Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

Syria is experiencing its deadliest outbreak of violent clashes since the new government took power three months ago.

A friend called recently asking about measles. She’s the mother of four very young kids and wanted to know if she should be worried. She’d heard about the large measles outbreak in northwest Texas. Since January, more than 159 people are known to have been infected, and the outbreak has resulted in two deaths and dozens of hospitalizations. Now, this measles outbreak has spread into nine other states, and there’s an alert to travelers passing through the Los Angeles Airport.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Contrary to statements by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., outbreaks of this deadly disease are highly unusual. The U.S. declared measles eliminated more than 20 years ago, thanks to an exceptionally safe and effective vaccine. But efforts to undermine confidence in that vaccine have contributed to these recent outbreaks. There are things we can do, individually and collectively, to protect our most vulnerable and hopefully eliminate measles in this country again.

My friend understands the settled evidence behind the safety and efficacy of vaccines. She’s following the vaccine schedule her pediatrician recommended. Measles vaccines are among the most protective shots we have, so when she gets her kids vaccinated, they are protected. But the large outbreaks we are starting to see are still creating risks, including among our very youngest kids, our immunocompromised kids, and even among vulnerable adults.

Measles vaccines are highly effective: 93% after the first dose, 99% after the second dose. The problem is the timing. The first dose is not recommended until a child is 12 to 15 months old, and the second dose usually between the ages of 4 and 6. Infants have some passive immunity from their mom’s antibodies for the first 6 months, but not enough to be fully protective, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention strongly recommends that parents of children too young to be vaccinated avoid travel to areas with measles outbreaks.

Read More: What to Know About the Measles Vaccine

All children under the age of 1, before they get their first measles vaccine, are at risk if they come near someone with measles. Given that measles is one of the most contagious diseases on Earth, outbreaks mean we are likely to see more infections among children in this age range, including kids whose parents fully intend to vaccinate. And while the first dose is highly protective, the best protection comes after the second dose, which is usually given when a child is ready to start school. Between those two doses, children may still be at some risk, especially if they come into repeated contact with measles from others refusing or unable to be vaccinated.

Beyond the youngest kids, two other groups need special attention. The first is children who are immunocompromised. Some of these children, such as those undergoing cancer treatment, cannot get the measles vaccine because the vaccine is a weakened form of the live virus, and in someone who is immunocompromised, it can actually cause the disease. Therefore, these immunocompromised kids rely on high levels of population immunity to protect them. When population vaccination rates fall below 95%, the virus can begin to circulate, and vulnerable children can become infected and will get very sick if they do.

The second potentially vulnerable group are elderly and immunocompromised adults. Most elderly people should have some immunity against measles; people born before 1957 likely had measles, and starting in the 1960s, people started getting vaccinated (though through 1968, the available vaccine was a little less effective). In general, we assume that everyone has lifelong immunity, whether from an infection or vaccines. But we don’t really know for sure. If a senior in her 80s had measles when she was 5, is she still protected? What about an adult undergoing chemotherapy? Immunity in these two populations may hold up fine—but we urgently need studies to better understand the risks of being exposed to measles for these types of individuals. Measles in an elderly or immunocompromised adult who isn’t protected—either because they cannot be vaccinated or because their immunity has not held up over time—is likely to be quite severe. And it is possible that the elderly may need an additional shot to protect them if they live in a high outbreak area. We don’t know, and we can’t make recommendations without data.

Read More: A Study Retracted 15 Years Ago Continues to Threaten Childhood Vaccines

Years of scaremongering about vaccines have led to low vaccination rates in many communities across America. A now-standard refrain is that parents are simply putting their own kids at risk but not harming anyone else. The truth is this: low vaccination rates create risks for many others. They create risks for kids who are still too young to get vaccinated. They create risks for kids who are immunocompromised, who can’t get vaccinated. They may also create risks for older or immunocompromised adults whose immune systems are not robust enough to protect them.

So when my family friend with a child under one called about protecting her children, my advice was clear. Stay away from areas with outbreaks. Get your child vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, and encourage your friends and others in your community to do so, too—because while she can eventually get all of her children protected, no such option exists for the child battling leukemia. And no such option exists for all those who are immunocompromised or at risk because of waning immunity. We owe it to all of them to make sure we stamp out measles in the U.S. again.

Threat actors exploit PHP flaw CVE-2024-4577 for remote code execution. Over 1,000 attacks detected globally.

GreyNoise researchers warn of a large-scale exploitation of a critical vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2024-4577 (CVSS 9.8), in PHP. An attacker could exploit the vulnerability to achieve remote code execution on vulnerable servers using Apache and PHP-CGI.

The flaw CVE-2024-4577 (CVSS score: 9.8) is a PHP-CGI OS Command Injection Vulnerability. The issue resides in the Best-Fit feature of encoding conversion within the Windows operating system. An attacker can exploit the flaw to bypass protections for a previous vulnerability, CVE-2012-1823, using specific character sequences. Consequently, arbitrary code can be executed on remote PHP servers through an argument injection attack, allowing attackers to take control of vulnerable servers.

