Why ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ almost didn’t air − and why it endures

In 2024, the beloved special is streaming on Apple TV+. Apple TV+


The Conversation

December 14, 2024

It’s hard to imagine a holiday season without “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” The 1965 broadcast has become a staple – etched into traditions across generations like decorating the tree or sipping hot cocoa.


But this beloved TV special almost didn’t make it to air. CBS executives thought the 25-minute program was too slow, too serious and too different from the upbeat spectacles they imagined audiences wanted. A cartoon about a depressed kid seeking psychiatric advice? No laugh track? Humble, lo-fi animation? And was that a Bible verse? It seemed destined to fail – if not scrapped outright.

And yet, against all the odds, it became a classic. The program turned “Peanuts” from a popular comic strip into a multimedia empire – not because it was flashy or followed the rules, but because it was sincere.

As a business professor who has studied the “Peanuts” franchise, I see “A Charlie Brown Christmas” as a fascinating historical moment. It’s the true story of an unassuming comic strip character who crossed over into television and managed to voice hefty, thought-provoking ideas – without getting booted off the air.
Call from the blue

The “Peanuts” special came together out of a last-minute scramble. Somewhat out of the blue, producer Lee Mendelson got a call from advertising agency McCann-Erickson: Coca-Cola wanted to sponsor an animated Christmas special.

Mendelson had previously failed to convince the agency to sponsor a “Peanuts” documentary. This time, though, he assured McCann-Erickson that the characters would be a perfect fit.

Mendelson called up “Peanuts” comic strip creator Charles “Sparky” Schulz and told him he had just sold “A Charlie Brown Christmas” – and they would have mere months to write, animate and bring the special to air

.
Schulz drawing in the 1950s. 

Roger Higgins/World Telegram & Sun via Library of Congress

Schulz, Mendelson and animator Bill Melendez worked fast to piece together a storyline. The cartoonist wanted to tell a story that cut through the glitz of holiday commercialism and brought the focus back to something deeper.

While Snoopy tries to win a Christmas lights contest, and Lucy names herself “Christmas queen” in the neighborhood play, a forlorn Charlie Brown searches for “the real meaning of Christmas.” He makes his way to the local lot of aluminum trees, a fad at the time. But he’s drawn to the one real tree – a humble, scraggly little thing – inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Fir Tree.”

Jazz – and the Bible

Those plot points would likely delight the network, but other choices Schulz made were proving controversial.

The show would use real children’s voices instead of adult actors’, giving the characters an authentic, simple charm. And Schulz refused to add a laugh track, a standard in animated TV at the time. He wanted the sincerity of the story to stand on its own, without artificial prompts for laughter.

Meanwhile, Mendelson brought in jazz musician Vince Guaraldi to compose a sophisticated soundtrack. The music was unlike anything typically heard in animated programming, blending provocative depth with the innocence of childhood.

Most alarming to the executives was Schulz’s insistence on including the heart of the Nativity story in arguably the special’s most pivotal scene.

When Charlie Brown joyfully returns to his friends with the spindly little tree, the rest of the “Peanuts” gang ridicule his choice. “I guess I really don’t know what Christmas is all about,” the utterly defeated Charlie Brown sighs.

Gently but confidently, Linus assures him, “I can tell you what Christmas is all about.” Calling for “Lights, please,” he quietly walks to the center of the stage.

In the stillness, Linus recites the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, with its story of an angel appearing to trembling shepherds:

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior, which is Christ the Lord.
Leave it to Linus to deliver the ‘true meaning’ of Christmas.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men,” he concludes, picking up his security blanket and walking into the wings. The rest of the gang soon concludes Charlie Brown’s scrawny tree isn’t so bad, after all – it just “needs a little love.”

When Schulz discussed this idea with Mendelson and Melendez, they were hesitant. For much of U.S. history, Protestant Christianity was the default in American culture, but in the years since World War II, society had grown somewhat more mindful of making room for Catholic and Jewish Americans. Unsure how to handle the shifting norms, many mainstream entertainment companies in the 1960s tended to avoid religious topics.

“The Bible thing scares us,” CBS executives said when they saw the proofs of the special. But there was simply no time to redo the entire dramatic arc of the special, and pulling it was not an option, given that advertisements had already run.

Fun and philosophy

Fortunately for the “Peanuts” franchise, when the special aired on Dec. 9, 1965, it was an instant success. Nearly half of American households tuned in, and the program won both an Emmy and a Peabody Award. Schulz had tapped into something audiences were craving: an honest, heartfelt message that cut through the commercialism.

Students at the Cure D'Ars School in Denver put on their own production of the ‘Peanuts’ Christmas special in 1966. Denver Post via Getty Images

Millions of viewers have continued to tune in to the show’s annual rebroadcast for over 50 years on CBS and then ABC – and now Apple TV+.

When I was researching my spiritual biography of Schulz, “A Charlie Brown Religion,” one of my favorite finds was a 1965 letter from a Florida viewer, Betty Knorr. She praised the show for stressing “the true meaning of the Christmas season” at a time when “the mention of God in general (is) being hush hushed.”

The magic of Schulz’s work, though, is that it resonates across demographics and ideologies. Some fans find comfort in the show’s gentle message of faith, while others embrace it in a purely secular way.

Simple but poignant, Schulz’s art and gentle humor can do two things. They can act as safe entry points for some pretty hefty thoughts – be they psychiatric, cultural or theological. Or “Peanuts” cartoons can simply be heartwarming, festive entertainment, if that’s what you want.

Today, both the “Peanuts” empire and the Christmas industry are thriving. Back in the 1960s, commercial realities almost derailed Schulz’s special, yet those same forces ultimately ensured its broadcast. The result is a lasting touchstone of innocence, hope and belief.

Stephen Lind, Associate Professor of Clinical Business Communication, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How Charles Dickens anticipated the psychology of Freud in 'A Christmas Carol'

Arthur Rackham , CC BY

The Conversation

December 13, 2024

With a joyful celebration of family love and communal bonds at its heart, Charles Dickens’s story A Christmas Carol has often been credited with creating our modern idea of Christmas. Published on December 19 1843, the first edition sold out rapidly and the story was immediately adapted onto the Victorian stage.

