Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Undersea Internet Cables Are Becoming the Front Line of Climate Monitoring (Environment Policy Brief #163)

Scientists are exploring ways to turn the world’s submarine internet cables into climate-monitoring infrastructure. The infrastructure will be capable of detecting changes in ocean temperature, earthquakes, and deep-sea pressure shifts linked to climate change. The use of existing global infrastructure gives this idea added potential but also raises security concerns when modifying critical internet systems.

read more

The First Global Rules for Carbon Removal Credits Are Being Written Right Now (Environment Policy Brief #191)

Governments and climate regulators are currently trying to determine how engineered carbon removal technologies should qualify for international carbon credit markets. Currently, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is developing and updating the technical standards to align with GHG reporting and climate management. The publication of the revised ISO 14001:2026 standard is planned for April 2026 with a transition period of three years. 

read more

36 States Move to Block Federal Preemption of AI Laws, Setting Up Major Court Fight (Technology Brief #164)

On November 25, 2025, the National Association of Attorneys General, led by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, sent a letter on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general to Congress. The letter urged Congress leaders to reject the proposed ban on state-level artificial intelligence (AI) laws.  The attorneys general argue that a broad federal law would prevent individual states from addressing and responding to AI risks quickly.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Unmanned Imperialism: The Proliferation, Human Cost, and Future of Drone Warfare (Foreign Policy Brief #229)

Unmanned Imperialism: The Proliferation, Human Cost, and Future of Drone Warfare (Foreign Policy Brief #229)

Foreign Policy Brief #229 | Inijah Quadri | March 25, 2026

Policy Issue Summary

Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, have fundamentally reshaped modern conflict, transforming the skies into a perpetual zone of surveillance and lethal action. These aerial platforms range from small, commercially adapted First-Person-View drones used for tactical strikes to One-Way Attack systems that function as loitering munitions, as well as Medium and High-Altitude Long-Endurance models capable of carrying heavy, precision-guided explosives. With capabilities spanning from real-time intelligence gathering to targeted assassinations across borders, drones grant immense destructive power at a fraction of the cost of traditional air forces. They operate via remote human piloting through satellite communications, though modern iterations increasingly rely on artificial intelligence for navigation and target acquisition.

While the United States and Israel initially monopolized this technology, the global landscape has shifted drastically. Today, countries like China, Turkey, and Iran have emerged as premier manufacturers, flooding the international market with affordable combat drones. Consequently, the proliferation of these weapons is ubiquitous. Nearly every nation-state, alongside a growing myriad of non-state actors and insurgent groups, now possesses military-grade drone capabilities. This unchecked diffusion means that devastating aerial power is no longer the exclusive domain of global superpowers, creating a volatile environment where cross-border strikes and asymmetric warfare can be executed with unprecedented ease.

Analysis

The conventional metric for measuring the effectiveness of drone warfare relies heavily on tactical advantages, celebrating the ability to neutralize adversaries and destroy expensive military hardware using remarkably cheap technology. Military strategists often laud drones for lowering the threshold of engagement, allowing states to project imperial power and conduct lethal operations without risking their own soldiers or facing the domestic political backlash typically associated with troop deployments. However, this sanitized narrative of precision and cost-efficiency actively obscures the profound human devastation left in its wake. The reality of drone warfare is defined by extrajudicial killings, decimated infrastructure, and a staggering toll on civilian populations. Far from being a clean instrument of modern combat, the drone serves as a tool of asymmetric terror, turning marginalized regions into testing grounds for the military-industrial complex.

Furthermore, the expansion of the global drone market has fueled a highly lucrative arms race that benefits private defense contractors at the expense of human lives. Nations in the Global South are increasingly subjected to devastating airstrikes, as both state forces and militant groups deploy fleets of loitering munitions with catastrophic consequences for civilian communities. The abstraction of violence—where a remote operator can extinguish a life from thousands of miles away—has severely degraded the moral and legal constraints of war. International humanitarian law remains woefully inadequate to address the rapid normalization of cross-border drone assassinations, which consistently bypass democratic oversight and judicial accountability.

Looking toward the future, the trajectory of drone warfare is hurtling toward full autonomy, presenting an existential threat to human rights. The integration of artificial intelligence is rapidly shortening the kill chain, transferring life-and-death decisions from human operators to opaque algorithms. Recent conflicts have already witnessed the deployment of AI-driven targeting systems capable of processing vast amounts of data to generate kill lists autonomously, often accepting terrifyingly high margins of civilian “collateral damage.” As autonomous drone swarms become a reality, we face a future where human empathy is entirely removed from the battlefield, replaced by machines programmed to hunt and kill. Resisting this dystopian progression requires a fierce rejection of the militarized logic that values technological supremacy and corporate profit over the sanctity of human life.