Since the disclosure of the vulnerability and public availability of a PoC exploit code, multiple actors are attempting to exploit it, reported Shadowserver and GreyNoise researchers.

In June, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) added the the vulnerability to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

In July 2024, the Akamai Security Intelligence Response Team (SIRT) warned that multiple threat actors were exploiting the PHP vulnerability CVE-2024-4577 to deliver multiple malware families, including Gh0st RAT, RedTail cryptominers, and XMRig.

“Threat actors continued the speedy-time-from-disclosure-to-exploitation trend and were quick to leverage this new vulnerability — we observed exploit attempts targeting this PHP flaw on our honeypot network within 24 hours of its disclosure.” reported Akamai.

At the time, Greynoise researchers also reported malicious attempts of exploitation of the CVE-2024-4577.

“As of this writing, it has been verified that when the Windows is running in the following locales, an unauthorized attacker can directly execute arbitrary code on the remote server:

• Traditional Chinese (Code Page 950)
• Simplified Chinese (Code Page 936)
• Japanese (Code Page 932)

For Windows running in other locales such as English, Korean, and Western European, due to the wide range of PHP usage scenarios, it is currently not possible to completely enumerate and eliminate all potential exploitation scenarios.” continues the advisory. “Therefore, it is recommended that users conduct a comprehensive asset assessment, verify their usage scenarios, and update PHP to the latest version to ensure security.

Akamai researchers also observed threat actors behind the DDoS botnet Muhstik exploiting this vulnerability.

Last week, Cisco Talos researchers reported that an unknown threat actor has been exploiting the flaw since as early as January 2025, predominantly targeting organizations in Japan.  

Now, GreyNoise researches confirm the large scale exploitation of CVE-2024-4577 and warns that it is not limited to Japanese entities. The experts observed a surge in the attacks against the US, the UK, Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, and Spain.

“GreyNoise data confirms that exploitation of CVE-2024-4577 extends far beyond initial reports. Attack attempts have been observed across multiple regions, with notable spikes in the United States, Singapore, Japan, and other countries throughout January 2025.” reads the advisory.

GreyNoise detected 1,089 unique IPs exploiting CVE-2024-4577 in January 2025, with attacks spreading beyond Japan to Singapore, Indonesia, the UK, Spain, and India. Over 43% of attacks originate from Germany and China. In February, a coordinated spike in global exploitation suggested increased automated scanning for vulnerable systems.

The company urges users to update their installations as soon as possible.

“Organizations with internet-facing Windows systems exposing PHP-CGI — especially those in these newly identified targeted regions — should follow the guidance provided by Cisco Talos and perform retro-hunts to identify similar exploitation patterns.” concludes GreyNoise.

“Identify and block malicious IPs actively targeting CVE-2024-4577. “

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, PHP-CGI OS Command Injection Vulnerability)

Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate and green card holder, was an active participant in a political movement on his campus. The political movement called for the university to divest from arms companies and from a state deemed by the International Court of Justice to plausibly be committing genocide. Khalil has not been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. His role in the movement was that of negotiator and mediator with the school’s administration — that is, engaging in speech.

But Khalil is Palestinian, and the movement in question is for Palestinian freedom and against Israel’s eliminationist assault on Gaza. So, as of Saturday night, Khalil, a legal permanent resident, is being held without charge at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention center. His attorney and his wife — a U.S. citizen who is eight months pregnant — were unable to find Khalil in the sprawling ICE carceral system for over 24 hours.

On Saturday night, Department of Homeland Security agents descended on Khalil’s apartment, a Columbia University-owned property near the school’s Manhattan campus. Khalil called his attorney, Amy Greer, who spoke with the agents on the phone. First, they reportedly said they were acting on State Department orders to revoke the graduate’s student visa. The attorney told them that Khalil has a green card, which Khalil’s wife produced as proof. Then, according to reports, the agent told Greer that they were revoking Khalil’s green card. The agents threatened Khalil’s pregnant wife with arrest too, and then took her husband away.

“We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” wrote U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on X on Sunday, linking to The Associated Press’s coverage of Khalil’s arrest.

There is no going back from this point: President Donald Trump’s administration is trying to deport a man solely for his First Amendment-protected activity, without due process. By all existing legal standards, this is illegal and unconstitutional: a violation of First Amendment protections, and the Fifth Amendment-protected right to due process. If Khalil’s green card is revoked and he is deported, no one can have any confidence in legal and constitutional protections as a line of defense against arbitrary state violence and punishment. Khalil’s arrest marks an extraordinary fascist escalation.

