peru passed a similar law in 2024 that environmental groups say will weaken forest protections. The lowering of environmental standards comes amid a broader autocratic shift in Peru.

A recently passed law will prohibit advocacy groups from pursuing legal action against the government, including for human rights or environmental violations. The law has been widely condemned by international free speech advocates, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

“This makes it easy for China to operate as they want without any civil society groups complaining,” the Environmental Investigation Agency’s Urrunaga said. “It’s really crazy. … Not even China has a law like that.”

The erosion of democratic functions will usher in projects linked to the port that destroy parts of the rainforest without even the most rudimentary environmental review, environmental groups worry.

Leolino Dourado, a Lima-based researcher at the Center for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Peru’s University of the Pacific says that shipping commodities through the Amazon and over the Andes to the Pacific makes no economic sense. It’s still cheaper, he said, to ship commodities out of Brazil.

“If you run the numbers, it’s more cost effective to export through the Atlantic, which is the traditional route,” he said. The Interoceanic Highway is a case in point, he added: “It’s really underutilized because it makes no sense economically.”

But infrastructure projects make perfect political sense. Roads, railways and waterways deliver infusions of cash for hard-up cities and regions, making these passages through the forest powerful forces, however destructive.

“Roads are a good way to get elected,” said Salisbury, with the University of Richmond. “It’s a good way to get politicians in Peru excited about China, even though it doesn’t make economic sense. And it allows the Chinese to have more impact on the Amazon—and Brazil and Peru—just by creating a corridor with a new form of transport, even if it’s not a gamechanger economically.”

Chirinos of CooperAcción authored a study that found a common thread in China’s Belt and Road projects: The countries that join in are a lot like Peru, with a high level of raw materials or other natural resources, but weak institutions and lax oversight. He and other researchers say that puts Peru at an economic disadvantage.

“The project will only take the raw materials and won’t allow us to develop,” Chirinos said.

César Gamboa is the executive director of the Peruvian organization Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Law, Environment and Natural Resources) and has written recently about his concerns that the country’s current political and economic environment will keep ordinary people from sharing in any financial gains from the transition to cleaner energies.

“Always, all the time, Peru underestimates the environmental and social impacts and overestimates the benefits,” Gamboa said. “This is the problem of the Chancay port. Everybody says this is a tool to get out of the political and economic crises, but it’s not. We are not prepared to identify the opportunities and we don’t see the challenges.”

Stepping into a vacuum

China and Peru have had ties going back nearly two centuries, when Chinese immigrants first came here. A very obvious legacy of this is chifa, a Chinese-Peruvian fusion cuisine that can be found in every corner of the country. But in recent years, China’s investments in Peru have soared. Ninety percent of the overall investment—about $28 billion in 2023—is linked to large, state-owned enterprises, according to a recent analysis from the University of the Pacific’s Center for China and Asia-Pacific Studies.

The port is the single biggest flag China has planted on a continent that the United States has long seen as its domain.

“China’s in our red zone,” said Laura Richardson, the now-retired US Army general who served as the commander of US Southern Command from 2021 to 2024.

As Chinese-backed investments expand, projecting Beijing’s power in the region, allegiances and sentiment across South America are shifting.

The Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs and harsh immigration policies that disproportionately impact Latin American countries are increasing anti-American bitterness across much of the region, making China seem like a friendlier, more stable alternative, economically and politically.

The administration’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) earlier this year has only amplified resentments. After Colombia, Peru was the continent’s second-largest recipient of USAID funding, much of it directed at curbing coca plantations. USAID funding to Brazil was largely aimed at programs to conserve the Amazon.

China is stepping into the diplomatic and economic vacuum. Trade between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States’ members and China rose from $450 billion in 2023 to $515 billion in 2024. Earlier this year, Xi announced $9 billion in credit to the region and visa-free entry to China for residents of some countries. And while Chinese direct investment in Latin America for big infrastructure projects has slowed, it remains strong for certain industries.

“Nobody else is offering money for these projects,” Richardson said. “China comes along offering billions—$3.6 billion, with four-and-a-half billion annual revenue profit for this—how can you turn that down? Nobody else is offering anything like that.”

But at the same time, China’s environmental track record, both in the construction of its big infrastructure projects and in the supply chains of its imports, is drawing more criticism from environmental groups, researchers, and residents.

China is the largest importer of commodities linked to deforestation, including soy, beef, and timber, and the second-largest importer of palm oil, which together are responsible for about 40 percent of global deforestation rates. This, critics say, means China has a huge potential exposure to illegal deforestation.

In 2021 China signed on to a global pact to reverse deforestation and land degradation by 2035, acknowledging the role of forests in stabilizing the atmosphere. But recent analyses suggest the country may not follow through. The authors of a 2024 study wrote, “China’s foreign policy stance of non-interference and concerns about its food security are key obstacles.”