Engagement Resources

  • Airwars (https://airwars.org/): A collaborative, not-for-profit transparency project aimed at tracking and assessing military actions and related civilian harm claims in conflict zones heavily impacted by airstrikes and drone warfare.
  • Drone Wars UK (https://dronewars.net/): An independent organization conducting research and advocacy to challenge the growing use of armed drones, highlighting the erosion of international law and the rising civilian casualties of remote warfare.
  • Center for Civilians in Conflict (https://civiliansinconflict.org/): An international advocacy group that researches the devastating impacts of modern warfare, including the rapid proliferation of drones, and demands civilian protection and accountability from armed actors.
  • Amnesty Tech (https://www.amnesty.org/en/tech/): A division of Amnesty International dedicated to exposing the human rights violations facilitated by emerging technologies, including the push toward lethal autonomous weapons systems and AI-driven warfare.
  • Stop Killer Robots (https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/): A global coalition of NGOs actively campaigning for a preemptive ban on lethal autonomous weapons systems to ensure meaningful human control over the use of force.
Tech Billionaires Making a Killing on AI War Machines (Technology Policy Brief #165)

Tech Billionaires Making a Killing on AI War Machines (Technology Policy Brief #165)

Technology Policy Brief #165 | Mindy Spatt | March 21, 2026

Summary

The Pentagon is enriching the pockets of the tech billionaire owners of AI companies. While the Department of Defense/War has broken its contract with the company Anthropic, other AI companies are signing large contracts, such as Open AI and Palantir.

Analysis

The clash between Anthropic and the Pentagon over the military’s use of the company’s technology was just a tiny blip in the huge shift in military operations toward Artificial Intelligence.  Anthropic’s “Claude” AI system was key in the first 24 hours of the war with Iran, and was likely used in the US’s attack on Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro in January.   In fact, Anthropic was one of the first AI companies to contract with the Pentagon.  That ended a few weeks ago when Anthropic refused to allow its AI to be used for targeting autonomous lethal weapons.

Even before Open AI stepped into Anthropic’s combat boots it too had inked contracts with the Defense Department, one worth $200 million (as is the newest one), and was vying for a $100 million Pentagon prize challenge to produce autonomous drone swarms

Peter Theil and Alex Karp’s Palantir is a leading government contractor, providing AI analysis to the military and other agencies, both in the US and abroad, which may be why its market value is up to $375 billion this month.  That is much more than any traditional weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics are worth.

Palantir and many other AI companies are also supplying weapons technology to Israel, where AI is deployed to create lists of supposed Hamas targets on the basis of billions of data points.  It does not appear to have been successful; reportedly a mere 17% of the people killed in Gaza were actual fighters, meaning the vast majority of the 75,000 dead were civilians, approximately 30% of them children.

Those disturbing statistics haven done nothing to slow the surge. Meta, Google and OpenAI, all which once had language in their corporate policies  eschewing the use of AI in weapons, have removed such wording and are inking contracts worth billions to provide war and surveillance technology.

One massive multi-year $9 billion secure cloud computing contract with the military includes services from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle.  Relative newcomer Anduril, a defense tech company, just signed a $20 billion deal for A.I.-backed software for the US military’s use.

This year, the Department of Defense/War intends to spend $13.4 billion on “autonomous systems” alone.  That money will go toward remotely operated drones that are navigated by AI, including when they strike, and will give rise to numerous other operational costs.

In a report on the military’s use of AI technology, the Brennan Center for Law and Justice points out that the same companies raking in billions in government contracts routinely use their fortunes to influence policy and advocate for the unfettered deployment of their technology.  Add to that the way tech CEOs are sucking up to Trump personally and “donating” to his vanity projects and you’ve got the recipe for the next phase of tech’s takeover of the world.  Funded by your tax dollars.

Engagement Resources

Undersea Internet Cables Are Becoming the Front Line of Climate Monitoring (Environment Policy Brief #163)

Undersea Internet Cables Are Becoming the Front Line of Climate Monitoring (Environment Policy Brief #163)

Environment Policy Brief #163 | Jason Collins | March 13, 2026

Summary

Scientists are exploring ways to turn the world’s submarine internet cables into climate-monitoring infrastructure. The infrastructure will be capable of detecting changes in ocean temperature, earthquakes, and deep-sea pressure shifts linked to climate change. The use of existing global infrastructure gives this idea added potential but also raises security concerns when modifying critical internet systems.