The Internet Movie Database now lists 213 versions of the story, with the first film made in 1901, the same year Queen Victoria died. Less well-known than the story itself though is Dickens’s importance to our understanding of trauma.

In simple terms, trauma is a “wounding” event or situation that produces ongoing psychological symptoms, such as nightmares, flashbacks and distress. We take the idea of trauma for granted now.

It is an ever-present way of understanding and describing ourselves and the complex societies we live in. But at the same time, awareness of the impact of traumatic events such as war, displacement and adversity feels like an urgent necessity in our troubled world.

The psychological category of trauma is relatively new. The word was not used in English to describe a damaging psychological event until 1894. But the idea did not appear from nowhere.





As literary scholar Jill Matus has shown, the “newly forming discipline” of psychology theorised the concept of “shock” in the mid-Victorian period, exploring how the mind could be wounded and the body disorientated. Victorian doctors including Benjamin Ward Richardson identified new forms of “disease” arising from the fast pace of modern life, such as stress and fatigue.

Meanwhile, as I research in my own work, mid-Victorian writers traced and retraced how past events could impact the present. By focusing on painful childhood experiences, writers like Dickens and Charlotte Brontë (in the likes of Jane Eyre) helped shape the version of trauma we understand now.

The psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud argued that trauma could not be understood as a single event; it is defined by an unconscious “compulsion to repeat”, the trauma replayed in new scenes.

For Dickens, it is not just that bad stuff happens – it recurs, it haunts and this implicates who you are and who you can be. In A Christmas Carol, Dickens anticipates Freud’s work and psychoanalysis, which are equally concerned with the reverberating echoes of childhood.

Scrooge, neglect and forgetfulness

Scrooge is now a byword for meanness. In A Christmas Carol, Dickens crafts an allegory of trauma and recovery through Ebeneezer Scrooge’s moral redemption. In the first chapter, we witness him bullying Bob Cratchit, his long-suffering clerk, and reject his almost painfully cheerful nephew, Fred. We soon learn that Scrooge’s only friend was Jacob Marley, his business partner, now long since dead.

For Scrooge, all forms of human feeling are “humbug”. The remedies for collective suffering are the workhouse and the prison. The poor are better off dead. Our familiarity with Scrooge perhaps dulls the shock we should feel at these beliefs. Dickens is clear that Scrooge has broken ties with himself, other people and society – and the situation is not just unpleasant, it is dangerous.

Entwined in chains and cash boxes, Marley’s spirit visits Scrooge, warning that he too will be condemned to “wander through the earth” in an “incessant torture of remorse” if he doesn’t change his ways. Marley prepares Scrooge for the imminent arrival of three spirits: the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come who offer him this chance of redemption.

The first of the three spirits takes Scrooge back to a Christmas scene from his childhood. There, he witnesses himself as a boy, alone in a cold, “melancholy” schoolroom which is “earthy” like a tomb.

We realise that Scrooge is not just a nasty old man, he is also a neglected child. He has unknowingly recreated his childhood loneliness in later life, confined to his miserable counting house. He sought comfort from money. With devastating consequences.

Mourning and recovery

Meanwhile, the young Scrooge cheers his solitary Christmas by reading The Arabian Nights and Robinson Crusoe, books loved by Dickens as a child. The characters spring from the pages. Imagination protects the boy and restores the adult, who is learning to remember. Scrooge must watch, listen to and feel every detail of this scene, which has a “softening influence”, giving “freer passage to his tears”.

Observing his younger self, Scrooge begins to accept the past and mourn his losses. Writing 50 years before Freud and Josef Breuer published their “preliminary communication” in psychoanalysis, in this eerie ghost story, Dickens presents a therapeutic scene.




But this is bigger than Scrooge. When he later meets the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge must also acknowledge and grieve for the Victorian realities of poverty, adversity and cruelty – represented by the two allegorical children, Want and Ignorance.

As philosopher Judith Butler argued in her book Precarious Life, mourning can be an act of solidarity. In A Christmas Carol, Dickens shows us that it is also an ethical process. A fitting message perhaps for the 21st century, and for the harsh Christmas many have ahead of them during this cost of living crisis.

Madeleine Wood, Lecturer in Childhood Studies, University of Essex

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Biblical scholar refuses to recommend right-wing funded Netflix biopic of 'Mary'

Noa Cohen plays Mary in the film. (Christopher Raphael/Netflix)

The Conversation

December 15, 2024

I wish I could say that Mary, mother of God, riding a horse through a wall of fire was the worst thing about Netflix’s Mary. As an unrepentant fan of some truly unrealistic films, I can forgive a lot of entertaining embellishment in a movie. But, watching the film, the cinematic choices felt more like promotion for a conservative Christian nationalist agenda.

As a biblical scholar who has published widely on the representation of the New Testament on film, and on Christian antisemitism, I was looking forward to watching Mary. I felt hopeful that it would avoid many of the pitfalls of previous films.

In its favour, the film draws on some underrepresented sources for Mary’s birth, childhood and early life. Director D.J. Caruso has said that along with the canonical gospels and the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, he relied on a text called the Proto-Gospel of James for much of Mary’s backstory. The trailer for Mary on Netflix.

That text, composed in the 2nd century AD, contains an account of Mary’s own immaculate conception and describes how her parents dedicated her to serve in the Jerusalem temple.

While this account describes Mary living in the temple from the age of three and weaving the temple curtain, there is no clear evidence that anyone actually lived inside the temple — let alone, as the film depicts, a crowd of Handmaid’s Tale-esque young women.

My critiques of Mary centre around two themes. One is the way it perpetuates conservative ideals around women and gender. The other is its misrepresentations of Jews and Judaism.

Patriarchal values

Throughout the film, motherhood is venerated in ways that align with conservative values. In a TV interview with Christian Channel, Caruso said that he wanted to present Mary as a role model for young women today and to applaud her choice to accept God’s annunciation of her pregnancy.

However, neither Luke’s gospel nor the film present Mary with a meaningful choice in this. The angel Gabriel’s pronouncement cannot be resisted, as the biblical Mary recognises with her admission of being the slave of God, and therefore subject to his will.

The trope of an unwed teenager (the film presents Mary as a teen, despite the Bible itself not giving her age) carrying an unexpected pregnancy to term, certainly aligns with right-wing Christian anti-choice rhetoric.

