JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: New Jersey
After the 2024 election there was talk of New Jersey having become a swing state. For the first time since George H.W. Bush, a Republican president, had been within 5 points of taking the state (Trump still lost, however). Before then, almost every presidential election had gone blue by around 14 points.
Space Junk and Corporate Accountability in Orbit (Foreign Policy Brief # 231)
Space exploration has transitioned from a public endeavor driven by international cooperation to a heavily privatized industry dominated by billionaire-backed mega-corporations. At the center of this shift is Low Earth Orbit (LEO), defined by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and NASA as the region of space at an altitude of 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) or less. Low Earth Orbit, once viewed as a pristine global commons, is rapidly becoming a celestial dumping ground. The exponential deployment of satellite megaconstellations by private tech monopolies has drastically accelerated the accumulation of space junk, raising profound environmental and safety concerns. While these networks boast of bridging global connectivity gaps, their unchecked proliferation commodifies the orbital environment, prioritizing corporate dominance over the long-term sustainability of the cosmos.
Is Strava A Threat to Global Security?
There is a fairly short but detailed history of covert operations, and actions, being discovered by people posting their workout data to Strava, a fitness tracking app.. President Trump’s war with Iran that began at the start of March has been involved in this issue. A French navy’s Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier was discovered moving closer to the Middle East when an officer uploaded their run to Strava which gave up the location of the ship.
Will the Meta Verdicts Spur Change? (Technology Policy Brief #166)
Do social media companies try to hook children on their products? Do they fail to adequately protect those children from harmful content, predators, and exploitation? Millions of parents would probably agree with the juries in California and Texas that recently answered those questions with a resounding yes. As a result, one young plaintiff was awarded $6 million from YouTube and Meta in one case, and Meta was ordered to pay $374 million in civil penalties in the other. Meta and YouTube have, of course, vowed to appeal. Despite a growing awareness of the risks to children and teens online, new legislation on children’s online safety remains stalled in Congress, and a robust regulatory system is nowhere in sight.
The Removal of the Climate Science Chapter From The U.S. Judiciary’s Scientific Reference Manual (Environmental Policy Brief #164)
In early February 2026, the Federal Judicial Centre removed a chapter explaining climate science from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Judges used this manual to evaluate scientific testimony in U.S. courtrooms. The removal was prompted after Republican state attorneys argued that the chapter presented climate science in a manner that could influence litigation against fossil fuel companies. The chapter,
Unmanned Imperialism: The Proliferation, Human Cost, and Future of Drone Warfare (Foreign Policy Brief #229)
Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, have fundamentally reshaped modern conflict, transforming the skies into a perpetual zone of surveillance and lethal action.
Tech Billionaires Making a Killing on AI War Machines (Technology Policy Brief #165)
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.
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.
The Department of Justice’s Inconsistencies Regarding the Release of the Epstein Files (Social Justice Policy Brief #189)
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.
Space Junk and Corporate Accountability in Orbit (Foreign Policy Brief # 231)
Foreign Policy Brief #231 | By Inijah Quadri | April 13, 2026
Policy Issue Summary
Space exploration has transitioned from a public endeavor driven by international cooperation to a heavily privatized industry dominated by billionaire-backed mega-corporations. At the center of this shift is Low Earth Orbit (LEO), defined by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and NASA as the region of space at an altitude of 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) or less. Low Earth Orbit, once viewed as a pristine global commons, is rapidly becoming a celestial dumping ground. The exponential deployment of satellite megaconstellations by private tech monopolies has drastically accelerated the accumulation of space junk, raising profound environmental and safety concerns. While these networks boast of bridging global connectivity gaps, their unchecked proliferation commodifies the orbital environment, prioritizing corporate dominance over the long-term sustainability of the cosmos.
Space junk—comprising defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, and millions of fragmentation debris pieces—poses an existential threat to future space operations. The European Space Agency (ESA) maintains a comprehensive, real-time “map” and census of this congestion, illustrating a dense shroud of objects that grow more crowded by the hour. Operating at orbital velocities, even centimeter-sized fragments carry the kinetic energy of an anvil dropped from a skyscraper. The European Space Agency’s 2025 Space Environment Report indicates that there are over one million debris objects larger than a centimeter currently orbiting Earth. This congestion risks triggering the Kessler Syndrome, a theoretical cascade of self-sustaining collisions that could render specific orbital bands completely unusable for generations, cutting humanity off from vital space-based public services like climate monitoring and global navigation.
Recent deregulatory trends have only exacerbated the crisis. In early 2026, the Federal Aviation Administration abandoned proposed rules that would have strictly mandated the safe removal of commercial rocket bodies within a set timeframe. Justified under the guise of maintaining American dominance in space, the withdrawal of these regulations exemplifies a glaring failure to hold private capital accountable. By allowing private entities to externalize the environmental costs of their operations, the current policy landscape fundamentally gambles with public safety and the equitable use of outer space.
Analysis
The privatization of Low Earth Orbit represents an aggressive enclosure of the commons, where profit-driven entities are permitted to pollute a shared human resource with minimal oversight. Despite the gravity of the situation, there is currently no singular global “orbital police” force with the power to issue binding mandates. The closest technical authority is the IADC (Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee), which currently consists of 13 member agencies, including NASA (USA), ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), CNSA (China), and ISRO (India). While the IADC is the global authority on how to mitigate debris, it functions as a technical body rather than a regulatory one. It works through a Steering Group and four specialized Working Groups—Measurements, Environment, Protection, and Mitigation—to reach a scientific consensus on “best practices.” However, these consensus-based guidelines only carry weight if individual nations choose to codify them into their own domestic laws.
The structural incentives of late-stage capitalism drive companies to launch as many satellites as quickly as possible to secure market share, creating an orbital house of cards. SpaceX’s Starlink alone accounts for thousands of active satellites, and recent data highlights that their network was forced to execute over a hundred thousand collision-avoidance maneuvers in just a six-month window. This staggering figure illustrates an unsustainable operational tempo, placing the burden of collision management entirely on reactive measures rather than proactive, structural regulation.
Regulatory frameworks have failed to keep pace with the hyper-commercialization of space. Current enforcement mechanisms remain dangerously weak, essentially functioning as mere slaps on the wrist that corporations can easily absorb as the cost of doing business. For instance, the Federal Communications Commission issued its first-ever space debris fine to Dish Network for failing to properly deorbit a satellite, but the penalty was a meager financial sum that completely fails to deter multibillion-dollar enterprises from future negligence. To bridge this gap, policy experts have proposed the creation of an International Space Traffic Management (STM) organization—a centralized body that would treat orbital paths as finite natural resources, similar to how maritime or air traffic is managed globally.
To prevent the Kessler Syndrome from becoming an imminent reality, policymakers and international bodies must urgently pivot from corporate appeasement to stringent, enforceable governance. Treating Low Earth Orbit as an environmental zone requiring rigorous ecological protection is paramount. This necessitates the implementation of punitive taxes on debris generation, the mandated integration of zero-debris technologies, and strict international caps on the number of satellites a single entity can operate. The European Space Agency recently adopted a Zero Debris approach, which mandates aggressive collision avoidance and strict post-mission disposal within five years, and serves as a foundational blueprint.
However, technological fixes alone cannot resolve what is fundamentally an issue of unchecked power and inequitable resource distribution. True orbital sustainability requires democratizing space governance, ensuring that the interests of marginalized communities, independent researchers, and future generations outweigh the imperialistic ambitions of a few dominant spacefaring corporations. Stakeholders must organize globally to establish binding treaties that outlaw the monopolization of orbits and enforce massive financial penalties on polluters, ensuring the space frontier remains a shared realm for the benefit of all humanity rather than an exploited playground for private capital.
Engagement Resources
European Space Agency Space Debris Office (https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris): Leading international research on space environmentalism, collision avoidance strategies, and the Zero Debris initiative aimed at mitigating orbital pollution.
Union of Concerned Scientists (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database): An advocacy and research organization maintaining a comprehensive database of active satellites, analyzing the impacts of commercial congestion and the corporatization of space.
Outer Space Institute (https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/): A network of transdisciplinary space experts focused on identifying and addressing challenges related to space governance, debris mitigation, and the equitable use of orbital resources.
Secure World Foundation (https://swfound.org/): An organization promoting cooperative solutions for space sustainability, focusing on international policy frameworks to address orbital debris and challenge unilateral space traffic management.
Space Court Foundation (https://www.spacecourtfoundation.org/): An educational nonprofit advocating for the development of space law and policy, focusing on holding private entities accountable for their activities in outer space.
Is Strava A Threat to Global Security?
Foreign Policy Brief # 230 | By Reilly Fitzgerald | April 3, 2026
Policy Summary
There is a fairly short but detailed history of covert operations, and actions, being discovered by people posting their workout data to Strava, a fitness tracking app.. President Trump’s war with Iran that began at the start of March has been involved in this issue. A French navy’s Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier was discovered moving closer to the Middle East when an officer uploaded their run to Strava which gave up the location of the ship.
Analysis
Strava is one of the most popular apps for working out, particularly for endurance athletes such as runners, cyclists, triathletes, etc. It is also especially popular with military personnel, and other secret or covert professionals around the world. Strava was released in 2009 and since then has garnered a ginormous following with 135 million users worldwide in 190 countries, and 13 languages. Needless to say, it is quite popular. People upload their workouts, including GPS location data among other details, to the app and can engage with others like a social media platform, seeing people in different locations who exercise like you do.
It is not surprising that military personnel, whose profession requires they maintain good physical shape and health, use an app such as Strava. However, the what if their location is meant to be classified?
At the outset of March, President Trump attacked Iran in a maelstrom of missile fire. This led to the death of the Supreme Leader of Iran, and many other important military and political figures in Iran. Trump’s war triggered immediate shock reactions from countries around the world, including many of our NATO allies such as France and Germany. The French began moving naval assets closer to the region to be nearer Iran and the military operations being conducted by the United States. Part of this was the movement of the Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier, a French naval vessel. The location of this warship was leaked to the internet via Strava when a French Navy officer uploaded his running exercise, that was conducted on the flight deck of the ship, to Strava.
This French officer’s workout brought back up many studies done over the past decade that demonstrate some of the security dangers of Strava. For example, in 2018 the United States, and other countries, were exposed via Strava for the deployment of military and security forces around the world that were supposed to be classified or acting covertly.
Strava each year uploads the Strava Global Heatmap. This is a physical representation of all of their users’ exercise data displayed on a world map, publicly viewable for any and all people. This Global Heatmap logs about 3 trillion pieces of data representing each individual’s performance. This led to the discovery of covert military and intelligence assets in places like Afghanistan, Djibouti, Syria; and did not just affect American personnel, but also European and Russian forces as well. Also included on the Heatmap was data from within military bases on US soil, as one user logged a bike ride from within the boundaries of what is known colloquially as ‘Area 51’ in Nevada. The Guardian ran a headline in 2018 that said “Fitness tracking app Strava gives away location of secret US Army bases”.
In 2018 United States Department of Defense implemented an outright ban on GPS software being on smartphones, watches, and other pieces of technology while in combat zones. This was an important policy to protect American servicemembers; however, it did not apply to domestic or international bases outside of combat areas. So, in terms of intelligence gathering capabilities of foreign adversaries, there was still a big opportunity to gather information on military forces.
Globally, Strava is still a threat to security for military personnel but also to world leaders. An article by ASIS Security Management, from 2025, discussed how potential world leaders and military commanders can become targeted via their Strava usage. For example, in 2023 a former Russian submarine commander was assassinated while running (he uploaded his workouts to the internet too); unsurprisingly, Russia blames Ukrainian forces for this act of violence.
A 2025 article in the Swedish publication Dagens Nhyeter discussed the role that Strava has played in providing security concerns for their heads of government due to their bodyguards logging their runs and exercise sessions to Strava. This has implicated bodyguards of the Swedish Royal Family and also the Swedish Prime Minister.
The employment of a bodyguard ought to be a secretive position, but they are consistently leaking their positions around the world by exercising. In the 2025 Swedish article, it was stated that over 1,400 workouts were logged while these bodyguards were exercising. The locations of various government agencies and offices; residences of governmental leaders; the personal residences of the bodyguards; routes that are used very frequently for commuting and exercise; hotels abroad; and more were all leaked to the public. Five of the 1,400 workouts were by bodyguards responsible for the protection of Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. The 1,400 workouts were logged in locales such as Israel (leading in/out of a luxury hotel where presumably the Prime Minister was located), skiing in the Alps, running in Central Park in New York City, and even on military bases in Africa.
Strava, and other GPS tracking fitness apps, pose a unique threat to global security. The ability to track people via their wearable technologies, or cellular devices, is going to lead to a more dangerous world.
Engagement Resources
- Strava Global Heat Map – https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?sport=All&style=dark&terrain=false&labels=true&poi=true&cPhotos=true&3d=false&gColor=blue&gOpacity=100#9/34.1908/-116.0576
- Dagens Nyheter Article, 2025 – https://www.dn.se/sverige/har-lacker-sapo-hemliga-uppgifter-om-ulf-kristersson/
- ASIS Security Management Article, 2025- https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/latest-news/today-in-security/2025/july/strava-privacy-settings/
Will the Meta Verdicts Spur Change? (Technology Policy Brief #166)
Technology Policy Brief #166 | By Mindy Spatt | April 14, 2026
SUMMARY
Do social media companies try to hook children on their products? Do they fail to adequately protect those children from harmful content, predators, and exploitation? Millions of parents would probably agree with the juries in California and Texas that recently answered those questions with a resounding yes. As a result, one young plaintiff was awarded $6 million from YouTube and Meta in one case, and Meta was ordered to pay $374 million in civil penalties in the other. Meta and YouTube have, of course, vowed to appeal. Despite a growing awareness of the risks to children and teens online, new legislation on children’s online safety remains stalled in Congress, and a robust regulatory system is nowhere in sight.
ANALYSIS
Thousands of families of distressed teens are suing META, Tik Tok, Google, and other social media companies, alleging their children were deliberately hooked on platforms that disregarded their safety, subjecting them to exploitation and harmful content.
Social media companies have always ducked responsibility for their content, and receive immunity through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which does not hold them to the same standards as actual publishers, who are considered liable for what they publish. Two recent suits took a different approach to establishing liability.
In the California case, a young woman claimed she had become hooked on social media at a young age, resulting in her suffering from depression and anxiety. The evidence presented by the plaintiff focused on the way the platforms had been designed, including showing that the companies knew full well that features like infinite scroll, push notifications, and algorithm amplification would help hook young people, and that hooking them was absolutely the goal.
The youth market generates billions in profits, and advertisers know the easiest way to reach young people is on social media. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 36% of U.S. teens report using TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and/or Facebook “almost constantly.”
A day before the California verdict, a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for not protecting young people from online harm, such as sexual predators, in breach of the state’s consumer protection laws. Dozens of other states have filed similar cases, and the financial stakes are higher than in the individual suit, with Meta ordered to pay $374 million in civil penalties.
Evidence presented by the New Mexico attorney general included internal Meta documents and testimony from former Meta employees demonstrating how Meta’s design features enabled child exploitation by pedophiles and predators. In that case, evidence of Meta’s intentional strategies to hook young people on their products was also presented.
“These products were purposefully designed to harm and addict millions of young people, and lead to lifelong mental health consequences,” commented Sacha Haworth, Executive Director of The Tech Oversight Project, in a press release about the verdict. She urged passage of the Kids Online Safety Act, now making its way through Congress.
Known as KOSA, it would establish a “duty of care” for platforms to act to prevent harmful activities like cyberbullying and sexual exploitation, strengthen privacy protections for minors, and provide parents and children with better ways to opt out of addictive algorithmic recommendations.
KOSA is controversial and has attracted the ire of free speech advocates and LGBTQ groups that fear the “duty of care” provisions will result in censorship. The Electronic Frontier Foundation questioned its likely effectiveness, saying, “This bill won’t bother big tech. Large companies will be able to manage this regulation, which is why Apple and X have agreed to support it. In fact, X helped negotiate the text….”
Age limits and parental controls have turned out to be largely ineffective, shifting even more responsibility away from the companies, even as they continue to rake in huge profits from their youngest subscribers. As is often the case, the European Union is considering a much stronger approach with proposals for:
- Complete bans on the most harmful addictive practices for minors, and automatic disabling of many addictive features for including infinite scrolling, auto-play, and reward loops,
- Actions to rein in targeted ads, influencer marketing, and addictive design, and
- Bans on engagement-based recommendations for minors and protection from commercial exploitation by prohibiting offering minors financial incentives, which is now common practice for “kidfluencers.”
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
- What is Technology Addiction? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/technology-addictions-social-media-and-more/what-is-technology-addiction
- The Tech Accountability Project https://law.yale.edu/mfia/projects/tech-accountability-project
- Kids Online Safety Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757/text
- The Kids Online Safety Act Will Make the Internet Worse for Everyone by Joe Mullin, May 15, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/kids-online-safety-act-will-make-internet-worse-everyone
The Removal of the Climate Science Chapter From The U.S. Judiciary’s Scientific Reference Manual (Environmental Policy Brief #164)
Environmental Policy Brief #164 | By Jason Collins | March 23, 2026
Summary
In early February 2026, the Federal Judicial Centre removed a chapter explaining climate science from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Judges used this manual to evaluate scientific testimony in U.S. courtrooms. The removal was prompted after Republican state attorneys argued that the chapter presented climate science in a manner that could influence litigation against fossil fuel companies. The chapter,
Scientists who authored the chapter have issued a public letter warning that judges no longer have a scientific baseline to verify when evaluating climate evidence. The removal raises the question of whether scientific consensus should be removed from legal reference materials just because it is politically contested.
Analysis
The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is a guide that judges use when managing cases that involve complex scientific and technical evidence during the description of evidence. The reference guide helps judges reach informed decisions backed by scientific knowledge. The chapter in question was authored by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton of Columbia Law School. It defined core climate terminology, described scientific consensus on climate change, the evidence of climate change, and used attribution science to explain the human causes of climate change. The chapter explained the difference between weather and climate change, making it a beneficial tool during court decisions.
The removal of the reference will influence how judges and courts understand scientific evidence.
The decision to remove the climate chapter in the reference was led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey and Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers. Lawmakers argued that the chapter is presented in a way that could bias legal outcomes, particularly in ongoing litigation against fossil fuel companies. In a statement, McKuskey said, “Bias towards left-leaning climate policies would have absolutely tipped the scales in many cases.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton called the chapter “a political pamphleteering for the climate scam.”
Following the removal of the chapter, 28 co-authors of the Reference Manual issued an open letter calling the removal a “political attack.”
“Omitting the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual deprives judges of a carefully reviewed baseline explanation of the relevant science. It leaves judges without a tool to evaluate the parties’ framing, sometimes cherry-picked literature, and adversarially hired and paid witnesses,” they wrote.
The core tension lies in the gap between scientific agreement and political disagreement. Despite evidence that climate change is largely driven by human activities, climate science remains politically contested in policy and legal contexts, especially when it interacts with economic outcomes. But does that mean that legal references avoid topics that are politically sensitive?
Climate-related lawsuits are increasing in the country. For example, homeowners in Washington state have filed a landmark lawsuit against oil companies over increasing insurance premiums linked to climate change. Currently, 23 states have sued President Donald Trump’s administration for the removal of the endangerment finding in the Clean Air Act. Cases like these often rely on scientific evidence, and without the climate science chapter, judges will face greater challenges when evaluating expert claims in court. As a result, this could lead to inconsistent rulings and legal uncertainty in climate cases. Advancing Earth and Space Sciences (AGU) issues a warning about ignoring science: “Climate science is not, and should never be, a partisan issue,” and added, “Court decisions that lack access to climate science will be worse for us all.”
Engagement Resources
5 climate court battles to watch in 2026 – 5 examples of high-stakes climate court cases that would use the climate science chapter
Reference Guide on Climate Science – the chapter that was removed
EPA’s endangerment finding repeal – another example of politicians removing climate science from policy
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)
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
- The Business of Military AI, Amos Toh and Emile Ayoub, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. March, 2026 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/business-military-ai
- AI’s Safety Promises Crumble as Defense Contracts Take Priority, The Tech Buzz, Mar.6, 2026 https://www.techbuzz.ai/articles/ai-s-safety-promises-crumble-as-defense-contracts-take-priority
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)
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
- DOJ admits redaction errors in Epstein docs while names in files face scrutiny https://www.npr.org/2026/02/06/nx-s1-5702692/epstein-files-doj-trump-clinton-oversight
- DOJ announces full release of Epstein files https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/epstein-drop-live-00757275
- Department of Justice Publishes 3.5 Million Responsive Pages in Compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-publishes-35-million-responsive-pages-compliance-epstein-files
- Six men named in US Congress: Why is so much redacted in the Epstein Files? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/11/six-men-named-in-us-congress-why-is-so-much-redacted-in-the-epstein-files
- Investigation reveals DOJ withheld Epstein files mentioning Trump https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/investigation-reveals-doj-withheld-epstein-files-mentioning-trump
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)
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.