It is all the more vile that Khalil has been targeted for engaging in protected protest activity calling for an end to the U.S.-backed slaughter of his people. The Trump administration has consistently framed all pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist activists as Hamas supporters. It is worth stressing, though, that even if a protester did express support or sympathy for Hamas in a public speech, or on social media (and I’m not saying Khalil did), such expression is also protected by the First Amendment, a protection extended to citizens and noncitizens alike. This is settled constitutional law: The Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, for example, reaffirmed the principle that the First Amendment protects even the most controversial and provocative forms of speech. 

Some of the only activity not protected by the First Amendment in this regard is material support for a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the government. What counts as “material support” has a strict legal standard — even expressing support or sympathy for a foreign terrorist organization is not included in that standard.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Zeteo’s Prem Thakker that Khalil was arrested because he “led activities aligned to Hamas.” The claim is yet another outrageous affront to First Amendment protections, which robustly include political speech and a whole host of protest activities.

Khalil has not been charged with material support for terrorism, nor any other crime. Under law, green cards cannot be summarily revoked; grounds for removal require criminal convictions for specific crimes including assault or theft, or proof of visa fraud. Green card holders facing removal are, under law, given the chance to appeal. They are not simply removed. I repeat “under law,” because Khalil’s case threatens to make that very designation irrelevant.

The Trump administration has made a series of threats to revoke the visas of students and others involved in Palestine solidarity protests, which it consistently describes as “pro-Hamas.” Following on from President Joe Biden’s administration, Trump’s regime is committed to the dangerous conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, as a way to demonize — and criminalize — criticism of Israel. In a fact sheet accompanying the president’s executive order mendaciously titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” Trump threatened to “quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.”

While still a senator, Rubio recommended the use of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which gives the secretary of state the power to revoke visas from foreigners deemed to be a threat. The very same law was used to enact racist immigrant quotas, and as a red scare weapon to deport or refuse entry to leftists like Chilean poet Pablo Neruda and Nobel Prize-winning Colombian author Gabriel García Márquez, among others. The law has been amended numerous times since, in efforts to limit its authoritarian and racist uses. With the 1990 Immigration Act, for example, Congress prohibited as grounds for excluding immigrants from the U.S. “advocacy or publication of communist or other subversive views or materials.” Stated plainly: It’s illegal under congressional statute and the Constitution to remove someone from the country due to political speech.

Rubio’s own comments show he seeks to revive the Immigration and Nationality Act’s most harmful form. Just one week after Hamas’s October 7 attack, Rubio invoked the law in a Fox News interview as grounds for deporting pro-Palestine protesters, and posted on X: “Cancel the visa of every foreign national out there supporting Hamas and get them out of America.” Now Rubio is secretary of state and committing in words and deeds to his illegal deportation agenda.

There’s little use in simply pointing to the law, even the Constitution, to oppose these authoritarians. Republicans are well versed in forging new legal realities through force and violence. Legal protections cannot be assumed; they need fighting for, or they simply will not hold. Establishment Democrats and institutions like Columbia University have helped bring us to this grim watershed moment. Every institution that treated support for Palestinian lives and condemnation of Israel’s genocidal war as antisemitic and terroristic laid the ground for Trump’s wholesale attack on basic speech rights.

Palestine solidarity activists and anti-colonial thinkers have long made clear that a government willing to prosecute a genocidal war abroad, as the U.S. has, has no problem enacting exclusionary, discriminatory violence at home. This is not new; these are the inherent contradictions of a purported democracy engaged in colonial domination. It should not take the illegal detention of another Palestinian to expose this, but here we are.

“Who’s next? Citizens?”

“This is unacceptable. Deporting legal residents solely for expressing their political opinions is a violation of free speech rights,” wrote Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. “Who’s next? Citizens?”

For those of you with any investment in the protection of basic rights and legal protections — in the defense of any shred of democracy against authoritarian rule — the fight to free Khalil and maintain his legal status is your fight too.

The post If Trump Can Deport Mahmoud Khalil, Freedom of Speech Is Dead appeared first on The Intercept.

(NewsNation) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Monday that the United States has cut 83% of programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development and said the thousands of canceled contracts did not serve the “core national interests” of the U.S.

Rubio made the announcement in a social media post and said the Trump administration has wrapped up a six-week review.

“The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States,” he wrote.

Rubio thanked the Department of Government Efficiency and “our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform” in foreign aid.

He said he would transfer the programs that survived the purge to the State Department. 

The announcement was one of few public comments from Rubio on what has been a historic shift away from U.S. foreign aid and development, executed by political appointees of President Donald Trump at the State Department and Elon Musk’s DOGE team.

SCOTUS lifts freeze on some foreign aid

The Trump administration has worked for weeks to dismantle USAID, which oversees foreign aid and development programs.

Thousands of employees have either been put on leave or fired, while the federal government has also frozen payments to contractors.

After a federal court ruling last week, the government must start making payments to contractors on Monday for work already done, which is estimated to cost around $2 billion.