Analysis

According to the United Nations, there are currently more than 500 commercial submarine cables connecting continents. These cables stretch for around 1.4 million kilometres, making them long enough to wrap around the world multiple times, which is why some scientists are studying their potential for climate monitoring.

Marc-André Gutscher, marine geoscientist at the Geo-Ocean research centre in Brest, France, led a seven-year EU-funded research initiative called FOCUS, which researched how undersea cables could be repurposed as a global sensing network. “We have excellent satellite coverage of the sea surface,” and added, “But deep beneath, where most earthquakes and tsunamis originate, we have very few direct observations.”

The team used a 6-kilometre-long prototype cable laid across the seafloor along the North Alfeo Fault off Catania, Sicily, to study how well it would work. Two techniques were used: Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) and Brillouin Optical Time Domain Reflectometry (BOTDR). In both techniques, a laser sends light through the fibre-optic cable to detect changes in how the light travels, indicating activity on the seafloor.

The results revealed that the technology was able to register the smallest movements on the seabed and measure temperature changes, acting as proof that internet cables can become the front line of climate monitoring.

While the study focused on tectonics, Gutscher shared, “The potential for integrated environmental and hazard monitoring is enormous.” He added, “We are effectively transforming the world’s digital nervous system into an ecological nervous system.”

Other studies have also taken place over the years, like Caltech’s research project led by scientist Zhongwen Zhan. His team used Google’s “Curie Cable” to test out earthquake warning systems.

He said, “This new technique can really convert the majority of submarine cables into geophysical sensors that are thousands of kilometers long to detect earthquakes and possibly tsunamis in the future.”

In Germany,  the GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam and the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel are setting up research infrastructure SAFAtor(SMART Cables And Fiber-optic Sensing Amphibious Demonstrator) to monitor the oceans.

While the technology and potential are there, implementation has a number of challenges, including physical access, security risks, and multi-jurisdictional coordination. Because underwater cables pass through international water and national territories, programs will require internal agreements across multiple governments. There is also the risk that modifying cables can interfere with the reliability of telecommunications. These cables carry over 90% of the world’s internet traffic, so it’s easy to see why policymakers might be hesitant to make changes or expose sensitive infrastructure to new vulnerabilities.

As a result, governments will need to create an international telecom policy to protect national security and promote telecommunications governance.

Engagement Resources

The Department of Justice’s Inconsistencies Regarding the Release of the Epstein Files (Social Justice Policy Brief #189)

The Department of Justice’s Inconsistencies Regarding the Release of the Epstein Files (Social Justice Policy Brief #189)

Social Justice Policy Brief #189 | Naja Barnes | March 18th, 2026

On July 23rd, 2025, a House Subcommittee voted to subpoena the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the Epstein files. During that time, the Subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information to protect the victims. However, in January 2026, with the release of more than 3 million more documents, that agreement was not fulfilled.

Analysis

Over 3 million documents of the Epstein files were released in January 2026, but not without controversy. The files released included more than 2,000 explicit videos and 180,000 images. The images and videos were supposed to be redacted to protect the victims’ identities and their privacy. Among the information left unredacted were victims’ driver’s licenses, passports, names, and statements. The incompetence of the DOJ to ensure the safety and protection of the victims included in the files has led to victims being retraumatized and left vulnerable. This is not an accident but a careless act, especially given the information redacted and the individuals protected by redaction. Despite some of the victims’ information and identities not being redacted, notably high-profile individuals were heavily redacted.

Of the high-profile individuals redacted in the January release of the Epstein files, Trump’s name was left completely out of them. Trump’s past relationships with Epstein have been documented, and according to him, that relationship began in the late 1980s. Yet he denies having had a close relationship with Epstein. However, according to an NPR investigation and an accusation by Robert Garcia, a Democratic Representative on the House Oversight Committee, the DOJ withheld files that referenced Trump. Even going as far as saying that pages mentioning him were removed from the public record. That is, until early March of this year.  According to NPR, DOJ has since released 16 new pages that include allegations from a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse when she was a minor. However, even though DOJ released some files accusing Trump, they are still lacking transparency, as pages still appear to be missing from the files, and redactions still appear to be inconsistent.