The European Union Deforestation Regulation is the most ambitious effort to date to stop commodities that cause deforestation from being imported into European markets. China, one of the biggest exporters of timber products to the EU, recently refused to sign on, citing security concerns related to sharing geolocation data. In November, at the annual United Nations climate conference, held this year for the first time in the Amazon, countries agreed to a $5.5 billion rainforest conservation fund. China said it supports the fund but would not be pledging money to it.

Studies have demonstrated that Chinese imports of illegal timber have climbed along with its involvement in tropical forested regions, including Brazil and Peru.

One study, from the Environmental Investigation Agency in 2018, found that only one-third of tropical timber shipments from Peru to China were properly inspected, and of those that were inspected, 70 percent were found to be from illegally deforested land.

Another study published in May found that Chinese imports of products known to cause deforestation between 2013 and 2022 were linked to the loss of roughly 4 million hectares of tropical forest, nearly 70 percent of which was illegally deforested. The greenhouse gas emissions from these imports were roughly on par with the annual fossil fuel emissions of Spain.

“While China is a global leader in domestic reforestation and renewable energy, this report highlights a critical blind spot of the environmental cost of its imported agricultural and timber commodities,” said Kerstin Canby, a senior director with Forest Trends, in a press statement published along with the report.

In an interview, Canby noted that China has implemented robust reforestation programs within its borders, but that has had a direct impact on vulnerable forests elsewhere, including the Amazon.

“China has been a star, but that has ripple effects,” Canby said. “Everyone’s trying to protect their own forest, but all that does is push demand to those countries that have the least amount of governance, the ones that are not putting in place protections for their own forest.”

Coda

From the rooftop studio where Arce paints landscapes of her coastline view, she can almost touch the netted scaffolding erected outside the walls of her house to keep construction dust and debris from flying into the windows. (It did anyway.)

Every day now, trucks come rumbling, idling at the entrance to the port, which is about 100 feet from her back door. She doesn’t know exactly what’s in them, nor has she or anyone else calculated the damage caused by their payloads. She just knows that soon there will be more of them.

Arce, and many of her neighbors, worry the city’s troubles may get worse as the port expands into its second and third phases of construction over the next several years, and as more roads and railways are built to serve it.

“There is no space for the people who live here. We would have to leave. Who are they going to take out of their houses?” she said. “That’s the next fight.”

She worries that cracks will continue to creep across the walls in the house she’s lived in since she was a baby or that the foundation could crumble one day. Then someone joked that she should ask the Chinese for compensation. Maybe one of the newly delivered electric cars.

Arce cracked a wry smile and looked out at the ocean, which that night was flat and still. “Or a new house,” she said.

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Photo of Inside Climate News

A massive, Chinese-backed port could push the Amazon Rainforest over the edge Read More »

in-comedy-of-errors,-men-accused-of-wiping-gov-databases-turned-to-an-ai-tool

In comedy of errors, men accused of wiping gov databases turned to an AI tool

Two sibling contractors convicted a decade ago for hacking into US State Department systems have once again been charged, this time for a comically hamfisted attempt to steal and destroy government records just minutes after being fired from their contractor jobs.

The Department of Justice on Thursday said that Muneeb Akhter and Sohaib Akhter, both 34, of Alexandria, Virginia, deleted databases and documents maintained and belonging to three government agencies. The brothers were federal contractors working for an undisclosed company in Washington, DC, that provides software and services to 45 US agencies. Prosecutors said the men coordinated the crimes and began carrying them out just minutes after being fired.

Using AI to cover up an alleged crime—what could go wrong?

On February 18 at roughly 4: 55 pm, the men were fired from the company, according to an indictment unsealed on Thursday. Five minutes later, they allegedly began trying to access their employer’s system and access federal government databases. By then, access to one of the brothers’ accounts had already been terminated. The other brother, however, allegedly accessed a government agency’s database stored on the employer’s server and issued commands to prevent other users from connecting or making changes to the database. Then, prosecutors said, he issued a command to delete 96 databases, many of which contained sensitive investigative files and records related to Freedom of Information Act matters.

Despite their brazen attempt to steal and destroy information from multiple government agencies, the men lacked knowledge of the database commands needed to cover up their alleged crimes. So they allegedly did what many amateurs do: turned to an AI chat tool.

One minute after deleting Department of Homeland Security information, Muneep Akhter allegedly asked an AI tool “how do i clear system logs from SQL servers after deleting databases.” Shortly afterward, he queried the tool “how do you clear all event and application logs from Microsoft windows server 2012,” prosecutors said.

The indictment provides enough details of the databases wiped and information stolen to indicate that the brothers’ attempts to cover their tracks failed. It’s unclear whether the apparent failure was due to the AI tool providing inadequate instructions or the men failing to follow them correctly. Prosecutors say they also obtained records of discussions between the men in the hours or days following, in which they discussed removing incriminating evidence from their homes. Three days later, the men allegedly wiped their employer-issued laptops by reinstalling the operating system.