It’s unclear if the cuts will impact the Food for Peace program, which buys billions in food from American farmers to send overseas.

America’s democracy is built on strong institutions, including an apolitical military and an independent civil service that are supposed to serve the people, not the interests of a single leader. These institutions aren’t just symbols of democracy; they are its foundation. Right now, President Donald Trump’s administration is deliberately dismantling that foundation.

Veterans know how to act in trying times. We have long been among the most trusted voices in American society—not just because of our service, but because we’ve shown time and again that we put country before politics. After the Civil War, veterans helped stitch a broken nation back together. After World War II, veterans led the fight for civil rights. After Vietnam, veterans forced America to confront its failures. And today, we face another test: whether our military and government will serve everyone equally under the rule of law.

Recent events should be a wake-up call for anyone who cares about the future of democracy. Last month, General C.Q. Brown Jr., the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired, along with other senior military leaders. These were not routine changes but instead political purges, designed to install loyalists in positions that should remain nonpartisan.

The same pattern is playing out across the U.S. government. More than 1,000 employees at the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) were fired last month. And the VA has announced plans to cut more than 80,000 additional positions—gutting the very infrastructure veterans rely on for care and benefits. Key election security officials have been removed, weakening safeguards for free and fair elections. The military is being deployed to the southwest border for political purposes. The administration has detained civilians with no criminal record at the same military facility in Guantanamo Bay that was used to house enemy combatants during the Global War on Terrorism.

This is not about efficiency or reform. It is about control. And the administration’s attempts to exert control are having an impact on the veteran and military communities.

Veterans should recognize this playbook. We’ve seen it in other countries, where democratic backsliding starts with the erosion of independent institutions, the politicization of the military, and the replacement of independent, experienced leaders with those who will not challenge executive authority. The United States has long prided itself on a professional, apolitical military and a government built on institutional integrity. That foundation is now being deliberately eroded.

This is a moment that demands a response, particularly from the veteran community.

For years, veteran service organizations (VSOs) have led the fight for better healthcare, stronger benefits, and greater protections for veterans. Their advocacy has secured life-saving care, expanded access to education, and ensured veterans are not left behind.

But now, as the very systems that support veterans and safeguard democracy come under attack, their leadership is more critical than ever. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has spoken out, urging the administration and Congress to stop the indiscriminate firing of VA employees, many of whom are veterans themselves. Other VSOs must follow their lead.

This is not a time for caution. VSOs should be leading the charge to defend our constitutional system. They have the platform, credibility, and reach to sound the alarm in ways few others can. They should be calling on Congress to investigate the administration’s firings, pushing back against the politicization of the military, and ensuring that veterans are part of the national conversation about what’s at stake.

VSOs and veterans have an opportunity to act as defenders of the democratic institutions that make their advocacy possible in the first place. While these organizations exist to uphold the interests of veterans, we know veterans are not served by a government that removes oversight, weakens institutions, and strips away checks and balances.

But we can’t wait for VSOs alone to act. Every veteran has a role to play. Congress needs to hear from us directly. Lawmakers are already facing backlash at town halls, where constituents are demanding answers for the administration’s attacks on democratic institutions. Veterans have a unique credibility in these spaces—not just as constituents, but as people who have served and sacrificed for this country. When veterans show up and speak out, we are difficult to ignore. Our voices carry weight, and our presence signals that what’s happening is bigger than politics—it’s about protecting the values we swore an oath to defend.

Veterans should demand that Congress use its authority to hold this administration accountable. Oversight bodies have the power to investigate the ongoing, mass firings, as well as the broader effort to erode institutional independence. The House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees must demand answers on why thousands of VA employees, many of them veterans, have been fired. The House Oversight Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee—both of which have broad investigative authority over executive branch actions—must examine the administration’s dismantling of government. And the Senate and House Armed Services Committees need to investigate last month’s political purges of senior officers, including the removal of General C.Q. Brown Jr. and other military officials.

The message must be clear: Our government and our military serve the people, bound by the rule of law and the Constitution. That principle must be defended.

This is not about partisanship. This is about protecting the pillars of our democracy itself.

History has shown us what happens when career civil servants and military leaders are replaced with political loyalists. We know how this ends. Veterans understand what is at stake. The question now is whether the organizations that represent them will rise to meet this moment.

Our country has faced threats before, and veterans have always stepped forward to meet the challenge forward. Now, we must do so once again. 

IMAGE: U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Paul Weme, NATO Headquarters, salutes the American flag during a Veterans Day ceremony. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Victor J. Caputo)

The post Veterans Can’t Sit This One Out appeared first on Just Security.

Public school teachers and parents rallied last week outside Franklin Delano Roosevelt High School to protest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s access to school campuses.

Attendees held handmade signs reading, “Black, Brown, Asian, White, All Unite for Immigrants’ Rights” and “Support Immigrants and Transgender Students.”