The release of the files this time around is a stark difference from the flight logs that were released in early 2025, which were heavily redacted to the point where they were almost illegible. This time around, DOJ is blaming the inconsistency of the redactions on “technical or human error,” but this still does not answer why certain people’s right to privacy was not respected. This incident begs the question of who decided what information got redacted and why.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act was sponsored by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey, and Senator Jeff Merkley, to force DOJ to release the Epstein files. It was signed into law by President Trump on November 19th, 2025. This Act requires the attorney general to release records, documents, and investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein, and designates the attorney general, Pam Bondi, responsible for executing the redactions, where the tasks are delegated to her department and relevant agencies (ALJAZEERA). The Act mandates that the files should not be redacted due to embarrassment or reputational harm to government officials or public figures. Redactions are to be permitted if information provided contains personal identifiable information of victims, depicts or contains child sexual abuse material, jeopardizes active federal investigations, depicts or contains images of death or physical abuse, or when the information provided has been authorized to be kept a secret in the interest of national security (ALJAZEERA).

Conclusion

Given the House Oversight Committee’s agreement to protect and redact the information of the victims in the newly released Epstein files, the Department of Justice and the FBI neglected to do so. Instead, those given the protection of redaction were the high-profile individuals being accused. One of those individuals was Donald Trump, who, surprisingly, was not mentioned in the recent files despite having had a documented relationship with Epstein. The redactions from both the DOJ and the FBI directly go against the reasoning for redaction due to the Epstein Files Transparency Act and fail to protect the privacy and identifiable information of the victims included in the files released. The redactions instead protected those who did not deserve nor need protection. 

Engagement Resources

The Illusion of Global Data Privacy Standards (Technology Policy Brief #165)

The Illusion of Global Data Privacy Standards (Technology Policy Brief #165)

Technology Policy Brief #165 | Inijah Quadri | March 14, 2026

Policy Issue Summary

A single, binding global data privacy standard does not yet exist. Instead, governments and companies operate under regional systems with different priorities. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) focuses on privacy as a legal right and limits how organizations collect, use, and keep personal data. The Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) system takes a different approach: it uses a certification model to help companies transfer data across borders more easily. In practice, a company is reviewed against shared privacy requirements, and if it qualifies, it can display a certification mark showing that it met the program’s baseline standards. That approach can support trade, but it does not create one uniform level of privacy protection. As a result, people receive different protections depending on where they live, and companies face a patchwork of obligations.

The most important policy gaps are practical. Many companies still collect more data than they need, combine it across services, and share it with outside firms. Some use personal data to create detailed profiles for targeted advertising or to sort people into categories based on income, health interests, religion, or location. Others collect biometric information, such as facial images, fingerprints, or voiceprints, without strong safeguards. Data brokers deepen the problem by buying, combining, and reselling information such as location history, consumer purchases, and demographic traits, often without a direct relationship with the people affected.

A stronger international approach would not require every country to adopt identical rules, but it should establish a shared floor. At minimum, that floor should limit unnecessary data collection, require extra protections for high-risk data such as biometric and precise location information, restrict opaque profiling and micro-targeted advertising, and give people meaningful ways to challenge misuse. It should also strengthen enforcement by allowing collective complaints, raising penalties for repeat violations, and giving workers more say over workplace monitoring tools such as productivity tracking software, keystroke logging, and AI-based performance scoring.

Analysis

The best-known privacy model today is the GDPR. It matters globally because it applies not only to organizations based in the European Union, but also to many organizations outside the EU that offer goods or services to people in the EU or monitor their behavior there. The GDPR also sets out clear principles that are easier to explain in everyday language. Data minimization means collecting only the personal data that is actually needed for a stated purpose. Purpose limitation means using data only for the specific reason it was collected unless there is a lawful basis to do more. These ideas have influenced privacy laws in other countries, but enforcement remains uneven, especially against very large firms operating across borders.

The Global CBPR system reflects a different policy goal. It is run through the Global CBPR Forum and is designed to build trust in cross-border data flows through a common certification process. Under that process, a company applies for review through an approved third-party assessor, is checked against the program’s requirements, and, if approved, may display a certification mark. In practical terms, that can reduce friction by lowering the need for companies to navigate a separate certification or review process in each participating market. The trade-off is that interoperability and data movement are central aims of the system, so it is not the same thing as a single, rights-centered global privacy law.

It is therefore misleading to describe privacy governance as a simple dual system. GDPR and Global CBPR are important frameworks, but they do not divide the whole world neatly into two camps. Many countries have their own national laws, some countries participate in CBPR-related arrangements, and multinational companies often have to satisfy several overlapping systems at once. The real problem is not that two systems exist; it is that there is no single binding baseline that combines strong privacy rights with workable rules for cross-border data transfers. Until that gap is addressed, the world will continue to rely on a patchwork rather than a true global standard.