In comedy of errors, men accused of wiping gov databases turned to an AI tool Read More »

engineer-proves-that-kohler’s-smart-toilet-cameras-aren’t-very-private

Engineer proves that Kohler’s smart toilet cameras aren’t very private


Kohler is getting the scoop on people’s poop.

A Dekoda smart toilet camera. Credit: Kohler

Kohler is facing backlash after an engineer pointed out that the company’s new smart toilet cameras may not be as private as it wants people to believe. The discussion raises questions about Kohler’s use of the term “end-to-end encryption” (E2EE) and the inherent privacy limitations of a device that films the goings-on of a toilet bowl.

In October, Kohler announced its first “health” product, the Dekoda. Kohler’s announcement described the $599 device (it also requires a subscription that starts at $7 per month) as a toilet bowl attachment that uses “optical sensors and validated machine-learning algorithms” to deliver “valuable insights into your health and wellness.” The announcement added:

Data flows to the personalized Kohler Health app, giving users continuous, private awareness of key health and wellness indicators—right on their phone. Features like fingerprint authentication and end-to-end encryption are designed for user privacy and security.

The average person is most likely to be familiar with E2EE through messaging apps, like Signal. Messages sent via apps with E2EE are encrypted throughout transmission. Only the message’s sender and recipient can view the decrypted messages, which is intended to prevent third parties, including the app developer, from reading them.

But how does E2EE apply to a docked camera inside a toilet?

Software engineer and former Federal Trade Commission technology advisor Simon Fondrie-Teitler sought answers about this, considering that “Kohler Health doesn’t have any user-to-user sharing features,” he wrote in a blog post this week:

 … emails exchanged with Kohler’s privacy contact clarified that the other ‘end’ that can decrypt the data is Kohler themselves: ‘User data is encrypted at rest, when it’s stored on the user’s mobile phone, toilet attachment, and on our systems. Data in transit is also encrypted end-to-end, as it travels between the user’s devices and our systems, where it is decrypted and processed to provide our service.’

Ars Technica contacted Kohler to ask if the above statement is an accurate summary of Dekoda’s “E2EE” and if Kohler employees can access data from Dekoda devices. A spokesperson responded with a company statement that basically argued that data gathered from Dekoda devices is encrypted from one end (the toilet camera) until it reaches another end, in this case, Kohler’s servers. The statement reads, in part:

The term end-to-end encryption is often used in the context of products that enable a user (sender) to communicate with another user (recipient), such as a messaging application. Kohler Health is not a messaging application. In this case, we used the term with respect to the encryption of data between our users (sender) and Kohler Health (recipient).

We encrypt data end-to-end in transit, as it travels between users’ devices and our systems, where it is decrypted and processed to provide and improve our service. We also encrypt sensitive user data at rest, when it’s stored on a user’s mobile phone, toilet attachment, and on our systems.

Although Kohler somewhat logically defines the endpoints in what it considers E2EE, at a minimum, Kohler’s definition goes against the consumer-facing spirit of E2EE. Because E2EE is, as Kohler’s statement notes, most frequently used in messaging apps, people tend to associate it with privacy from the company that enables the data transmission. Since that’s not the case with the Dekoda, Kohler’s misuse of the term E2EE can give users a false sense of privacy.

As IBM defines it, E2EE “ensures that service providers facilitating the communications … can’t access the messages.” Kohler’s statement implies that the company understood how people typically think about E2EE and still chose to use the term over more accurate alternatives, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption, which “encrypts data as it travels between a client and a server. However, it doesn’t provide strong protection against access by intermediaries such as application servers or network providers,” per IBM.

“Using terms like ‘anonymized’ and ‘encrypted’ gives an impression of a company taking privacy and security seriously—but that doesn’t mean it actually is,” RJ Cross, director of the consumer privacy program at the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), told Ars Technica.

Smart toilet cameras are so new (and questionable) that there are few comparisons we can make here. But the Dekoda’s primary rival, the Throne, also uses confusing marketing language. The smart camera’s website makes no mention of end-to-end encryption but claims that the device uses “bank-grade encryption,” a vague term often used by marketers but that does not imply E2EE, which isn’t a mandatory banking security standard in the US.

Why didn’t anyone notice before?

As Fondrie-Teitler pointed out in his blog, it’s odd to see E2EE associated with a smart toilet camera. Despite this, I wasn’t immediately able to find online discussion around Dekoda’s use of the term, which includes the device’s website saying that the Dekoda uses “encryption at every step.”

Numerous stories about the toilet cam’s launch (examples hereherehere, and here) mentioned the device’s purported E2EE but made no statements about how E2EE is used or the implications that E2EE claims have, or don’t have, for user privacy.

It’s possible there wasn’t much questioning about the Dekoda’s E2EE claim since the type of person who worries about and understands such things is often someone who wouldn’t put a camera anywhere near their bathroom.

It’s also possible that people had other ideas for how the smart toilet camera might work. Speaking with The Register, Fondrie-Teitler suggested a design in which data never leaves the camera but admitted that he didn’t know if this is possible.

“Ideally, this type of data would remain on the user’s device for analysis, and client-side encryption would be used for backups or synchronizing historical data to new devices,” he told The Register.

What is Kohler doing with the data?

For those curious about why Kohler wants data about its customers’ waste, the answer, as it often is today, is marketing and AI.

As Fondrie-Teitler noted, Kohler’s privacy policy says Kohler can use customer data to “create aggregated, de-identified and/or anonymized data, which we may use and share with third parties for our lawful business purposes, including to analyze and improve the Kohler Health Platform and our other products and services, to promote our business, and to train our AI and machine learning models.”

In its statement, Kohler said:

If a user consents (which is optional), Kohler Health may de-identify the data and use the de-identified data to train the AI that drives our product. This consent check-box is displayed in the Kohler Health app, is optional, and is not pre-checked.

Words matter

Kohler isn’t the first tech company to confuse people with its use of the term E2EE. In April, there was debate over whether Google was truly giving Gmail for business users E2EE, since, in addition to the sender and recipient having access to decrypted messages, people inside the users’ organization who deploy and manage the KACL (Key Access Control List) server can access the key necessary for decryption.

In general, what matters most is whether the product provides the security users demand. As Ars Technica Senior Security Editor Dan Goodin wrote about Gmail’s E2EE debate:

“The new feature is of potential value to organizations that must comply with onerous regulations mandating end-to-end encryption. It most definitely isn’t suitable for consumers or anyone who wants sole control over the messages they send. Privacy advocates, take note.”

When the product in question is an Internet-connected camera that lives inside your toilet bowl, it’s important to ask whether any technology could ever make it private enough. For many, no proper terminology could rationalize such a device.

Still, if a company is going to push “health” products to people who may have health concerns and, perhaps, limited cybersecurity and tech privacy knowledge, there’s an onus on that company for clear and straightforward communication.

“Throwing security terms around that the public doesn’t understand to try and create an illusion of data privacy and security being a high priority for your company is misleading to the people who have bought your product,” Cross said.

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

Engineer proves that Kohler’s smart toilet cameras aren’t very private Read More »

deepseek-v3.2-is-okay-and-cheap-but-slow

DeepSeek v3.2 Is Okay And Cheap But Slow

DeepSeek v3.2 is DeepSeek’s latest open model release with strong bencharks. Its paper contains some technical innovations that drive down cost.

It’s a good model by the standards of open models, and very good if you care a lot about price and openness, and if you care less about speed or whether the model is Chinese. It is strongest in mathematics.

What it does not appear to be is frontier. It is definitely not having a moment. In practice all signs are that it underperforms its benchmarks.

When I asked for practical experiences and reactions, I got almost no responses.

DeepSeek is a cracked Chinese AI lab that has produced some very good open models, done some excellent research, and given us strong innovations in terms of training techniques and especially training efficiency.

They also, back at the start of the year, scared the hell out of pretty much everyone.

A few months after OpenAI released o1, and shortly after DeepSeek released the impressive v3 that was misleadingly known as the ‘six million dollar model,’ DeepSeek came out with a slick app and with r1, a strong open reasoning model based on v3 that showed its chain of thought. With reasoning models not yet scaled up, it was the perfect time for a fast follow, and DeepSeek executed that very well.

Due to a strong viral marketing campaign and confluence of events, including that DeepSeek’s app shot to #1 on the app store, and conflating the six million in cost to train v3 with OpenAI’s entire budget of billions, and contrasting r1’s strengths with o1’s weaknesses, events briefly (and wrongly) convinced a lot of people that China or DeepSeek had ‘caught up’ or was close behind American labs, as opposed to being many months behind.

There was even talk that American AI labs or all closed models were ‘doomed’ and so on. Tech stocks were down a lot and people attributed that to DeepSeek, in ways that reflected a stock market highly lacking in situational awareness and responding irrationally, even if other factors were also driving a lot of the move.

Politicians claimed this meant we had to ‘race’ or else we would ‘lose to China,’ thus all other considerations must be sacrificed, and to this day the idea of a phantom DeepSeek-Huawei ‘tech stack’ is used to scare us.

This is collectively known as The DeepSeek Moment.

Slowly, in hindsight, the confluence of factors that caused this moment became clear. DeepSeek had always been behind by many months, likely about eight. Which was a lot shorter than previous estimates, but a lot more than people were saying.

Later releases bore this out. DeepSeek’s r1-0528 and v3.1 did not ‘have a moment,’ ad neither did v3.2-exp or now v3.2. The releases disappointed.

DeepSeek remains a national champion and source of pride in China, and is a cracked research lab that innovates for real. Its models are indeed being pushed by the PRC, especially in the global south.