The March 5 event was organized by the Committee to Defend Immigrants, a group established by FDR union members.

“Right now, as the federal government ramps up mass deportations, having already lifted restrictions on ICE entering schools, and targeting other vulnerable sectors, students across NYC are rightly fearful,” a spokesperson from the committee told Brooklyn Paper. “Many have stopped attending school in fear of deportation. The mayor’s orders to ‘not interfere’ if immigration police try to enter schools only makes matters worse.”

The outcry from public school teachers follows Mayor Eric Adams’ apparent directive for city workers to allow federal agents, including ICE officers, access to schools, hospitals and shelters. These locations were traditionally protected from immigration enforcement under New York’s sanctuary city laws.

After swift backlash, City Hall spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus rebutted the criticisms to Brooklyn Paper’s sister publication amNewYork Metro, saying they were rooted in misinformation.

“Let’s be very clear: anyone perpetuating the claim that New York City is instructing city employees to simply open doors for federal law enforcement, including ICE, is spreading misinformation that only fuels anxiety within immigrant communities and our city’s workforce,” Mamelak Altus said in a statement.

The spokesperson explained that the Jan. 13 memo “outlines a series of steps for city workers on how to respond to non-local law enforcement attempting to enter city property,” such as “asking for an agent’s credentials, asking for a warrant, and contacting the agency’s general counsel.”

Mamelak Altus further stated that city agencies had gamed out a number of scenarios in planning appropriate responses, such as if law enforcement were looking for a wanted, violent criminal.

“This is a rapidly evolving situation, and, as a result, we are in the process of finalizing further guidance for city workers to follow if they encounter federal law enforcement attempting to enter a building,” she added.

Still, opponents have continued to push back.

“Eric Adams sent a guidance to city workers, encouraging them to give away the power that the law has granted them. He has told city workers that if they feel intimidated by an ice officer, they should open the doors of our schools, of our hospitals,” Co-Director of the New York Working Families Party Ana María Archila said at a Feb. 9 rally outside City Hall. “The mayor has betrayed immigrant families. The mayor has betrayed all New Yorkers.”

The mayor’s memo aside, Yari Michel, a teacher at FDR High School, told Brooklyn Paper she noticed a drop in student attendance immediately after the election.

“ We want to make sure students are protected because if ICE does enter the schools, this isn’t just going to impact the one student that they could potentially be looking for,” Michel said. “This would have a rippling, chilling effect on every student regardless of immigration status. And it would also have the same impact, I believe, on teachers.”

No ICE raids have been reported in Brooklyn public schools since the last election.

Administrators at FDR High School were not immediately available for comment. The city’s Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.

When U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited El Salvador in early February to meet with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Rubio announced that Bukele had offered to house “dangerous American criminals, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, in his jails.” Rubio then confirmed this offer on X.

For those who think that this was just social media posturing, the U.S. Department of State issued a “readout” of Rubio’s meeting with Bukele confirming Bukele’s “extraordinary gesture.” Bukele also wrote on X, “We are willing to take in only convicted criminals (including convicted U.S. citizens) into our mega-prison (CECOT) in exchange for a fee.” Billionaire and head of the DOGE (Department of Governmental Efficiency) Service Elon Musk retweeted that and noted that he thought this was a “great idea.”

A few days later, U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) penned a letter to Rubio and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi urging the Trump administration to “immediately and unequivocally reject” Bukele’s proposition to incarcerate U.S. citizens in El Salvador. Ossoff wrote in his letter that, “[e]ven entertaining this offer suggests a potential abandonment of core legal and ethical principles that protect the human and civil rights of Americans and others subject to U.S. jurisdiction.”

Is it Legal to Send U.S. Citizens Convicted of Crimes to Prisons in El Salvador?

Even President Donald Trump told reporters, in speaking of the offer, “If we had the legal right to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat.” And Rubio himself – an attorney – also acknowledged “There’s obviously legalities involved. We have a Constitution.”

It is illegal to expatriate U.S. citizens for a crime. In fact, U.S. citizens can only be stripped of citizenship if they knowingly perform acts resulting in a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship such as a “formal renunciation of nationality in the United States during a time of war” or “leaving or remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency to avoid military service.” However, even if imprisonment in El Salvador does not strip incarcerated citizens of their status, it is still illegal under Trump’s own touted First Step Act.

There is no modern precedent for sending U.S. citizens who are convicted of crimes to other countries for punishment, or “banishment” as it has been formerly called and practiced. As far back as ancient Rome, people practiced self-banishment to escape severe punishment and exiled themselves from Rome. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the United Kingdom “banished” people convicted of crimes to its colonies in North America and Australia, as both a method of colonization and in some cases a commercial transaction since some could fill labor shortages as indentured servants. In fact, banishment emerged in the United Kingdom as an alternative to capital punishment. More than 50,000 people were transported to the American colonies by 1775; while more than 162,000 people considered “convicts” were sent to Australia between 1788 and 1868. Note that all people sentenced to penal transportation in Great Britain were sent to places that, while far away, were jurisdictions of the British Crown. The practice of penal transportation to the United States abruptly stopped around the time of the Revolutionary War.

The other legal impediment stems from a little-known provision in the First Step Act, which impacts where incarcerated people are housed. Signed by Trump in 2018 during his first term, the law included changes in federal sentencing in addition to reforms intended to improve the conditions of those in federal prisons. The law mandates that the federal government place people in “a facility as close as practicable to the prisoner’s primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence.” The policy behind this law is to facilitate family visitation; ensure incarcerated people are not deprived of the ability to see family, clergy, and other members of the community; and better support their reintegration into their communities upon release.  The First Step Act even mandated that, but for the few exceptions and the incarcerated person’s preference for staying in their current prison, the Federal Bureau of Prisons must transfer already-incarcerated people to facilities closer to their primary residence when the law became effective – even if they were currently in a prison within 500 driving miles of their primary residence. No matter how you do the math, prisons in El Salvador are not within 500 driving miles (nor even 500 flying miles) of any part of the United States.

What about the Eighth Amendment?

Deporting American citizens to serve their sentence in an El Salvador prison would violate the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The “cruel and unusual punishments” clause protects those convicted of crimes from excessively long sentences in prison in addition to ensuring that prison conditions meet certain health and safety standards.

But despite this provision, it has been up to the U.S. Supreme Court to provide the contours of what is acceptable punishment that doesn’t violate the 8th Amendment. There have been several significant cases that have helped shape the constitutional guardrails against “cruel and unusual punishment.” In the 1958 case of Trop v. Dulles, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the “basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man. While the State has the power to punish, the Amendment stands to assure that this power be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.” Almost 20 years later in Estelle v. Gamble, the U.S. Supreme Court established what is known as the “deliberate indifference” standard. In that case, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’” which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Other Supreme Court cases have focused on providing guardrails against “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and excessive use of force.

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2011 case Brown v. Plata that the conditions of confinement in California’s prisons were so inhumane that they violated the Eighth Amendment. In that case, evidence indicated that California’s prisons had operated at around 200 percent of design capacity for at least a decade. Some prisons were even operating at almost 300 percent capacity. There were not enough treatment beds because of the overcrowding, so suicidal individuals in prison were held for long time periods in “telephone-booth sized cages without toilets.”

So what are the conditions like inside the prison in El Salvador where people are likely to be sent? The Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT), a 40,000-capacity megaprison 45 miles from the capital San Salvador that opened in 2023, is a place where prisoners receive no visitors, do not participate in any rehabilitative or educational programming, and do not spend any time outside. The prison was constructed as part of Bukele’s campaign to eliminate crime and gangs. The result: more than 84,000 arrests in the country since March of 2022, almost entirely without due process. Bukele suspended basic rights such as access to attorneys and the right to a speedy trial through his “State of Exception,” making it simpler to arrest, prosecute, and imprison suspected gang members.

As of January 2024, El Salvador had the highest incarceration rate on the planet, with more than 1,000 people in prison per 100,000 residents. Notably, Senator Ossoff, in his letter to Rubio and Bondi, pointed out that the U.S. State Department warns U.S. citizens who travel to the country about Bukele’s declaration of a “State of Exception” and notes that those released from some of the country’s prisons “reported a lack of food and potable water and being limited to two tortillas, one spoonful of beans, and one glass of water per day.” Human rights advocates have found more than 6,000 violations in the country’s justice system, including “arbitrary detentions, torture, due process violations, enforced disappearances, and 366 deaths within state custody.”

If the Trump administration sends U.S. citizens convicted of a crime to El Salvador, it is almost certain that this maneuver violates the 8th Amendment, making the transportation unconstitutional.

What Happens From Here?

In the best-case scenario, this offer goes down in history as a public performance of world leaders who are known for their populist and authoritarian tendencies, in addition to their belief that reducing or eliminating civil liberties will reduce crime. It is unclear whether the Trump administration is still researching the “legality” of this proposal or thinking through this scenario with any seriousness. But if genuine steps are taken to remove U.S. citizens convicted of crimes to prisons in El Salvador, this removal would violate not only U.S. law but the U.S. Constitution.

IMAGE: A prison officer stands guard inside at the Counter-Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) mega-prison in El Salvador. The CECOT is the largest prison in Latin America and an emblem of the government of President Nayib Bukele. (Photo by Marvin (Photo by MARVIN RECINOS/AFP via Getty Images)

The post The Illegality and Human Rights Violations in El Salvador’s Bizarre Offer to House US Prisoners appeared first on Just Security.

(Editor’s Note: This article is part of our series, “Tech Policy under Trump 2.0.”)