Engagement Resources

  • Privacy International (https://privacyinternational.org/): A global organization campaigning against the exploitation of data by corporations and states, fighting for the right to privacy as a foundation for human dignity and systemic justice.
  • Noyb – European Center for Digital Rights (https://noyb.eu/): A non-profit organization utilizing strategic litigation to enforce privacy laws across Europe, specifically targeting tech monopolies and holding them accountable for regulatory violations.
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/): A leading nonprofit defending civil liberties in the digital world, providing extensive research and legal advocacy against invasive surveillance and corporate data overreach.
  • Access Now (https://www.accessnow.org/): An international human rights organization dedicated to defending and extending the digital rights of users at risk, with a strong focus on algorithmic accountability and data protection.
  • Algorithmic Justice League (https://www.ajl.org/): An organization that combines art and research to illuminate the social implications and harms of artificial intelligence, advocating for equitable and accountable data practices.
  • Internet Governance Forum (https://intgovforum.org/en/about): A United Nations-convened multistakeholder forum on digital public policy that brings together companies, technical experts, and civil society to discuss issues such as data privacy, AI, and internet governance.
The Problem With DOJ Requesting Voter Roll Information From States (Civil Rights Policy Brief #251)

The Problem With DOJ Requesting Voter Roll Information From States (Civil Rights Policy Brief #251)

Civil Rights Policy Brief #251 | Rodney A. Maggay | March 10, 2026

Policy Summary: Starting in May 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) proceeded to request from nearly every state and the District of Columbia (D.C.) access to each state’s un – redacted and complete voter rolls. Each state’s voter rolls contain the list of every registered voter in the state. Additionally, these lists also contain additional data, such as personally identifiable information (PII) including telephone numbers, home addresses and social security numbers, some complete and some with only the last four numbers. The Trump administration has not offered a coherent rationale for their demands although it is well – known that President Trump has put forth disproven election – rigging conspiracy theories. Months after the DOJ made their requests to the states ,Attorney General Pam Bondi informedMinnesota Governor Tim Walz that a condition of restoring order in his state as a result of ICE protests would be to turn over Minnesota’s voter rolls.

The response to these requests has been mixed and not along party lines. Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Washington have flatly refused to provide any voter data to the DOJ. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Utah and a number of other states directed DOJ to publicly available lists instead ofdirectly providing the information to DOJ. Ten states, including Alaska and Texas, complied and provided their voter rolls to the department. Three lawsuits were filed in three separate states regardingthese requests and in all three instances a federal court sided with the state and prohibited the DOJrequest in the state. The case in Oregon was dismissed. The case in California was also dismissedbecause of concerns about federal overreach. And in Michigan the case was dismissed  with the judge calling the DOJ request in violation of two federal statutes and inconsistent with numerous prior cases.Because many states have refused to hand over the voter rolls, the DOJ has sued twenty – four (24) states to try and gain access with many of the lawsuits ongoing. Additionally, in six of those states the state election offices are led by a Republican official. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: Why are the Trump Administration and the DOJ so insistent on having access to state voter rolls?

The United States Constitution  gives authority for the time,place and manner for conducting elections tothe states. This includes choosing the places and times of elections and the maintenance of voter rolls. The Federal Government has a limited role with the executive branch having nearly no say in how state elections are run. Historically when the Federal Government has become involved in voting by passing federal laws, it has been to protect access to the ballot box (Voting Rights Acts of 1965) and to providesimplified procedures that all states follow (Help America Vote Act) to reduce errors that could occur due to the number of states. The key point here is that when the Federal Government gets involved, it is usually through Congress passing a law and not through unilateral executive branch action as appears to be the case with these Trump DOJ requests for access to a state’s voting rolls.

The problem with the DOJ requests for this information is that it appears to be for the purpose of undermining the upcoming 2026 midterm elections as well as future elections. The Brennan Center for Justice released a report of the “confidential memorandum of understanding” that DOJ required each state to sign when handing over their voter roll information. These proposed agreements explain what the Trump Administration and DOJ intend to do with the info. DOJ intends to review the voter rolls, identify voters that need to be removed from the rolls and instruct the state to remove the identified voters within forty – five days. The problem with this is there are no standards for how DOJ will conduct their review and identify which voters need to be removed. Not only that but the request to remove the identified voters within forty – five days conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act. That act requires notice being sent to a voter and if no response is received for the state to wait two election cycles before removing the voter. That process is significantly longer than the forty – five days demanded by DOJ in these confidential agreements. And another issue is that once the government isgiven access to these voter rolls there is no guarantee the info will be kept confidential. The greatest fearis that the information will be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and be used for other immigration and citizenship purposes. It is these motivations that have public officials on both sides of the aisle concerned about sharing sensitive voter data with DOJ and the Trump Administration. These efforts are also castng a shadow over the upcoming 2026 midterm elections as many fear that the Trump Administration will use the info to manipulate the election and meddle in ways that will favor President Trump and the Republican Party. The midterms are still eight months away but states are pushing back against inappropriate and even illegal attempts to access a state’s voter rolls to prevent potential unwanted election interference from this Administration. LEARN MORE,LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