Depictions of Jewish people

Mary also features problematic representations of Jewish people. Aside from the over-the-top hats worn by the temple priests, the film insists on Christian exceptionalism – that Jesus and his family were radically different from Jews of their time.

Like many films about Jesus’s life, Mary misrepresents Jews as focused on the wrong things. For example, only Mary, played by Noa Cohen, thinks to share the temple’s wealth with the poor. And only Joseph (Ido Tako) comes to her defence against those Jewish characters who would uphold “the law”.

One especially problematic scene shows a pregnant Mary being chased through the streets by a Jewish mob yelling “zonah” (prostitute). At this and several other points, characters note how according to “the law” Mary should be stoned to death.

This idea of Jewish law as cruel and violent is an age-old stereotype. In reality, those applying the law often went to extreme lengths to avoid a death penalty. But what makes this scene worse is that the would-be murderers yell in Hebrew.

The language is hardly used elsewhere in the film and so sets the crowd apart as distinctly Jewish. The murderous Jewish mob is a dangerous trope with a long history in Christian antisemitism. The mob foreshadows the Jewish crowd calling for Jesus’s execution in front of Pilate and the antisemitic charge of deicide – killing God in the form of Jesus – against the Jews.

Right-wing funding

Joel Osteen, a mega-church pastor and televangelist renowned for promoting a prosperity gospel (the belief that financial blessings and physical wellbeing reflect the favour of God), is an executive producer of the film. Mary also claims input from faith leaders across a range of Christian denominations, as well as other religions.

However, only one religious expert is listed on the film’s credits. Adam W. Schindler is listed as the consultant “biblical scholar,” but describes himself on his website as a pastor and digital strategy consultant.

Schindler also holds a leadership position in the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). AFPI is a right-wing thinktank launched in 2021 by former Trump administrators in order to promote Trump’s policies.

Several AFPI members have now accepted leadership positions in president-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet. It is this organisation, perhaps more than the infamous Project 2025, that seems to be providing policy input for Trump.

As part of this, AFPI has published an 80-page booklet outlining the ten biblical pillars to restore America to its so-called Judeo-Christian foundations. This includes opposing abortion and comparing abortion to infanticide, declaring unconditional support for the state of Israel, promoting conservative understandings of gender as a binary and repeating the tired myth about Christians being widely persecuted in America. It is no wonder, then, that Mary leans in to many of these conservative talking points.

The story of a Palestinian mother who gave birth in a ruined building, on the run from murderous soldiers, could have been timely and important. Instead, Mary reinforces many dangerous stereotypes that have historically led to violence against Jews, while avoiding showing the holy family’s embrace of Jewish practices. For Netflix to have so clearly missed the mark is disappointing.

D.J. Caruso, Adam W. Schindler and Netflix did not respond to a request for comment.

Meredith Warren, Senior Lecturer in Biblical and Religious Studies, University of Sheffield

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

'The source of much evil': Baptist minister warns against MAGA’s 'weaponization of Christianity'

Donald Trump in front of St. John's Episcopal Church on June 1, 2020

(Wikimedia Commons)

Alex Henderson

December 16, 2024

ALTERNET

The religious right has had a major influence on the Republic Party since the early 1980s, when the Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr.'s Moral Majority and the Christian Broadcasting Network's Rev. Pat Robertson aggressively lobbied for President Ronald Reagan to push a socially conservative agenda. Now, in late 2024, far-right white evangelicals and Christian nationalists are anxiously awaiting President-elect Donald Trump's return the White House.

But Christian nationalists don't represent Christianity on the whole. In fact, some Christians who aren't shy about discussing their faith — from Catholics like outgoing President Joe Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) to Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia), a Baptist minister — have been scathing critics of Trump and the MAGA movement.

During a Q&A interview with Salon's Chauncey DeVega published on December 16, the Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush — a Baptist minister and major Trump critic who serves as CEO of the Interfaith Alliance — argued that religion can play a prominent role in the anti-Trump, anti-MAGA resistance.

Raushenbush, who is openly gay, told DeVega, "Ultimately, as a society, we're in a fraught moment where it's unclear what will happen with Trump taking power…. Trump and the rise of illiberalism, intolerance and all that goes with it, have created a permission structure for cruelty on a massive scale. Of course, this involves overturning civil rights laws that protect marginalized groups. But there is also the day-to-day fear of being targeted for just trying to live and doing basic human things like holding your partner's hand in public."

The minister added, "I live in a part of country where there is supposed to be all this tolerance and safety for gay people — yet all it takes is one second for something bad to suddenly happen."

Raushenbush lamented that "many of my fellow Christians" are supporting "Trump and his authoritarian populist movement." And he stressed that non-MAGA Christians need to voice their opposition.

"There is a long tradition of people using my faith to terrorize others," Raushenbush told DeVega. "So, one of the things I do as a minister and as a leader of an interfaith organization is to try to make it clear in my talks and other work that religion is not automatically or necessarily good. Religion has been the source of much evil, which we can chronicle throughout our history. In America, we're in a moment where religion is again being used as a pretext for subjugation and discrimination."

READ MORE: 'Allow some of this to be privatized': GOP gov admits goal of DOGE is to gut Social Security

Raushenbush continued, "White Christianity, especially white right-wing Christian fundamentalism, is such a deep and important current within the MAGA movement and today's 'conservatives' that I think even many people who are working in mainstream politics don't really understand what's happening. This weaponization of Christianity is very dangerous to the country and our freedoms."

Salon's full interview with Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush is available at this link.

'What is he doing?' Analyst explains why 'people are petrified' of Trudeau’s behavior

President-elect Donald Trump talks with Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during a North Atlantic Treaty Organization Plenary Session at the NATO summit in Watford, Britain, December 4, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Maya Boddie

December 18, 2024

COMMON DREAMS

Donald Trump on Monday night doubled down on calling Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the "governor of the state of Canada," after the president-elect has threatened to to impose massive tariffs on imports from the country.

MSNBC's Joy Reid spoke with MSNBC political analyst and Bloomberg Opinion Editor Tim O'Brien Tuesday about why Canada's leader continues to bend the knee to Trump despite continued public humiliation.