In January, U.S President Donald Trump tasked his advisors to develop by July 2025 an AI Action Plan, a roadmap intended to “sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance.” This call to action mirrors the early days of nuclear energy — a transformative technology with world-changing potential but also grave risks. Much like the nuclear industry was derailed by public backlash following disasters such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, AI could face a similar crisis of confidence unless policymakers take proactive steps to prevent a large-scale incident.

A single large-scale AI disaster—be it in cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, or biotechnology—could undermine public trust, stall innovation, and leave the United States trailing global competitors. Recent reports indicate plans to cut the government’s AI capacity by dismantling the AI Safety Institute. But this would be a self-inflicted wound—not only for safety, but for progress. If Washington fails to anticipate and mitigate major AI risks, the United States risks falling behind in the fallout from what could become AI’s Chernobyl moment.

When Innovation Meets Catastrophe: Lessons from Nuclear Energy

For many Americans, AI’s transformative promise today echoes the optimism around nuclear power in the early 1970s, when more than half of the public supported its expansion. Yet the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island—a partial reactor meltdown—shattered that optimism, with support for nuclear energy dropping precipitously by the mid-1980s. By 1984, nearly two-thirds of Americans opposed the expansion of nuclear energy. Statistical analysis suggests that the Three Mile Island incident was associated with a 72 percent decline in nuclear reactor construction globally. Following the deadlier 1986 Chernobyl incident, countries were more than 90 percent less likely to build nuclear power plants than prior to this accident.

Just as many nations envisioned a renaissance for nuclear energy, the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan triggered renewed public skepticism and policy reversals. Fukushima — the only nuclear disaster besides Chernobyl to ever reach the highest classification on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale — caused public support for nuclear energy to plummet around the world. The Japanese government halted all plans for new nuclear reactors. Germany shut down all 17 of its nuclear power generation facilities, ultimately leading to increased dependence on Russian fossil fuels, compromising both its energy security and climate goals. The world is still paying the opportunity cost today: Limited access to clean, reliable nuclear power remains a critical bottleneck for AI development and other energy-intensive innovations.

While AI systems have not yet caused significant and widespread harm, risks may not be far away. Experts warn of looming threats that could likewise trigger consequential backlash. AI-generated code, for example, may have hidden vulnerabilities that hackers can exploit, amplifying society’s exposure to cyberattacks as software development is increasingly automated. Future AI systems may exceed human experts in chemical and biological sciences, and equip a much broader pool of actors with the know-how to create devastating bioweapons. Leading AI companies—including OpenAI, xAI, and Anthropic—explicitly cite bioweapon creation as a potential risk, with OpenAI recently stating that its “models are on the cusp of being able to meaningfully help novices create known biological threats.” With today’s blistering pace of advancement, driven by Stargate-sized investment and algorithmic breakthroughs advancing AI’s ability to reason, private sector action alone will likely be insufficient in managing such risks. If such dangers do materialize, public opinion could turn sharply against AI, prompting a wave of restrictive regulations that stifle innovation.

A serious AI incident would increase already-growing public opposition to the technology. Despite optimism from the tech sector, the majority of Americans are more concerned than excited about AI. A large-scale incident could amplify these concerns. As with nuclear energy, this could shatter the social license for AI innovation and instead galvanize public support for overly burdensome regulation, curtailing the technology’s considerable potential benefits.

The Stakes of Maintaining America’s AI Edge

Losing momentum in AI innovation would have profound implications. A stalling AI ecosystem would delay life-saving applications like drug discovery, diminish economic growth from AI tools, and threaten national security. Slowdown from an incident could also allow China to leapfrog the United States in AI’s economic and military applications. Moreover, it would globally discredit the United States’ balanced approach to AI development, opening the door to competing approaches. Withdrawing from AI security leadership would cede the future of AI governance to others — either the European Union’s overly burdensome regulations or China’s use of AI to enhance social control and restrict freedom of expression.

Preventing AI’s Chernobyl moment is about more than simply maintaining America’s technological and economic leadership. It is also about safeguarding democratic values on the global stage. China has already deployed AI technology for mass surveillance — and exported that surveillance technology to over 83 countries. The U.S. AI Action Plan is correct in focusing on U.S. innovation and leadership. Doing so is a necessity for defending U.S. security at home and promoting democratic values abroad.

Securing AI’s Future through Expertise and Agility—Not Red Tape

The path forward demands precision. Navigating the fine line between vigilance and overregulation takes agility and expertise. The United States cannot let speculative fears trigger heavy-handed regulations that would cripple U.S. AI innovation. Yet it also cannot dismiss the possibility of serious — even catastrophic — risks simply because they are uncertain. The solution lies in staying nimble — encouraging innovation while detecting emerging threats early.

Smart, lightweight oversight can help policymakers spot emerging dangers while readying government and industry to act when needed. This approach won’t burden AI companies with excessive red tape. But it requires something crucial: a government with the expertise and resources to truly understand AI’s rapidly advancing capabilities.

The reportedly planned firing of 500 employees of the National Institute of Standards and Technology would gut that expertise. Since its creation last year, NIST’s U.S. AI Safety Institute has become the center of AI knowledge in the U.S. government — drawing in leading technical talent from AI companies and universities — and will remain crucial for assessing emerging risk in collaboration with the private sector. Evaluations of the most advanced models, like those in development by the U.S. AI Safety Institute in partnership with Scale AI, are a critical first step. Similarly, close partnerships between U.S. national security agencies and leading AI companies will be essential for testing how AI capabilities might affect the cyber, biological, nuclear and radiological capabilities of foreign adversaries.

Still, evaluations alone are insufficient. As AI systems move from labs into high-stakes deployment contexts, the federal government must establish a central reporting system for AI-related incidents—akin to how cybersecurity breaches are tracked. A central reporting system to track AI-related incidents would allow the government to maintain visibility and update its approach to evaluations, where appropriate. It would also give policymakers the data to craft targeted safeguards — replacing blanket regulations that could strangle innovation with mitigations tailored to specific risks.

No single company can handle major AI incidents alone — whether it is a large-scale system failure or a sophisticated attack. Just as the U.S. government coordinates with industry to respond to national cyber incidents, it must forge similar partnerships to address AI risks that could impact national security. The Department of Homeland Security’s Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board offers a starting point, but the United States needs a comprehensive framework for public-private coordination that clearly defines responsibilities and enables rapid response. If an AI crisis hits, government and industry must be ready to act together, based on established responsibilities and response plans, instead of improvising amidst a potential crisis. These precautions would give policymakers an early warning system for AI risks while creating clear protocols for action — all without hampering innovation or imposing heavy-handed regulation on AI companies.

The stakes are high: Without smart and targeted oversight now, the United States risks a Chernobyl moment — a public backlash that could cripple AI development in the same way successive, preventable accidents stalled nuclear energy for generations. By acting thoughtfully today, policymakers can protect both public safety and technological progress, avoiding the false choice between innovation and security.

It would be easy to speed through AI development in accordance with the Silicon Valley mantra “move fast and break things.” But for a technology as powerful as AI, breaking things is the surest way to put the brakes on progress.

IMAGE: President Donald J. Trump speaks about infrastructure and artificial intelligence to reporters with Larry Ellison, chairman of Oracle Corporation and chief technology officer, Masayoshi Son, SoftBank Group CEO, and Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on Tuesday, Jan 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The post The United States Must Avoid AI’s Chernobyl Moment appeared first on Just Security.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Monday the Trump administration had finished its six-week purge of programs of the six-decade-old U.S. Agency for International Development, and said he would move the 18% of aid and development programs that survived under the State Department.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Rubio made the announcement in a post on X. It marked one of his relatively few public comments on what has been a historic shift away from U.S. foreign aid and development, executed by Trump political appointees at State and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency teams.

Rubio in the post thanked DOGE and “our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform” in foreign aid.

President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 issued an executive order directing a freeze of foreign assistance funding and a review of all of the tens of billions of dollars of U.S. aid and development work abroad. Trump charged that much of foreign assistance was wasteful and advanced a liberal agenda.

Read More: How Trump’s Foreign-Aid Freeze Is ‘Shaking the Whole System’

Rubio’s social media post Monday said that review was now “officially ending,” with some 5,200 of USAID’s 6,200 programs eliminated.

Those programs “spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States,” Rubio wrote.

“In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping … to be administered more effectively under the State Department,” he said. Democratic lawmakers and others call the shutdown of congressionally-funded programs illegal, saying such a move requires Congress’ approval.

The State Department in one of multiple lawsuits it is battling over its rapid shutdown of USAID had said earlier this month it was killing more than 90% of USAID programs. Rubio gave no explanation for why his number was lower, and no details of what programs were spared or how the State Department would run them.

The dismantling of USAID that followed Trump’s order upended decades of policy that humanitarian and development aid abroad advanced U.S. national security by stabilizing regions and economies, strengthening alliances and building goodwill.

In the weeks after Trump’s order, one of his appointees and transition team members, Pete Marocco, and Musk pulled USAID staff around the world off the job through forced leaves and firings, shut down USAID payments overnight and terminated aid and development contracts by the thousands.

Contractors and staffers running efforts ranging from epidemic control to famine prevention to job and democracy training stopped work. Aid groups and other USAID partners laid off tens of thousands of their workers in the U.S. and abroad.

Lawsuits brought by some of the nonprofit groups and businesses that had partnered with USAID say the form-letter contract terminations purge eliminated even programs that Rubio had said he wanted to save, violated the contract terms and stiffed aid groups and businesses of billions of dollars.

The shutdown has left many USAID staffers and contractors and their families still overseas, many of them awaiting U.S.-paid back payments and travel expenses back home.