  • Brennan Center for Justice – a detailed analysis of the “confidential memorandum of understanding”DOJ is asking states to sign, revealing how DOJ wants to use the voter roll info once a state hands it over.
  • Brennan Center Online Tracking Tool – online tracking tool showing how each state has responded to the request for a state’s voter roll from DOJ.
The First Global Rules for Carbon Removal Credits Are Being Written Right Now (Environment Policy Brief #191)

The First Global Rules for Carbon Removal Credits Are Being Written Right Now (Environment Policy Brief #191)

Environment Policy Brief #191 | Jason Collins | March 12, 2026

Summary

Governments and climate regulators are currently trying to determine how engineered carbon removal technologies should qualify for international carbon credit markets. Currently, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is developing and updating the technical standards to align with GHG reporting and climate management. The publication of the revised ISO 14001:2026 standard is planned for April 2026 with a transition period of three years.

This push for a global standard is driven by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finding that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is needed to achieve net-zero CO₂ emissions by 2050. As the standards are being developed, countries are debating verification rules. This matters because the rules created will determine whether carbon removal frameworks can be a credible climate tool or a controversial offset market.

ANALYSIS  

Carbon removal involves technologies that actively remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere. The United Nations defines it as “human interventions that extract CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it durably in land, ocean, geological reservoirs, or products.”

Unlike the act of planting trees, which is an offset, carbon removal is engineered and makes use of equipment like Direct Air Capture (DAC) machines that chemically pull CO₂ from the air. Captured CO₂ is purified or stabilized for storage (like mineralized rock) or reuse. According to the Integrity Council For The Voluntary Carbon Market, CDR currently represents less than 1% of the voluntary carbon market by issued volume but is expected to grow in the coming years.

This is why global lawmakers are trying to determine strict standards in the new ISO framework about how carbon is removed and stored. How long must carbon be stored? How accurately can removal technologies be measured? These are just some of the questions that need to be answered. A revision to ISO 14001:2026 sees a more climate-focused management standard. The standard also includes requirements for determining GHG emission and removal boundaries, quantifying an organization’s GHG emissions and removals, and identifying specific company actions or activities aimed at improving GHG management.

The development of a global standard will seek to avoid repeating past carbon market failures, like allowing low-quality offsets. Past carbon markets have long faced criticism for rewarding companies whose carbon efforts do not actually represent real climate benefits. A 2025 review paper found that the failure of carbon offsets (such as reforestation and renewable energy) stems from systemic problems that incremental change will not solve.

For years, experts have warned that carbon offset projects are prone to over crediting, and the report revealed that 85% of CDM projects (Clean Development Mechanism) had a “low likelihood of ensuring environmental integrity.” Only 2% had a high likelihood. For example, more than a third of all US offset project credits are from improved forest management, but studies find that such projects have minimal benefit.

Regulators are trying to ensure that carbon removal credits are much stricter to prevent companies from claiming climate progress with carbon offsets without reducing emissions.

The standards being written now will define the credibility of future carbon markets and how removal is verified.

Engagement Resources  

36 States Move to Block Federal Preemption of AI Laws, Setting Up Major Court Fight (Technology Brief #164)

36 States Move to Block Federal Preemption of AI Laws, Setting Up Major Court Fight (Technology Brief #164)

Technology Brief #164 | Jason Collins | February 18, 2026  

Summary

On November 25, 2025, the National Association of Attorneys General, led by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, sent a letter on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general to Congress. The letter urged Congress leaders to reject the proposed ban on state-level artificial intelligence (AI) laws.  The attorneys general argue that a broad federal law would prevent individual states from addressing and responding to AI risks quickly.

ANALYSIS

The letter was sent ahead of the executive order, “Ensuring a National Policy for Artificial Intelligence,” signed by President Donald Trump on 11 December 2025. The order will see a national AI framework developed as a national standard with the help of a newly formed AI Litigation Task Force. According to the order, the task force will “check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation.”

The federal preemption seeks to do away with state AI laws altogether. In 2025, state lawmakers enacted dozens of AI-related bills into law, and those bills are now at risk.