For my coverage of this, see:

  1. DeepSeek v3: The Six Million Dollar Model.

  2. On DeepSeek’s r1.

  3. DeepSeek: Panic at the App Store.

  4. DeepSeek: Lemon, It’s Wednesday.

  5. DeepSeek: Don’t Panic.

  6. DeepSeek-r1-0528 Did Not Have a Moment.

  7. DeepSeek v3.1 Is Not Having a Moment.

I’d just been through a few weeks in which we got GPT-5.1, Grok 4.1, Gemini 3 Pro, GPT-5.1-Codex-Max and then finally Claude Opus 4.5. Mistral, listed above, doesn’t count. Which means we’re done and can have a nice holiday season, asks Padme?

No, Anakin said. There is another.

DeepSeek: 🚀 Launching DeepSeek-V3.2 & DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale — Reasoning-first models built for agents!

🔹 DeepSeek-V3.2: Official successor to V3.2-Exp. Now live on App, Web & API.

🔹 DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: Pushing the boundaries of reasoning capabilities. API-only for now.

Tech report [here], v3.2 model, v3.2-speciale model.

🏆 World-Leading Reasoning

🔹 V3.2: Balanced inference vs. length. Your daily driver at GPT-5 level performance.

🔹 V3.2-Speciale: Maxed-out reasoning capabilities. Rivals Gemini-3.0-Pro.

🥇 Gold-Medal Performance: V3.2-Speciale attains gold-level results in IMO, CMO, ICPC World Finals & IOI 2025.

📝 Note: V3.2-Speciale dominates complex tasks but requires higher token usage. Currently API-only (no tool-use) to support community evaluation & research.

🤖 Thinking in Tool-Use

🔹 Introduces a new massive agent training data synthesis method covering 1,800+ environments & 85k+ complex instructions.

🔹 DeepSeek-V3.2 is our first model to integrate thinking directly into tool-use, and also supports tool-use in both thinking and non-thinking modes.

Teortaxes threatened to bully me if I did not read the v3.2 paper. I did read it. The main innovation appears to be a new attention mechanism, which improves training efficiency and also greatly reduces compute cost to scaling the context window, resulting in v3.2 being relatively cheap without being relatively fast. Unfortunately I lack the expertise to appreciate the interesting technical aspects. Should I try and fix this in general? My gut says no.

What the paper did not include was any form of safety testing or information of any kind for this irreversible open release. There was not, that I could see, even a sentence that said ‘we did safety testing and are confident in this release’ or even one that said ‘we do not see any need to do any safety testing.’ It’s purely and silently ignored.

David Manheim: They announce the new DeepSeek.

“Did it get any safety testing, or is it recklessly advancing open-source misuse capability?”

They look confused.

“Did it get any safety testing?”

“It is good model, sir!”

I check the model card.

There’s absolutely no mention of misuse or safety.

Frankly, this is deeply irresponsible and completely unacceptable.

DeepSeek did by some accounts become somewhat censorious back in May, but that doesn’t seem to apply to, as George puts it, plans for .

DeepSeek claims to be ‘pushing the boundaries of reasoning capabilities’ and to be giving a GPT-5 level of performance. Their benchmarks match this story.

And they can’t even give us an explanation of why they don’t believe they owe us any sort of explanation? Not even a single sentence?

I knew DeepSeek was an irresponsible lab. I didn’t know they were this irresponsible.

The short version of my overall take seems to be that DeepSeek v3.2 is excellent for its price point, and its best area is mathematics, but while it is cheap it is reported to be remarkably slow, and for most practical purposes it is not frontier.

Which means you only would use it either if you are doing relatively advanced math, or if all four of the following are true:

  1. You don’t need the frontier capabilities

  2. You don’t mind the lack of speed.

  3. You benefit a lot from decreased cost or it being an open model or both.

  4. You don’t mind the security concerns.

The only strong praise I found in practice was this exchange from perennial whale (DeepSeek) advocate Teortaxes, Vinicius and John Pressman:

Teortaxes: Strange feeling, talking to Opus 4.5 and V3.2 and objectively… Opus is not worth it. Not just for the price; its responses are often less sharp, less interesting. But I’m still burning tokens.

Anthropic can coast far on “personality”, enterprise coding aside.

John Pressman: Opus told me I was absolutely right when I wasn’t, V3.2 told me I was full of shit and my idea wouldn’t work when it sort of would, but it was right in spirit and I know which behavior I would rather have.

I’ve never understood this phenomenon because if I was tuning a model and it ever told me I was “absolutely right” about some schizo and I wasn’t I would throw the checkpoint out.

Vinicius: Have you been using Speciale?

Teortaxes: yes but it’s not really as good as 3.2

it’s sometimes great (when it doesn’t doomloop) for zero-shotting a giant context

Vinicius: I’ve been using 3.2-thinking to handle input from social media/web; it’s insanely good for research, but I haven’t found a real use case for Speciale in my workflows.

Notice the background agreement that the ‘model to beat’ for most purposes is Opus 4.5, not Gemini 3 or GPT-5.1. I strongly agree with this, although Gemini 3 still impresses on ‘just the facts’ or ‘raw G’ tasks.

Some people really want a combative, abrasive sparring partner that will err on the side of skepticism and minimize false positives. Teortaxes and Pressman definitely fit that bill. That’s not what most people want. You can get Opus to behave a lot more in that direction if you really want that, but not easily get it to go all the way.

Is v3.2 a good model that has its uses? My guess is that it is. But if it was an exciting model in general, we would have heard a lot more.

They are very good benchmarks, and a few independent benchmarks also gave v3.2 high scores, but what’s the right bench to be maxing?

Teortaxes: V3.2 is here, it’s no longer “exp”. It’s frontier. Except coding/agentic things that are being neurotically benchmaxxed by the big 3. That’ll take one more update.

“Speciale” is a high compute variant that’s between Gemini and GPT-5 and can score gold on IMO-2025.

Thank you guys.

hallerite: hmm, I wonder if the proprietary models are indeed being benchmaxxed. DeepSeek was always a bit worse at the agentic stuff, but I guess we could find out as soon as another big agentic eval drops

Teortaxes: I’m using the term loosely. They’re “benchmaxxed” for use cases, not for benchmarks. Usemaxxed. But it’s a somewhat trivial issue of compute and maybe environment curation (also overwhelmingly a function of compute).

This confuses different maxings of things but I love the idea of ‘usemaxxed.’

Teortaxes (responding to my asking): Nah. Nothing happened. Sleep well, Zvi…

(nothing new happened. «A factor of two» price reduction… some more post-training… this was, of course, all baked in. If V3.2-exp didn’t pass the triage, why would 3.2?)

That’s a highly fair thing to say about the big three, that they’ve given a lot of focus to making them actually useful in practice for common use cases. So one could argue that by skipping all that you could get a model that was fundamentally as smart or frontier as the big three, it just would take more work to get it to do the most common use cases. It’s plausible.

Teortaxes: I think Speciale’s peak performance suggests a big qualitative shift. Their details on post-training methodology align with how I thought the frontier works now. This is the realm you can’t touch with distillation.

Lisan al Gaib: LisanBench results for DeepSeek-V3.2

DeepSeek-V3.2 and V3.2 Speciale are affordable frontier models*

*the caveat is that they are pretty slow at ~30-40tks/s and produce by far the longest reasoning chains at 20k and 47k average output tokens (incl. reasoning) – which results in extremely long waiting times per request.

but pricing is incredible

for example, Sonnet 4.5 Thinking costs 10x ($35) as much and scores much lower than DeepSeek-V3.2 Speciale ($3)

DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale also scored 13 new high scores

Chase Brower: DSV3.2-Speciale scores 30 on @AcerFur ‘s IUMB math benchmark, tying with the existing top performer Gemini 3 Pro Preview.

Token usage/cost isn’t up yet, but it cost $1.07 to run Speciale with 2546096 total tokens, vs $20.64 for gpt-5 👀👀

Those are presumably non-targeted benchmark that give sensible ratings elsewhere, as is this one from NomoreID on a Korean test, so it confirms that the ‘good on benchmarks’ thing is probably generally real especially on math.

In practice, it seems less useful, whether or not that is because less usemaxxed.

I want my models to be usemaxxed, because the whole point is to use them.

Also our standards are very high.

Chase Brower: The big things you’ll see on tpot are:

– vibecoding (V3.2 is still a bit behind in performance + really slow inference)

– conversation (again, slow)

Since it’s not very good for these, you won’t hear much from tpot

I feel like it’ll be a go-to for math/proving assistance, tho

Clay Schubiner: It’s weak but is technically on the Pareto frontier by being cheap – at least on my benchmark

Jake Halloran: spent like 10 minutes testing it and its cheap and ~fine~

its not frontier but not bad either (gpt 5ish)

The counterargument is that if you are ‘gpt 5ish’ then the core capabilities pre-usemaxxing are perhaps only a few months behind now? Which is very different from being overall only a few months behind in a practical way, or in a way that would let one lead.

The Pliny jailbreak is here, if you’re curious.

Gallabytes was unimpressed, as were those responding if your standard is the frontier. There were reports of it failing various gotcha questions and no reports of it passing.

In other DeepSeek news, DeepSeekMath-v2 used a prover-verifier loop that calls out the model’s own mistakes for training purposes, the same way you’d do it if you were learning real math.

Teortaxes: There is a uniquely Promethean vibe in Wenfeng’s project.

Before DS-MoE, only frontier could do efficiency.

Before DS-Math/Prover, only frontier could do Real math.

Before DS-Prover V2, only frontier could do Putnam level.

Before DS-Math V2, only frontier could do IMO Gold…

This is why I don’t think they’ll be the first to “AGI”, but they will likely be the first to make it open source. They can replicate anything on a shoestring budget, given some time. Stealing fire from definitely-not-gods will continue until human autonomy improves.

So far, the reported actual breakthroughs have all been from American closed source frontier models. Let’s see if that changes.

I am down with the recent direction of DeepSeek releases towards specialized worthwhile math topics. That seems great. I do not want them trying to cook an overall frontier model, especially given their deep level of irresponsibility.

Making things cheaper can still be highly valuable, even with other issues. By all accounts this model has real things to offer, the first noteworthy DeepSeek offering since r1. What it is not, regardless of their claims, is a frontier model.

This is unsurprising. You don’t go from v3.2-exp to v3.2 in your naming schema while suddenly jumping to the frontier. You don’t actually go on the frontier, I would hope, with a fully open release, while saying actual zero words about safety concerns.

DeepSeek are still doing interesting and innovative things, and this buys some amount of clock in terms of keeping them on the map.

As DeepSeek says in their v3.2 paper, open models have since r1 been steadily falling further behind closed models rather than catching up. v3.2 appears to close some of that additional gap.

The question is, will they be cooking a worthy v4 any time soon?

The clock is ticking.

Discussion about this post

DeepSeek v3.2 Is Okay And Cheap But Slow Read More »

netflix’s-$72b-wb-acquisition-confounds-the-future-of-movie-theaters,-streaming

Netflix’s $72B WB acquisition confounds the future of movie theaters, streaming


Netflix’s plans to own HBO Max, DC Comics, Harry Potter to face regulatory scrutiny.

The bidding war is over, and Netflix has been declared the winner.

After flirting with Paramount Skydance and Comcast, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) has decided to sell its streaming and movie studios business to Netflix. If approved, the deal is set to overturn the media landscape and create ripples that will affect Hollywood for years.

$72 billion acquisition

Netflix will pay an equity value of $72 billion, or an approximate total enterprise value of $82.7 billion, for Warner Bros. All of WBD has a $60 billion market value, NBC News notes.

The acquisition will take place after WBD completes the split of its streaming and studios businesses, which includes its film and TV libraries and the HBO channel, and its other TV networks, including CNN and TBS, into separate companies (Warner Bros. and Discovery Global, respectively). WBD’s split is expected to finish in Q3 2026.

Additionally, Netflix’s acquisition is subject to regulatory approvals, WBD shareholder approval, and other “customary closing conditions.”

Netflix expects the purchase to net it more subscribers, higher engagement, and “at least $2–3 billion of cost savings per year by the third year,” its announcement said.

Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters said in a statement that Netflix will use its global reach and business model to bring WB content to “a broader audience.”

The announcement didn’t specify what this means for current WBD staff, including WBD’s current president and CEO, David Zaslav. Gunnar Wiedenfels, who is currently CFO of WBD, is expected to be the CEO of Discovery Global after WBD split.

Netflix to own HBO Max

Netflix will have to overcome regulatory hurdles to complete this deal, which would evolve it from a streaming king to an entertainment juggernaut. If completed, the world’s largest streaming service by subscribers (301.63 million as of January) will own its third biggest rival (WBD has 128 million streaming subscribers, most of which are HBO Max users).

The acquisition would also give Netflix power over a mountain of current and incoming titles, including massive global franchises DC Comics, Game of Thrones, and Harry Potter.

If the deal goes through, Netflix said it will incorporate content from WB Studios, HBO Max, and HBO into Netflix. Netflix is expected to keep HBO Max available as a separate service, at least for the near term, Variety reported today. However, it’s easy to see a future where Netflix tries to push subscriptions bundling Netflix and HBO Max before consolidating the services into one product that would likely be more expensive than Netflix is today. Disney is setting the precedent with its bundles of Disney+ and the recently acquired Hulu, and by featuring a Hulu section within the Disney+ app.

Before today’s announcement, industry folks were concerned about Netflix potentially owning that much content while dominating streaming. However, Netflix said today that buying WB would enable it to “significantly expand US production capacity and continue to grow investment in original content over the long term, which will create jobs and strengthen the entertainment industry.”

Uniting Netflix and HBO Max’s libraries could make it easier for streaming subscribers to find content with fewer apps and fewer subscriptions. However, subscribers could also be negatively impacted (especially around pricing) if Netflix gains too much power, both as a streaming company and media rights holder.

In WBD’s most recent earnings report, its streaming business reported $45 million in quarterly earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Netflix reported a quarterly net income of $2.55 billion in its most recent earnings report.

Netflix hasn’t detailed plans for the HBO cable channel. But given Netflix’s streaming ethos, the linear network may not endure in the long term. But since the HBO brand is valuable, we expect the name to persist, even if it’s just as a section of prestige titles within Netflix.

“A noose around the theatrical marketplace”

Among the stakeholders most in arms about the planned acquisition is the movie theater industry. Netflix’s co-CEO Ted Sarandos has historically seen minimal value in theaters as a distribution method. In April, he said that making movies “for movie theaters, for the communal experience” is “an outmoded idea.”

Today, Sarandos said that under Netflix, all WB movies will still hit theaters as planned, which brings us through 2029, per Variety.

During a conference call today, Sarandos said he has no “opposition to movies in theaters,” adding, per Variety:

My pushback has been mostly in the fact of the long exclusive windows, which we don’t really think are that consumer-friendly. But when we talk about keeping HBO operating, largely as it is, that also includes their output movie deal with Warner Bros., which includes a life cycle that starts in the movie theater, which we’re going to continue to support.

Notably, the executive said that “Netflix movies will take the same strides they have, which is, some of them do have a short run in the theater beforehand.”

Anticipating today’s announcement, the movie theater industry has been pushing for regulatory scrutiny over the sale of WB.

Michael O’Leary, CEO and president of Cinema United, the biggest exhibition trade organization, said in a statement today about the Netflix acquisition:

Regulators must look closely at the specifics of this proposed transaction and understand the negative impact it will have on consumers, exhibition, and the entertainment industry.

In a letter sent to Congress members this month, an anonymous group that described itself as “concerned feature film producers” wrote that Netflix’s purchase of WB would “effectively hold a noose around the theatrical marketplace” by reducing the number of theatrical releases and driving down the price of licensing fees for films after their theatrical release, as reported by Variety.

Up next: Regulatory hurdles

In the coming weeks, we’ll get a clearer idea of how antitrust concerns and politics may affect Netflix’s acquisition plans.

Recently, other media companies, such as Paramount, have been accused of trying to curry favor with US President Donald Trump in order to get deals approved. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) could try to block Netflix’s acquisition of WB. But there’s reason for Netflix and WB to remain optimistic if that happens. In 2017, Time Warner and AT&T successfully defeated the DOJ’s attempted merger block.

Still, Netflix and WB have their work cut out for them, as skepticism around the deal grows. Last month, US Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote to the DOJ’s antitrust division urging that any WB deal “is grounded in the law, not President Trump’s political favoritism.”

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi last month, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) said that buying WB would “enhance” Netflix’s “unequaled market power” and be “presumptively problematic under antitrust law.”

In a statement about Netflix’s announcement shared by NBC News today, a spokesperson for the California attorney general’s office said:

“The Department of Justice believes further consolidation in markets that are central to American economic life—whether in the financial, airline, grocery, or broadcasting and entertainment markets—does not serve the American economy, consumers, or competition well.”

Netflix’s rivals may also seek to challenge the deal. Attorneys for Paramount questioned the “fairness and adequacy” of WBD’s sales process ahead of today’s announcement.

Photo of Scharon Harding

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

Netflix’s $72B WB acquisition confounds the future of movie theaters, streaming Read More »

congress-warned-that-nasa’s-current-plan-for-artemis-“cannot-work”

Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work”

As for what to do about it, Griffin said legislators should end the present plan.

“The Artemis III mission and those beyond should be canceled and we should start over, proceeding with all deliberate speed,” Griffin said. He included a link to his plan, which is not dissimilar from the “Apollo on Steroids” architecture he championed two decades ago, but was later found to be unaffordable within NASA’s existing budget.

“There need to be consequences”

Other panel members offered more general advice.

Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said NASA should continue to serve as an engine for US success in space and science. He cited the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, which has stimulated a growing lunar industry. He also said NASA spending on basic research and development is a critical feedstock for US innovation, and a key advantage over the People’s Republic of China.

“When you’re looking at the NASA authorization legislation, look at it in a way where you are the genesis of that innovation ecosystem, that flywheel that really powers US national security and economic security, in a way that the PRC just can’t match,” Swope said. “Without science, we would never have had something like the Manhattan Project.”

Another witness, Dean Cheng of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, said NASA—and by extension Congress—must do a better job of holding itself and its contractors accountable.

Many of NASA’s major exploration programs, including the Orion spacecraft, Space Launch System rocket, and their ground systems, have run years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget in the last 15 years. NASA has funded these programs with cost-plus contracts, so it has had limited ability to enforce deadlines with contractors. Moreover, Congress has more or less meekly gone along with the delays and continued funding the programs.

Cheng said that whatever priorities policymakers decide for NASA,  failing to achieve objectives should come with consequences.

“One, it needs to be bipartisan, to make very clear throughout our system that this is something that everyone is pushing for,” Cheng said of establishing priorities for NASA. “And two, that there are consequences, budgetary, legal, and otherwise, to the agency, to supplying companies. If they fail to deliver on time and on budget, that it will not be a ‘Well, okay, let’s try again next year.’ There need to be consequences.”

Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work” Read More »