"He will always reward weakness with more humiliation," Reid said. "And that includes foreign leaders like Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, who went to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring last month, behaving like Trump was already president. And how does Trump reward him? By publicly mocking him on his social media site. Calling Trudeau the 'governor of the great state of Canada.'"

READ MORE: Calls for Trudeau to resign as exiting Canadian Finance Minister warns of Trump tariffs

"What is he doing?" Reid asked O'Brien. "When will people learn ... that emasculating yourself before Trump, as so many have done, doesn't help, and just makes things worse."

The Bloomberg editor replied, "It's also a reminder, Joy, that he has been this way forever. He came up at the knee of Roy Cohn, who taught him how to weaponize the legal system. And he's learned that you don't necessarily need to go to court or to ultimately break people, if they are scared enough in the first innings, of any action that you take to capitulate. Whether they're politicians, members of the business community, members of media, members of Congress, or members of the judiciary."

O'Brien continued, "And we can pull that out examples of each and every one of these institutions and some of their leading members deciding in advance that the safest way, and the most productive way to deal with Donald Trump is to kiss the ring. And we see example after example of once they do that he then shames them in public. And he is not ultimately delivering on some of the things they want."

"And he does it to the people he holds close to him," the MSNBC analyst concluded. "Think about how many days was it after RFK Jr. got nominated or HHS, and there was a picture of him eating fast food with Don Jr., on the presidential plane. Eat your food, take your punishment. For Trudeau, his own government is fractured because of this. And he could very well be out of a job because of this. So, I do think that people in the near term right now are petrified. They're not sure how to respond to the fact that Trump was re-elected again other than to capitulate, but they should keep, I think, their eyes on the prize."

READ MORE: 'USA is a threat': Canadians slam 'bully' Trump’s 'arrogant' mockery of 'Governor Trudeau'

Watch the video below or at this link.

How a tiff over tariffs exposed the Canadian government’s fragility

Simmering tensions between Justin Trudeau and former ally Chrystia Freeland erupted Monday.


by Ellen Ioanes

Dec 17, 2024

VOX

Then-US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attend the NATO summit at the Grove Hotel on December 4, 2019 in Watford, England. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.

Canada’s government is in trouble.


The government currently in charge of the country — led by longtime Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — took its latest hit on Monday, when Trudeau’s right-hand official (and former staunch ally), Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, surprised Canadians by offering her resignation in a spectacular fashion, issuing a letter that sharply criticized her old boss.


Freeland specifically cited her disagreements over how to manage Canada’s economy in the face of looming US tariffs as the breaking point in her relationship with Trudeau. President-elect Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on Canada shortly after his election; that threat has put a strain on Trudeau’s government, but they are only part of a larger problem. Trudeau and his party have been steadily losing public and parliamentary confidence for years. Deals meant to keep Trudeau’s party in power crumbled this year, and pressure on Trudeau to resign has begun to build, especially given his party is expected to suffer in national elections next year.


All that means that, even before Freeland resigned, Trudeau’s administration was inching closer to the brink of collapse. And now, with Freeland’s resignation, Canada’s government is on even shakier ground as it prepares to confront an incoming, adversarial, Trump administration.

Trudeau is unpopular in his party and in Canada

Before the Freeland debacle, Trudeau had two problems: The public was unhappy with him and his party’s policies, and many in his party were unhappy with his management.

Trudeau has been the leader of Canada, for nearly 10 years now, and of his Liberal Party for nearly 12. That’s quite a long time to be in power in the Canadian context. In that time, Trudeau’s popularity has taken a beating; although he started out with a 63 percent approval rating, that has dropped to 28 percent in recent polls.

“In some ways, it’s not surprising that Canadians are just kind of fed up with the government, because you get to a certain point in your tenure where you’ve been in there for so long that it’s easy to look around and blame everything that’s wrong on the guy who’s been in charge for 10 years,” Elizabeth McCallion, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, told Vox. “We’re reaching that limit where many Canadians don’t want Trudeau around anymore.”


Canada does have some major problems at the moment. The country is struggling with cost-of-living and housing crises, and debate over the wisdom of the Liberal Party’s immigration and environmental strategies has escalated ahead of the 2025 elections. The Liberal Party’s chief rival, the Conservative Party, has been quick to make connections between Trudeau’s policy choices and these issues.

Related:Canada’s polite Trumpism

Conservatives are expected to make major gains in next year’s elections, and rival parties’ political attacks on Liberals and their record have already proved potent, with Trudeau’s party losing what should have been some safe seats in recent special elections. Those losses have helped spur a crisis of confidence for Trudeau within his party.


“He’s been going through sort of a string of setbacks over the last couple of months, including by-election losses — quite significant ones,” Andrew McDougall, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, told Vox. “He lost a [district] in Toronto called St. Paul’s, which was really the core of the Liberal support, and that alone had triggered speculation he might have to go. [Liberals lost] in Montreal as well, which is really where the party has its strongest base — if you can’t win there, you really can’t win anywhere, was the suggestion.”


Freeland’s resignation only renewed and intensified calls for Trudeau to resign — and some of those calls came from members of his own party. There’s almost no way to eject him from party leadership if he doesn’t resign, and no one has stepped forward as a strong candidate for the job. However, the House of Commons could vote to trigger early elections through a no-confidence vote after late January, when they meet again after the holidays.


Elections would only be called early if that vote succeeds, and it’s unclear if it will. Trudeau survived previous no-confidence votes thanks to the support of former coalition partner, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) and the pro-Quebec party Bloc Québécois. But the NDP pulled out of its partnership agreement with the Liberals earlier this year, and Bloc Québécois’s leader said he would work to end Trudeau’s tenure after the Liberal Party failed to meet some of his demands. However, it may not be in the NDP’s interest to dissolve the government now, and if they choose to save Trudeau, the Liberals will keep their hold on power — for now.


“The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois both want to trigger elections but the New Democratic Party is much less eager to do so because the polls look bad for them. They have propped up the Liberals for years and they could continue to do this when there’s another confidence vote,” Daniel Béland, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, told Vox.

The tariffs factor brought everything to a head


Trump dropped a new factor into all of this domestic turmoil.


In late November, Trump threatened to slap 25 percent tariffs on goods imported from Mexico and Canada “until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!”


The realities of fentanyl trafficking and migrant flows are far more complicated than Trump suggests, and there is little Canada or Mexico could do to quickly alter either. If he were to follow through on his threat, those tariffs would be extremely damaging to both countries; in Canada’s case, the US is far and away its largest and most important trading partner. Those tariffs would make the affordability crisis that has so hampered Trudeau of late even worse.

Related:Trump’s tariff plan is an inflation plan


Freeland was expected to lead Canada’s response to those tariffs, and her resignation letter suggested she and Trudeau disagreed on how to approach the problem they posed.


“The incoming administration in the United States is pursuing a policy of aggressive economic nationalism, including a threat of 25 percent tariffs,” Freeland wrote. “We need to take that threat extremely seriously.”


In the letter Freeland also accused Trudeau of using expensive economic “gimmicks” — including a pause on certain taxes and stimulus checks for households making below a certain threshold — to retain support, putting Canada in a precarious financial position as it faces “a grave challenge.”


It’s atypical for members of parliament and government ministers to speak out against their party leadership, McCallion and McDougall explained, and Freeland’s departure showed just how unstable Trudeau’s party unity actually is.


Trudeau hasn’t made any public statements since Freeland’s resignation; it’s not clear what his next move is, or how he and his new finance minister, Dominic LeBlanc, plan to deal with either the potential tariffs or internal party discord. Trudeau and Freeland did negotiate a trade deal with the previous Trump administration, and that combined experience could have served Trudeau well.


Trudeau may not get the chance to fully reprise those negotiations, however. Even if he survives a potential no-confidence vote early next year, elections are scheduled for October, and, again, the Conservatives are projected to win.

Tech giant Meta will pay $32 million for enabling the Cambridge Analytica scandal

The Conversation

December 17, 2024


The Australian Information Commissioner today announced a settlement with tech giant Meta over its involvement in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The settlement will see Meta establish a A$50 million ($32 million U.S.) payment program for Australian Facebook users who had their personal data harvested by the British political consulting firm.

The commissioner, Elizabeth Tydd, said:
Today’s settlement represents the largest ever payment dedicated to addressing concerns about the privacy of individuals in Australia.

However, details of the payment scheme remain uncertain. And it’s not yet clear whether it will send a strong enough message to other organisations to be more careful when handling sensitive personal information.
What was the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

Cambridge Analytica was a British political consulting firm founded in 2013.

Five years later, it became an infamous household name, thanks to revelations it harvested the personal information of tens of millions of Facebook users. The firm then used this data to target messaging for political campaigns, including the 2016 US presidential election, won by Donald Trump.

The firm harvested sensitive data of Facebook users through a third-party app called This is Your Digital Life, created in November 2013 by Aleksandr Kogan, a professor at Cambridge University. It was enabled to do this by Meta, which three years earlier had changed its software to allow third-party apps to access Facebook users’ personal data.

Only 53 people in Australia installed the app.

However, Australia’s information commissioner estimates that an additional 311,074 Facebook users who were Facebook “friends” of people who installed the app may also have had their personal information compromised.
How will the payment scheme work?

The payment scheme is the culmination of a protracted legal battle between Australia’s privacy regulator and Meta, which have been locked in court proceedings in Australia since 2020. As part of the agreement, the regulator has dropped proceedings against Meta in the Federal Court.

The payment scheme will be set up by Meta but administered by an independent third party. It will be open to people who:had a Facebook account between November 2 2013 and December 17 2015
were present in Australia for at least 30 days during that period
either installed the This is Your Digital Life app using Facebook login or were Facebook friends with an individual who installed the app.

People can check whether they are eligible on a help page on the Facebook website. The information commissioner anticipates those who are eligible will be able to submit applications “in the second quarter of 2025”.

According to the undertaking, it could take two years for eligible claimants to receive a payment from Meta.
Several uncertainties

Several aspects of the payment scheme remain uncertain. This is because a number of elements will be determined by “scheme instructions” to be given by Meta or left to the absolute discretion of the third-party administrator.

For instance, we don’t yet know:the set amount that will be paid to any eligible person who experienced “a generalised concern or embarrassment”, or
what will be regarded as sufficient evidence that such a person also experienced “specific” loss or damage that entitles them to further compensation.

If the administrator decides on a total amount of compensation for eligible claimants which is less than A$50 million, the remaining funds will be paid to the Australian government’s consolidated revenue fund.
Long overdue

Australia’s privacy commissioner Carly Kind has called this settlement “groundbreaking”. But such enforcement action is long overdue.

When the information commissioner originally brought these proceedings in 2020, it was the first time the regulator had sought a civil penalty order under the Privacy Act. But it has had that power since 2014.

The commissioner was also following in the footsteps of privacy and consumer protection regulators in other countries that had already taken action against Meta over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

For instance, the UK privacy regulator fined Facebook the maximum £500,000 (A$997,167). The US Federal Trade Commission also settled with Meta on a record-breaking US$5 billion (A$7.86 billion) payment.

These precedents help in understanding the limited deterrent effect the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner case is likely to have on Meta. When the US$5 billion settlement was announced in 2019, Facebook’s share price increased.

The settlement between Meta and the Australian information commissioner represents roughly 0.02% of the tech giant’s US$130 billion global revenue for 2023.

A Meta spokesperson said the company had settled on a “no admission basis” and that the allegations “relate to past practices no longer relevant to how Meta’s products or systems work today”.

However, this is far from the only privacy breach by Meta, with the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission last year reaching a A$20 million settlement with Meta companies over claims that its Onavo VPN service misled users about how their data would be used.

Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice; Lead, UNSW Public Interest Law & Tech Initiative, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza detected in Michigan

Chicken farm (Shutterstock)

Kyle Davidson,

 Michigan Advance

December 17, 2024

The Michigan State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory has detected highly pathogenic avian influenza in an Ottawa County flock, following an investigation from the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD)

According to an announcement from the department Monday, this is the first detection of the disease in a Michigan poultry flock since the state worked to manage the largest outbreak of the disease in May 2024 and the second in an Ottawa County commercial facility since the disease was first detected in the state in 2022.

“Slowing the spread of HPAI to protect human health is a top priority at MDARD,” MDARD Director Tim Boring said in a statement. “Implementing on-farm biosecurity and expanding our HPAI surveillance efforts are key strategies to prevent opportunities for the virus to infect domestic animal species and potentially spread and become a more concerning human threat.”

Highly pathogenic avian influenza is a highly-contagious virus that can spread flock to flock, including by wild birds, through contact with infected animals, by equipment and on the clothing and shoes of caretakers.

The affected flock is under quarantine, and the birds will be culled to prevent the disease from spreading, with MDARD noting these efforts will help to ensure the safety and integrity of the commercial food supply.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the public health risk for avian influenza remains low.

No birds or bird products infected with avian influenza will enter the commercial food supply chain, though MDARD notes people should properly handle and cook all poultry and eggs.

It also encourages anyone working with domestic birds to:

Prevent contact between domestic and wild birds by bringing them indoors or ensuring their outdoor area is fully enclosed.Wash their hands before and after handling birds as well as when moving between different coops
Disinfect boots and other gear when moving between coops.
Not share equipment or other supplies between coops or other farms.Clean and disinfect equipment and other supplies. If it cannot be disinfected, discard it.
Use well or municipal water as drinking water for birds.Keep poultry feed secure to ensure there is no contact between the feed or feed ingredients and wild birds or rodents.

“Since this disease is capable of affecting animals and the people who care for them, it is important for farm workers to continue using personal protective equipment to protect themselves and their loved ones,” said Natasha Bagdasarian, the state’s chief medical executive. “Preventing spread from animals to humans is vital if we want to limit the impact of this virus.”

Domestic bird owners and caretakers are advised to watch for multiple sudden deaths in the flock, a drop in egg production, a significant decrease in water consumption, diarrhea, sneezing/coughing, or an increase in sick birds. If they suspect avian influenza, they should immediately contact MDARD at 800-292-3939 during the daytime or 517-373-0440 after hours.

Individuals who notice unusual or unexplained deaths among wild bird populations can report them to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through the DNR’s Eyes in the Field app by Choosing the “Diseased Wildlife” option among the selections for “Observation Forms,” or by calling the DNR Wildlife Disease Laboratory at 517-336-5030.

'Plutocracy is its own kind of dictatorship': Biden official issues scathing warning

By U.S. Department of Justice - International - 

Eloise Goldsmith,

 Common Dreams

December 18, 2024


Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, the antitrust head at the Department of Justice who helped turbocharge the agency's efforts to rein in monopoly power, bid farewell to his post in a speech Tuesday during which he warned that "plutocracy is its own kind of dictatorship."

Kanter's deputy, Doha Mekki, will take over leading the Antitrust Division starting Friday. President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Gail Slater, a tech and media policy advisor who worked for Vice President-elect JD Vance, to permanently replace Kanter.

In his speech, Kanter described how President Joe Biden's administration had a clear mandate from the public to break with the antitrust approach of previous decades: "When I took office in 2021, questions about monopoly power were no longer just a technocratic concern relegated to the narrow halls of white-shoe law firms and elite academic institutions. Our nation was experiencing a remarkable moment unlike any I had seen in my lifetime. Americans across the country had become acutely aware of the powerful forces that were suppressing their economic freedom."

To get himself ready for the role, he looked for inspiration from the "storied trustbusters of yesteryear"—particularly Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson, who led antitrust enforcement at the Department of Justice under FDR. "In 2021, the similarities to 1936 were unmistakable. They say that history rhymes. Well, it sure does. And this time it had 'bars,' as the youth say."

Then, as now, antitrust enforcement is an engine for economic prosperity, Kanter said. It can lower prices by limiting the market power of large companies, increase growth and prosperity by curbing corporate-imposed private regulation that "sap entrepreneurs of opportunity," and provide greater mobility and higher wages for workers, he argued.

With that "why" in mind, the division "confronted the Herculean task of operationalizing our mandate to restore, revive, and reimagine antitrust enforcement for our nation."

In many respects, Kanter was successful in that mission. During his time with the Department of Justice, the agency notched a major legal victory over the company Google, which Kanter's team and states had argued held an illegal monopoly in the search engine and advertising market. In August, a federal judge ruled that Google was an illegal monopolist for spending tens of billions on default search deals, a decision that has been called the "biggest antitrust case of the 21st century."

The Antitrust Division has also filed ongoing cases against Visa, the rent-fixing software RealPage, Ticketmaster, and others. Cases brought by the division also successfully blocked a merger between publishing giants Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, as well as JetBlue's acquisition of Spirit.

In response to the news that Kanter is stepping down, Nidhi Hegde, interim executive director at the American Economic Liberties Project, said Tuesday that under Kanter's leadership "the DOJ Antitrust Division has become an enforcer fit for the modern economy—and a powerful ally of American consumers, workers, and small businesses."

Kanter offered advice to future enforcers, such as engaging people outside of the Beltway and "dispel[ling] the myth that less competition at home helps the U.S. compete more abroad."

The stakes of lax enforcement are high, he warned: "When companies larger, wealthier, and more powerful than most world governments threaten individual liberty with coercive private taxation and regulation, it threatens our way of life."

The iron heel

By jack LONDON. Set up and electrotyped. Published February, 1908. Norfaootf ^resfs. J. S. Cashing & Co.

384 pages

No proof 'foreign actors' — or 'little green men' — responsible for NJ drones: Lawmakers

Sarah K. Burris

Matt Laslo
December 17, 2024 

RAW ST0RY

A drone. (Shutterstock.)

WASHINGTON — A top member of the House Intelligence Committee shared new insight Tuesday on drone activity flying above New Jersey.

The panel exited a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, on Tuesday afternoon after a classified briefing on the machines.

Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-CT) told Raw Story on Tuesday they are "not US government drones."

Last week, the Justice Department, FBI and Customs and Border Protection testified to the House committee that they didn't know what was happening over the state's skies.

ALSO READ: New Trump foreign affairs pick has history of forging ties with right-wing authoritarians

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) told reporters outside the SCIF that the federal government is taking it "very, very seriously."

"They did not find anything that would indicate it was foreign actors or even little green men," the congresswoman said.

A statement from National Security Counsel spokesperson John Kirby on Monday said, "Having closely looked at the tips and collated them as best we can from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and even stars that were mistakenly reported as drones."

The intersection of those three statements seems to be that the drones are some form of federal law enforcement.

"I didn't hear anything that was concerning as far as a threat to the public," said Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX).

"What I learned is that the American people should have faith that all hands are on deck, that the different agencies are talking to one another," said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA). "And they should not be taking actions into their own hands."

On Tuesday morning, Belleville, New Jersey, Mayor Michael Melham told Fox 5 in New York that the drones could be related to missing radioactive material. A small amount of radioactive material went missing in transit from a New Jersey cancer treatment center, New Jersey Shore News Network reported Monday, citing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The members of Congress did not mention the missing material following the briefing.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) will have a secure briefing with the Virginia delegation on Thursday in Langley, he told Raw Story, complaining that several agencies seem to be trying to dodge responsibility.

"We don't think they don't know stuff that they're not telling us. We're shocked about the stuff that they don't know," he said.

Gomez said he thinks the government should provide the public with an explanation to calm fears. Reporters asked if he had learned anything in the classified briefing that wasn't already public information, and he answered "no."

See the comments from Rep. Houlahan below or at the link here.

 

Listening for the right radio signals could be an effective way to track small drones

The Conversation
December 18, 2024 

A drone. (Shutterstock.)

The recent spate of unidentified drone sightings in the U.S., including some near sensitive locations such as airports and military installations, has caused significant public concern.

Some of this recent increase in activity may be related to a September 2023 change in U.S. Federal Aviation Administration regulations that now allow drone operators to fly at night. But most of the sightings are likely airplanes or helicopters rather than drones.

The inability of the U.S. government to definitively identify the aircraft in the recent incidents, however, has some people wondering, why can’t they?

I am an engineer who studies defense systems. I see radio frequency sensors as a promising approach to detecting, tracking and identifying drones, not least because drone detectors based on the technology are already available. But I also see challenges to using the detectors to comprehensively spot drones flying over American communities.

How drones are controlled

Operators communicate with drones from a distance using radio frequency signals. Radio frequency signals are widely used in everyday life such as in garage door openers, car key fobs and, of course, radios. Because the radio spectrum is used for so many different purposes, it is carefully regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.

Drone communications are only allowed in narrow bands around specific frequencies such as at 5 gigahertz. Each make and model of a drone uses unique communication protocols coded within the radio frequency signals to interpret instructions from an operator and to send data back to them. In this way, a drone pilot can instruct the drone to execute a flight maneuver, and the drone can inform the pilot where it is and how fast it is flying.

Identifying drones by radio signals

Radio frequency sensors can listen in to the well-known drone frequencies to detect communication protocols that are specific to each particular drone model. In a sense, these radio frequency signals represent a unique fingerprint of each type of drone.

In the best-case scenario, authorities can use the radio frequency signals to determine the drone’s location, range, speed and flight direction. These radio frequency devices are called passive sensors because they simply listen out for and receive signals without taking any active steps. The typical range limit for detecting signals is about 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) from the source.

These sensors do not represent advanced technology, and they are readily available. So, why haven’t authorities made wider use of them?

Drones were all the buzz in the Northeast at the end of 2024.

Challenges to using radio frequency sensors

While the monitoring of radio frequency signals is a promising approach to detecting and identifying drones, there are several challenges to doing so.

First, it’s only possible for a sensor to obtain detailed information on drones that the sensor knows the communication protocols for. Getting sensors that can detect a wide range of drones will require coordination between all drone manufacturers and some central registration entity.

In the absence of information that makes it possible to decode the radio frequency signals, all that can be inferred about a drone is a rough idea of its location and direction. This situation can be improved by deploying multiple sensors and coordinating their information.

Second, the detection approach works best in “quiet” radio frequency environments where there are no buildings, machinery or people. It’s not easy to confidently attribute the unique source of a radio frequency signal in urban settings and other cluttered environments. Radio frequency signals bounce off all solid surfaces, making it difficult to be sure where the original signal came from. Again, the use of multiple sensors around a particular location, and careful placement of those sensors, can help to alleviate this issue.

Third, a major part of the concern over the inability to detect and identify drones is that they may be operated by criminals or terrorists. If drone operators with malicious intent know that an area targeted for a drone operation is being monitored by radio frequency sensors, they may develop effective countermeasures. For example, they may use signal frequencies that lie outside the FCC-regulated parameters, and communication protocols that have not been registered. An even more effective countermeasure is to preprogram the flight path of a drone to completely avoid the use of any radio frequency communications between the operator and the drone.

Finally, widespread deployment of radio frequency sensors for tracking drones would be logistically complicated and financially expensive. There are likely thousands of locations in the U.S. alone that might require protection from hostile drone attacks. The cost of deploying a fully effective drone detection system would be significant.

There are other means of detecting drones, including radar systems and networks of acoustic sensors, which listen for the unique sounds drones generate. But radar systems are relatively expensive, and acoustic drone detection is a new technology.

The way forward

It was almost guaranteed that at some point the problem of unidentified drones would arise. People are operating drones more and more in regions of the airspace that have previously been very sparsely populated.

Perhaps the recent concerns over drone sightings are a wake-up call. The airspace is only going to become much more congested in the coming years as more consumers buy drones, drones are used for more commercial purposes, and air-taxis come into use. There’s only so much that drone detection technologies can do, and it might become necessary for the FAA to tighten regulation of the nation’s airspace by, for example, requiring drone operators to submit detailed flight plans.

In the meantime, don’t be too quick to assume those blinking lights you see in the night sky are drones.

Iain Boyd, Director of the Center for National Security Initiatives and Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What’s up with all these drone sightings?

The 7 biggest questions, answered as best we can.


by Li Zhou

Dec 17, 2024 

VOX

A drone is seen on December 12, 2024, over Ridge, New York. 

Grant Parpan/Newsday RM/Getty Images

Multiple states on the East Coast and beyond have fielded reports of mysterious drone sightings in the last few weeks, spurring questions and conspiracy theories about what they are, their purpose, and who might be operating them.

Details, so far, suggest many cases of misidentification — and no signs of risk. In a statement Thursday responding to sightings in New Jersey, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) emphasized that there’s “no evidence” the drones “pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus,” matching an earlier Pentagon statement. In a statement Monday, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby reiterated the point, noting that the sightings included commercial drones, hobbyist vehicles, law enforcement drones, planes, helicopters, and stars mistaken for drones. As federal authorities previously stated, their investigations revealed that many sightings were “actually manned aircraft, operating lawfully.”

Cases of “mistaken identity” have been widespread, particularly on social media. Following an investigation into drone sightings in his home state, New Jersey Sen.-elect Andy Kim concluded that many of the sightings he spotted were “almost certainly planes.” It’s also unsurprising that more people are seeing drones, a Pentagon official noted Monday, citing the “thousands of drones flown around the US on a daily basis.”

State leaders and congressional lawmakers have nonetheless expressed concerns about the lack of available information about the drone sightings and requested that the federal government learn and share more. President-elect Donald Trump has chimed in as well, alleging that the federal government has more information it hasn’t disclosed.


These gaps in information are largely responsible for fueling the anxiety around the sightings: Although many have been found to be legitimate aircraft, the lack of clear explanation has left residents rattled. And while the federal government has tamped down worries that these aircraft are a security threat, officials also haven’t provided much explanation for who’s responsible for them and what they’ve been doing.




There’s still information we don’t know about the drone sightings and what exactly is behind them. Here’s what we do know, however.

What’s going on — and where are the sightings?


Reports of drone sightings first began in New Jersey in mid-November, and were initially concentrated in Morris County, in the northern part of the state. In recent weeks, they’ve come from other New Jersey towns as well, including Bedminster, where Trump has a golf course, and Colts Neck, where the Naval Weapons Station Earle is located.

Since then, there have been sightings reported in at least five other states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. On Friday night, drones were spotted near the New York Stewart International Airport in Hudson Valley, prompting state transportation authorities to shut its runways down for one hour. Drones were reportedly also seen flying over a home in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, on Thursday night, in a cluster of 10 to 15 vehicles, and near Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, on Friday, forcing the facility to close its airspace for four hours.

Photos and videos of the sightings have shown a variety of different events, including multiple bright aircraft hovering over a neighborhood or a single aerial object traveling at night. It’s not yet clear if these sightings are linked or if they’re all separate from one another.

Are these actually drones?

The sightings appear to feature a mix of different aircraft, according to federal authorities, including both drones and passenger planes. Many of the reports they’ve evaluated have been manned aircraft operating as usual, officials say.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas noted in an interview with ABC News on Sunday that a fraction of these sightings were drones, while the rest were likely planes or other aircraft that were misidentified. “Some of those drone sightings are, in fact, drones,” Mayorkas said. “Some are manned aircraft that are commonly mistaken for drones.”



Pentagon Press Secretary Major Gen. Pat Ryder said Monday that the presence of drones — including near military bases — was also not uncommon as more of these aircraft now populate the skies. “As a result, it’s not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat,” he told reporters.


Of more than 5,000 tips they’ve received about such aircrafts, officials have deemed around 100 worthy of follow-up investigation, federal authorities said in a press briefing on Saturday.

Who’s behind them?


There’s no evidence these drones are from a foreign adversary or from the US military, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters in remarks last Wednesday.


Singh’s statement comes after some Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Chris Smith, have suggested that the drones could have been sent by foreign governments such as China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia.


That wouldn’t exactly be unprecedented — though not a drone, a Chinese surveillance balloon was shot down in US airspace in 2023, sparking a brief diplomatic crisis. China described the balloon as “mainly civilian” in purpose, but its flight path took it over “a number of sensitive sites,” according to the Pentagon.


Federal authorities have emphasized that the 2024 drone sightings aren’t a similar phenomenon, with Kirby noting they come from an array of commercial, law enforcement, and civilian sources.


One explanation for some of the increased activity could be new regulations, announced in 2023, that allow drones to fly at night, Mayorkas also told ABC News.

Have they caused any problems?


Some drones, like those near the Stewart International Airport and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, have prompted officials to close down these facilities’ respective runways and airspace for a brief period.


The FAA has also announced temporary flight restrictions over Trump’s Bedminster golf course and the Picatinny Arsenal Military Base in Morris County, New Jersey, after drones were seen flying over both.


Officials have emphasized, however, that there isn’t any indication that these drones pose a danger to the public.


Drone operations have also prompted a number of arrests. In Boston, two men were arrested on Saturday for operating a drone “dangerously close” to Logan International Airport. And in California, a Chinese citizen and legal US resident was arrested on December 10 for operating a drone and taking photos over Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County on November 30.

What’s the government doing about this?


Federal authorities have said they are closely monitoring the reports and sending specialized drone detection systems to New Jersey and New York to assist in state efforts.


State leaders, however, including New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, had previously expressed frustration at the pace and opaqueness of the federal response. Murphy and Hochul have both pressed President Joe Biden, with the former emphasizing that “residents deserve more concrete information” beyond what federal authorities had provided.


“While I am sincerely grateful for your administration’s leadership in addressing this concerning issue, it has become apparent that more resources are needed to fully understand what is behind this activity,” Murphy wrote. Trump has also accused the military and federal government of not “want[ing] to comment,” while alleging that they know more about what’s happening than has been disclosed to date.

How should people respond if they’re concerned?


The FAA encourages people to contact local law enforcement if they believe a drone is flying unsafely or poses a threat.


Law enforcement officials have discouraged drone-spotters from taking matters into their own hands, however, warning that shooting at drones, or what people believe to be drones, is both dangerous and illegal. A drone could, for example, create a safety hazard if it falls on people or property after being felled by gunfire, in addition to the danger of shooting at a misidentified manned aircraft.


Those warnings come after Trump previously stated that the solution to these drone sightings was to “shoot them down!!!” if the government failed to provide more information about their purpose and origin.

What’s next?


The House Intelligence Committee is expected to receive a classified briefing about the issue on Tuesday, and members of Congress have called for the federal government to share as much information as it can with the public about these sightings. For now, however, there’s little to do but wait — and hope we learn more soon.

Li Zhou is a politics reporter at Vox, where she covers Congress and elections. Previously, she was a tech policy reporter at Politico and an editorial fellow at the Atlantic.

SEE

The New Jersey Drone Flap: Why None of the Explanations are Acceptable

'They're on it': 'Combat-ready' drone army could reportedly be sent to stop mystery drones

Unidentified drones seen over US military base, industrial site in Germany

No Iranian drone 'mothership' off the United States launching drones, Pentagon says