Attorneys general from 36 jurisdictions signed the letter including: American Samoa, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The coalition agrees that stricter AI laws are needed, but maintains that they should be left to the states. The letter contained examples of growing AI threats from “delusional generative AI outputs” impacting users’ mental health to young children being exposed to inappropriate content. The group believes these challenges can be addressed at the state level because many states are at the forefront of tech policy, while federal policy is playing catch-up.

“States must be empowered to apply existing laws and formulate new approaches to meet the range of challenges associated with AI,” the letter states.

States like California have been leading the way on state-level AI regulation for some time. In 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 896 (SB 896), known as the Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act. The act focuses on accountability and transparency within government use. Since 2024, California’s AI framework has evolved from broad legislation towards a framework of sector-specific regulations, highlighting the need for laws that adapt.

Other states have also enacted AI laws like Texas’s Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) and Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act. Under the executive order, these laws could be replaced with a national framework. In the letter, attorneys general wrote:

“Broad preemption of state protections is particularly ill-advised because constantly evolving emerging technologies, like AI, require agile regulatory responses that can protect our citizens.”

“Federal inaction paired with a rushed, broad federal preemption of state regulations risks disastrous consequences for our communities.”

Opposing attorneys general suggest federal-state collaboration over a blanket ban on state laws. The coalition has also made it clear that it is ready to work alongside Congress to develop regulations that safeguard the public but support technological progress.

Engagement Resources

How Will Tech Money Influence the California’s Governor’s Race (Technology Policy Brief #163)

How Will Tech Money Influence the California’s Governor’s Race (Technology Policy Brief #163)

Technology Policy Brief #163 | Mindy Spatt | March 8, 2026

Tech billionaires are spending at historic levels to influence politics in California.  Google and Facebook, and their  CEO’s, are donating heavily to key races in November 2026, as are venture capitalists, cryptocurrency entrepreneurs, and Palantir’s co-founders. Whether or not the candidates they are backing win, they will have an impact.

Analysis

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is well-known as friendly with tech billionaires both personally and politically, has been a reliable veto for any legislation that Silicon Valley doesn’t like.  With Newsom termed out and eyeing the White House, his billionaire friends will need a new ally in Sacramento. Looking amongst their own, the industry has settled on a popular mayor from San Jose, Matt Mahan.

While an undergraduate at Harvard, Mark Zuckerberg was Mayor Mahan’s classmate.  Before running for office in San Jose, Mahan worked in the tech sector.  In 2014, he co-founded a startup with billionaire financier Ron Conway and Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff.

In the crowded California Governor’s primary race, Mahan’s entry further divides a ballot that was already crammed with democratic candidates.  It includes Representative Eric Swalwell, former Representative Katie Porter, self-funded billionaire Tom Steyer, former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villariagosa, Superintendent of Education Tony Thurmond, and former State Controller Betty Yee.   .

The fractured democratic field creates a threat that democrats could lose the state altogether.  The top two candidates in the June primary will be the only ones to appear on the ballot in November, regardless of party.  The two Republicans in the race normally wouldn’t stand a chance in reliably blue California; a two-democrat race is more likely.  But with 8 Democrats vying for democratic voters, the two Republicans could each end up with more votes than any single Democratic candidate, meaning no democrat would appear on the ballot in the general election in November.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE PRIMARY SYSTEM WORKS.

Mahan is more moderate than Swalwell, Porter, or Steyer, all of whom are now polling ahead of him.  But he’s quickly pulling ahead in fundraising, already amassing a war chest of over $7 million.  A tech-backed Political Action Committee (PAC), the Govern for California Network, donated $300,000 to Mahan.  Other supporters include LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, venture capitalist Michael Moritz, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. An independent expenditure committee backed by Silicon Valley executives called “California Back to Basics Supporting Matt Mahan for Governor 2026”. is spending $4.8 million on a statewide television ad blitz supporting Mahan.

Tech money has pushed San Francisco’s leftist local government toward more centrist democrats in recent years, with donors backing moderate candidates and financing recall campaigns that ousted progressive district attorney Chesa Boudin and several school board members.  With that victory under their belts, they have Sacramento in their sights.

Their influence will be felt in other races as well, and could make or break several ballot initiatives.  Meta and Google have contributed $10 million to a Super Pac called California Leads, which, according to Politico, will not limit itself to races and issues affecting the tech industry.  Tech money is funding a last-minute challenge to Congressman Ro Kahna, a popular Silicon Valley politician whose tech support has soured due to his progressive politics, willingness to challenge Trump, and support of the billionaire tax ballot initiative (see Health & Gender Policy Brief #185) and similar federal legislation.

The message is clear to politicians at all levels in California.  Try to rein us in, tax us, or hold us accountable, and we will use our unlimited wealth to take you down.

Engagement Resources

The Week That Was In Review (Foreign Policy Brief #228)

The Week That Was In Review (Foreign Policy Brief #228)

Foreign Policy Brief #228 | By Abran C. | March 10, 2026

Iran

US-Israel War With Iran

On February 28 2026, Israel and the United States engaged in joint attacks on Iranian territory, far larger and more devastating in scale than the first direct attacks on Iran in June 2025. Secretary of War, (Defnse) Pete Hegseth has said the US is only “accelerating, not decelerating” its war on Iran, with more assets heading to the region as the conflict ricochets from Dubai, to Saudi Arabia, Turkey to Sri Lanka where an Iranian ship was recently sunk using torpedoes. The UK, France, and Germany recently made statements indicating that they could join in the war, reportedly taking steps to defend both their own and allied interests in the region by “enabling necessary and proportionate defensive actions to destroy Iran’s capability to launch missiles and drones”. Iran has warned Europeans against joining the conflict or taking military actions against it.

Over the course of two weeks the war has escalated dramatically. Over 1,300 people in Iran have been reported killed as a result of US-Israeli attacks. At least seven American soldiers have been killed in the war thus far, with Iran claiming the true number of Americans killed at over 500. Iran recently named a new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei,  just over a week after his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in US-Israeli strikes. Mojtaba Khamenei was selected as the third leader of the Islamic Republic by Iran’s Assembly of experts. President Donald Trump stated that any choice made without his approval would be “unacceptable” and that he wanted to be involved in choosing the new supreme leader of the country. This now regional war, which has the potential to become a global conflict, is only two weeks old but has seen escalations not seen in any previous wars in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently made statements, promising “many surprises” for the next phase of the conflict.

Cars burn in Zapopan, near Guadalajara, after El Mencho’s death on Sunday, 22 February, 2026

Violence in Mexico

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jkw18e19jo

In a recent operation, the Mexican military in coordination with US intelligence, killed Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes “El Mencho” the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG). The operation was carried out on  Feb. 22  in Tapalpa, Jalisco. What followed was not surrender but a furious wave of retaliation that targeted multiple cities, roads and airports across at least 20 Mexican states. Armed cartel members torched vehicles, ambushed security forces, killing at least 25 National Guard troops in the first days alone. With the backdrop of the World Cup which will be co-hosted by Mexico later this summer, as well as a group of qualifiers in late March, questions have arisen over the safety of fans who are set to soon visit the country. President Claudia Sheinbaum has sought to reassure the public, stating that the situation was under control. Security forces remain on high alert, particularly in Jalisco and Michoacán, where cartel influence is strongest.

UN

© UNCCD/Mwangi Kirubi Elephant bones lie by a dried-out water source in Turkana County in the north of Kenya. 

UN Declares Global Water Bankruptcy

The United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health issued a major report for 2026. The report declares that for the first time in recorded history, the planet has entered an era of Global Water Bankruptcy. Nearly three-quarters of the world’s population lives in countries classified as water-insecure or critically water- insecure. Around the world groundwater now provides about 50% of global domestic water use and over 40% of irrigation water, tying both drinking water security and food production directly to rapidly depleting aquifers. Tshilidzi Marwala, UN undersecretary general, said: “Water bankruptcy is becoming a driver of fragility, displacement and conflict. Managing it fairly is now central to maintaining peace, stability and social cohesion”. The report calls for a fundamental reset of how water is protected and used around the world.

Ethiopia

VOA. A map of ports in the Horn of Africa. Peace with Eritrea could give landlocked Ethiopia more access to the Red Sea.

Ethiopia-Eritrea War

https://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00095085.html

Ethiopia and Eritrea both say they are preparing for the possibility of war. Landlocked Ethiopia claims it needs access to the Red Sea and its claims are seen as a provocation by Eritrea. In 1993, Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia after a series of insurgencies and wars starting in 1961. The two countries went to war against each other from 1998 to 2000, which was then followed by a border conflict that lasted for nearly two decades. In 2018 in an agreement that won Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed the Nobel Peace Prize, the two countries agreed to normalize relations.

The tension between the two countries stems from the geographical loss Ethiopia suffered from Eritrea’s independence which resulted in Ethiopia losing its access to the Red Sea. Now Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki recently claimed in an interview that once again Ethiopia was carrying out a war against his country. Ethiopia in turn claims that Eritrean troops have entered border areas in its embattled Tigray region, raising concerns about a return to full scale war in the horn of Africa.

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest