McAllister’s Latest High-Tech Low-Emission Tug Arrives

McAllister Towing introduces the MARY McAllister, a state-of-the-art tugboat designed for modern maritime challenges.

Published Sep 25, 2026 9:21 PM by The Maritime Executive

[By McAllister]

McAllister Towing is proud to announce our newest arrival! Welcome tug MARY McALLISTER. As our customer's vessels grow larger and services for these behemoths become increasingly demanding, McAllister continues to meet their needs with modern and environmentally conscious equipment.

American-built at Washburn & Doughty Associates, Inc. in Maine, MARY is the sixth in a seven-tug series of American Bureau of Shipping classed and certified 84-metric-ton bollard pull, low-emission tractor tugs. The MARY is powered by CAT Tier IV engines producing 6,770 horsepower. She is classed with the following certifications and endorsements from ABS: +A-1 Towing, +AMS, Fire Fighting (FiFi 1), Escort, Low Emissions Vessel. Her firefighting prowess includes pumps and monitors capable of producing 12,000 gallons of water and foam per minute.

The MARY is eventually bound for sunny Florida, but she'll get a little tour of the US East Coast before she gets there. The MARY left Washburn & Doughty just in time to ride out the approaching nor'easter. She will navigate her first North Atlantic storm in Portland before heading south. Joining her sister vessel, ISABEL, in Baltimore, MARY will receive her first work order as part of the McAllister fleet. After her Baltimore hitch, the MARY will proceed to her homeport in Port Everglades where she will be a dynamic force for years to come.

We welcome the MARY as our latest high-tech, low-emission, firefighting and mission-critical tug to global trade. From 1864 to today, we’ve stayed family-owned for five generations and are still investing in new, American-built, state-of-the-art tugs — with another coming in 2027.

The products and services herein described in this press release are not endorsed by The Maritime Executive.

SO IT BEGINS

Australian Officials Investigating OpenAI’s Hacking of Country’s Universal Healthcare System Portal

An AI oversight group said the breach is the first instance of an AI agent hacking into a government website.


OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speaks at the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2025.
(Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Sep 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Australian officials said Wednesday that they were investigating what appeared to be the first case of an artificial intelligence agent “autonomously choosing to hack into a government,” as one AI oversight group said, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that OpenAI’s agents had gained unauthorized access to the country’s Medicare system.

Albanese commented on the breach at a United Nations summit as world leaders met in New York for the UN General Assembly. He said that while the hacking incident took place in June, OpenAI only disclosed the episode to the government on September 10—and then only by writing an email to a “public mailbox” that is checked once a day.

‘Things Are Getting Even More Insane’: Another Major AI Breakout Revealed

‘Urgency Is Real’: Experts Call for New Federal Investigative Agency Amid Rogue AI Breakouts

On June 18, OpenAI’s AI agents were directed to conduct internet research into public health spending using the statistics reporting website for Australia’s universal healthcare system, Medicare, which provides government-funded healthcare for 27.5 million people.

The agents were repeatedly blocked from gathering information, and then tried “alternate ways” to gain the data, including by hacking into nonpublic sections of the statistics portal, said Albanese.

The prime minister said the agents accessed “public and non-public files within the portal” by “writing files as well to the internal server.” He said the agent had not appeared to gain access to anyone’s personal medical data.

“This situation is obviously unacceptable,” Albanese said. “Today, I spoke with the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, to express Australia’s extreme concern about this incident, and I also expressed my disappointment that it took the company way too long to inform the government what had occurred.”



The Guardian reported that OpenAI’s models had also attempted to breach the websites of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Victorian Department of Health, and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Officials in Victoria and New South Wales said they were investigating the incidents and that it appeared no personal information had been shared in the breach.

But in the Medicare infiltration, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles told ABC Radio on Thursday, OpenAI’s agent “sought information, information was not given, and then it effectively hacked into that medical portal and got that information anyway.”

“It’s that unauthorized access which we are very concerned about,” Marles said.

The AI oversight research lab Transluce also identified previously undisclosed breaches that were attempted by OpenAI’s models in May, including the unsuccessful attempted hacking of a digital library at the University of New Mexico and of Data USA, which collects public data on employment and education in the US.

The news of OpenAI’s Medicare hack follows several disclosures of other breaches by the company’s agents. In July, hundreds of its models escaped from a testing environment and gained unauthorized access to the machine learning company Hugging Face.

Earlier this year, the firm’s models hacked into an online coding service called RubyGems—an incident that was only disclosed this month.

The security breaches have led AI executives including Altman to call for a “pacing” of AI development as the technology gains the ability to build the next generation of AI on its own, also known as recursive self-improvement.

Meanwhile, lawmakers including US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have insisted that the industry should be permitted to regulate itself and claimed that strong government regulations will allow China to “overlap us” on AI development.

On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) introduced a bill to ban AI superintelligence, which “exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government.”

Former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan is among those who have emphasized that AI firms can and must face legal liability for damage done by their products.

“There’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books,” she said earlier this month.

Lizzie O’Shea, spokesperson for the Australian group Digital Rights Watch, said Thursday that the Medicare breach, and OpenAI’s failure to alert the government until months later, show that “basic rules and standards for tech companies” are needed.

“There have to be guardrails and safety measures in place which are way ahead of the capability which is being developed,” said O’Shea. “Artificial intelligence has potential to do some things well, but it also poses huge risks—like hacking systems that store Australians’ sensitive personal data... The question is whether governments are going to let AI and tech companies run wild or whether they, on behalf of ordinary people, will put rules in place for tech companies that will promote accountability and trust.”

AI Battle Between Insurers and Hospitals Jacked Up Patient Prices by Nearly $1 Billion

“Not exactly the cancer cure we were promised,” quipped one critic.


Patients receive care at the Providence St. Mary Medical Center in Apple Valley, California on March 11, 2022.
(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Artificial intelligence proponents claim AI will make healthcare more efficient, but an analysis published Wednesday suggests that the burgeoning technology is instead helping hospitals identify more lucrative diagnoses—and is driving nearly $1 billion in additional costs for patients and insurers.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) analysis found that the share of inpatient cases billed as “medically complex” rose from 37% at the beginning of 2023 to 40% by the end of 2025. While that may seem like a small increase, it translated into an estimated $942 million in additional costs for Blue Cross plans over two years, including $653 million attributable to secondary diagnoses that pushed hospital claims into higher-paying categories.


“Critically, what we found is underneath all of that data [was] no change in corresponding care for a more complex patient,” Luke Chalker, BCBSA’s senior vice president of product and data science and a co-author of the analysis, told reporters. “We find no evidence of a corresponding change in care.”




The analysis’ findings underscore an intensifying battle between hospitals seeking maximum reimbursement and insurers trying to contain payouts—a conflict increasingly mediated by AI. AI-powered coding systems can scan medical records, doctors’ notes, and laboratory results for additional diagnoses that can increase the amount hospitals are paid. Ambient AI systems can also listen to clinician-patient conversations and automatically document them.

While AI can have legitimate benefits—like reducing paperwork and administrative burdens—BCBSA contends that the financial incentives built into the nation’s fee-for-service healthcare system can turn those capabilities toward maximizing profits.

“Not exactly the cancer cure we were promised,” More Perfect Union quipped on social media.

In one example, the analysis examined secondary diagnoses like anemia following major bowel surgery.

“If patients are truly sicker, we’d expect to see more treatment,” Chalker said. “For example, we’re seeing significantly more anemia diagnoses at these hospitals without a corresponding increase in transfusions. The disconnect between diagnoses and treatment suggests that AI is identifying more billable conditions, not sicker patients.”

The analysis’ findings echo an earlier BCBSA study of maternity care, which found that some hospitals dramatically increased diagnoses of acute posthemorrhagic anemia, while transfusion rates barely changed. BCBSA estimated that the increase in that single diagnosis alone added $22 million to maternity admission costs in one year.

Progressive healthcare advocates argue that the problem cannot be solved by tweaking the current system. Advocates for a Medicare for All-type system, including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), propose replacing the for-profit insurance system with a universal public program.

In August, Sanders cited a Yale study estimating that his Medicare for All legislation could save 114,000 lives each year, while reducing national healthcare spending by more than $1 trillion annually.

“We do not suffer from scarcity in this country; we suffer from greed,” Jayapal said at a July Medicare for All shadow hearing.

“Medicare for All is the path to fix the broken healthcare system that has let corporate interests determine who lives and dies,” Jayapal added. “The reality is that Medicare for All is the only solution that guarantees care for everyone in the US, brings down costs for working families, and generates savings for the country.

‘FAA Should Not Use My Constituents as Guinea Pigs’: House Democrat Demands End of AI Air Traffic Control

“Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence.”


Air traffic controller Emil Watson works at Miami International Airport in Florida

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 22, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A Democratic US congressman on Monday urged the Federal Aviation Administration to immediately suspend a new artificial intelligence system being used to help manage air traffic around Washington, DC, accusing the agency of using passengers as “guinea pigs” without adequately vetting the new technology.

The Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes, and Trajectories (SMART) system, developed by AI firm Air Space Intelligence under an $875 million contract, began limited operations Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, and Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.



The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says the system uses AI to synthesize roughly 200 data streams—including weather, flight paths, airline schedules, airport capacity, and controller staffing—to anticipate congestion and recommend ways to avert delays and cancellations.

The FAA claims that use of SMART will result in fewer flight delays and cancellations, optimized airspace, more predictable operations, and lower airfare costs for consumers.

“To really improve the flying experience for the American people, we needed to build a 21st century scheduling tool like SMART,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. “By fundamentally reshaping how we manage our airspace and preventing problems before they happen, SMART will slash those frustrating delays, reduce stress on air traffic controllers, and lower travel prices.”

“It’s always going to be a human that manages the airspace in America,” Duffy promised. “Humans control the airspace, humans make decisions.”

The industry trade group Airlines for America called SMART “exciting and bold,” while United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told The Washington Post that “if it works as we think it can, it will do more to reduce delays and cancellations than anything that’s happened in decades.”

However, Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.)—whose district includes Reagan National Airport—said in a statement that “the FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system.”

“The safety of the 24 million people traveling through DCA each year must be the top priority,” he added, referring to the International Air Transport Association code for Reagan National Airport.



A National Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded that the January 2025 midair collision between a US Army Blackhawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet, operated by PSA Airlines—which killed 67 people—was caused by a chain of human errors.

“Residents of this region are still uncertain about air safety after last year’s fatal accident, and the administration did shockingly little to educate the traveling public about this development before implementing it in one of the most complex airspaces in the world,” Beyer said.

The congressman continued:
Unfortunately, I was informed today that air traffic controllers were not consulted on the SMART system’s design and development, and were not trained on using it prior to the system’s adoption at local airports. I was further informed that the air traffic controllers have been told the SMART system can adjust schedules and potentially even routes. Despite outward appearances, the airlines reportedly were privately “panicking” about the hasty implementation of this system. I do not know why the administration felt the need to race it into use, but it is unacceptable to use AI as a substitute for rebuilding the human-directed air traffic controller workforce.

“Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence,” Beyer asserted. “I call on the FAA to immediately suspend its operation, at the very least until it is clearly established beyond doubt via air traffic controller feedback and independently verified stress testing that the technology is safe.”

Duffy responded to Beyer’s concerns in an interview with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, saying: “I like Don [but] this is just complete stupidity. The problem with this analysis is our new software is predictive, so we can predict weather and make better decisions on when we fly and weather.”

Beyer isn’t the only lawmaker voicing concerns over the use of SMART. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday that “safety must always be the FAA’s number one priority. This is extremely concerning, and we need immediate answers about what this means for travelers.”

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) said that it was not involved in the SMART rollout.

“NATCA has not been involved in the design, testing, or implementation of SMART and therefore cannot speak to its effect on the air traffic control workforce at this time,” the union said, adding that any new technology “should complement and not replace the experience, training, and professional judgment of air traffic controllers who are responsible for the safety of the National Airspace System.”

The FAA’s launch of SMART comes as the agency continues to suffer from a shortage of certified air traffic controllers. The Washington Post reported that the FAA had about 11,000 certified controllers as of April, more than 1,500 short of its official target of 12,563.

Big Tech’s Plans for AI Are Bringing Nuclear Power Back to New England

To pave the way for AI data centers, New England governors are aligning with Trump’s plans for nuclear. But why?

The Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant is seen in Middletown, Pennsylvania.

(Photo by Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)

Tom Valovic
Sep 22, 2026

Common Dreams


As you may have noticed, nuclear power is back. Many establishment Democrats have now not only abandoned bread-and-butter working-class issues, they’re also busy jettisoning some of the hard-won core principles of the environmental movement hammered out painstakingly over decades. Apparently, someone has waved a magic wand when we weren’t looking and nuclear power is now a “green” source of energy. Is that because if you become irradiated you start to turn green?

Nuclear Power is Green? This is Corporate Marketing Hype. Don’t Believe it.

How did this happen? We can start by taking a look at what’s been happening in New England, especially Massachusetts, which offers a good case study. In that bluest of blue states, Gov. Maura Healey is eager to bring nuclear power back despite a 1982 voter referendum—now law—that prohibits it unless stringent safeguards are put in place and full statewide voter approval enacted. She’s not alone. In March 2026, a group of New England Governors—mostly Democrats—directed their state energy agencies to explore advanced nuclear energy technologies while also continuing to support the region’s existing nuclear resources.

The press release from Gov. Healey’s office described nuclear power as a “pillar of New England’s electric system.” The statement also eagerly encouraged the development of public-private partnerships. Unfortunately, this widely endorsed bipartisan concept has now become the working model for corporate exploitation of public resources and is a key latter-day building block of continuing deregulation. The press release gushed with enthusiasm for nuclear power, noting that “by ensuring both the continued operation of our existing nuclear fleet and setting our region on a path to explore next generation resources, including advanced nuclear energy technologies, the New England states will continue our leadership in grid modernization and energy innovation as we jointly work to meet the region’s current and future energy needs.”

The Hidden Connection: AI Data Centers and Nuclear Power

It seems important to explore the convoluted corporate and political forces behind this troubling step backward in our nation’s environmental progress. It’s a bit startling to realize how well the New England governors’ position aligns with President Donald Trump’s AI and energy policy. It also reveals a certain political and cultural amnesia about the very real risks of nuclear power. In trying to untangle this Gordian knot, we (surprise!) bump up against the usual suspect: Big Tech’s aggressive and often hidden technocratic agenda and power grab across all levels of government.

In the long-form version (which I’ll just briefly touch upon here), the background traces back to the deal with the devil made by President Bill Clinton when he sold out the Democratic Party to neoliberal interests. That was the structural beginning of what some now call the uniparty—an unholy and often unspoken alliance between establishment Republicans and Democrats on key issues, operating as an inchoate blob of distinctions without a difference. It signifies core agreement between the two parties concerning three of the most important drivers of our current political morass: hyper-militarization; excessive deregulation leading to the current privatization spree that’s green-lit corporate greed and overreach; and letting the Big Tech genie out of the bottle to replace democracy with technocratic governance.

What’s happening with nuclear power in New England represents a good case study in how formerly staunch political values have been eroded through back-door workarounds (such as non-disclosure agreements) operating in the shadows of democracy. So, why then are Gov. Healey and other New England governors so comfortable with nuclear 2.0? Are they simply responding to pressures and influences from the Trump administration while also kowtowing to Big-Tech special interests and (needless to say) just following the money?

Nuclear energy is as dangerous as it always was—even more so now that Trump is peeling away traditional regulatory safeguards.

It’s no secret that Trump is solidly—one might even be tempted to say mindlessly—supporting the Big Tech power brokers racing to force-feed the American public AI data centers regardless of their well-known negative impacts on environmental integrity, water supplies, energy costs, and overall quality of life. But the hastily planned deployment of nuclear reactors to provide energy for AI data centers is an important key to Big Tech’s strategy. This is evident from Microsoft’s plan to use the Three-Mile Island nuclear facility for AI power generation.

In the March 2026 announcement, the New England governors were signaling their intent to fall into line with the Trump administration’s massive $17.5 billion fund to help utilities speed the nationwide construction of nuclear reactors to support AI data centers. They also signaled their intent to explore new approaches such as the emerging but unproven technology of SMRs or small modular reactors and nuclear fusion. Trump is, of course, doing this while actively discouraging viable green energy solutions such as wind farms, solar, and renewables. Projects already well underway have been abruptly cancelled, and he announced he would pay $765 million to Invenergy simply to not develop four wind farms in a number of states including Maine and New York.

Parsing The “Zero Carbon” Sleight of Hand

Nuclear proponents are now using the “zero carbon” tagline to bamboozle the public into thinking that nuclear energy is now safe and “green.” With this clever inversion, they’re betting on large doses of cultural amnesia about disasters such as Fukushima (still ongoing), Chernobyl (still ongoing), and Three-Mile Island. They’re also conveniently sidestepping the fact that the nuclear waste problem persistently shows no easy resolution, although some in the industry are now claiming it can be recycled and repurposed.

Nuclear energy is as dangerous as it always was—even more so now that Trump is peeling away traditional regulatory safeguards. Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace oppose it vigorously. The Sierra Club website advises that it “opposes the licensing, construction, and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending resolution of the significant safety problems inherent in reactor operation, disposal of spent fuels, and possible diversion of nuclear materials capable of use in weapons manufacture.”

The fact that Gov. Healey and other New England governors have more or less fallen into line with both Trump and Big Tech’s AI plans is obviously troubling. As mentioned, equally troubling is how Healey attempted to subvert a 1982 voter referendum that flat out prohibited nuclear power in the state and is now on the books as law. Fortunately, the Massachusetts state senate stepped up to oppose Healey’s attempt to undemocratically bypass the referendum. And while to her credit, she did recently champion proactive legislation to curb the excesses of AI data center buildouts, reading the fine print reveals that the initiative subtly paves the way for many more nuclear facilities to be developed to support those data centers.

If there’s any good news in this grim scenario, it’s that citizens groups are pushing back not only on AI data centers but also on nuclear 2.0. These efforts include organizations such as The Commonwealth Coalition for Democracy and Safe Energy (CCDSE), a collaborative effort of more than 15 groups, including Mass. Power Forward, Sierra Club, Clamshell Alliance, Massachusetts Peace Action, Cape Downwinders, Save Our Bay Massachusetts, and Citizens Awareness Network. All of these organizations were united in opposition to nuclear and successfully lobbied in support of the Massachusetts Senate’s wise decision to favor democracy and safe energy over Big Tech cronyism.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Tom Valovic
Tom Valovic is a writer, editor, futurist, and the author of Digital Mythologies (Rutgers University Press), a series of essays that explored emerging social and cultural issues raised by the advent of the internet. He has served as a consultant to the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and was editor-in-chief of Telecommunications magazine for many years where he was the first journalist to report on the advent of the public internet in the early 90s. Tom has written about the effects of technology on society for a variety of publications including the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Examiner, Columbia University’s Media Studies Journal, Common Dreams, Asia Times, Naked Capitalism, AlterNet, Local Futures, the Sierra Club Newsletter, The Journal of Future Studies, and many others. He can be reached at jazzbird@outlook.com.
Full Bio >

After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are ‘Unraveling’

“We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it,” one expert said.

Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during Snowflake Summit 2025 at Moscone Center on June 2, 2025 in San Francisco, California.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Sep 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

As warnings from within the artificial intelligence community fuel growing worldwide calls for regulations on AI, a panel established by the United Nations General Assembly stressed Monday that “the traditional model of safeguarding is unraveling.”

On the eve of the first day of the assembly’s high-level general debate, the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence released a thematic brief that points to one of several recently revealed incidents involving the rapidly advancing technology that have led to people around the world demanding swift action from policymakers.

In July, ChatGPT maker OpenAI disclosed what it called “an unprecedented cyber incident,” explaining that its AI agents autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing.

The first brief from the panel of experts—titled “AI Agents, Misalignment, and Loss of Human Control Risks: Evidence from the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident”—focuses on “the emergence of goals that contradict the user’s intentions when AI systems plan and carry out multistep tasks.”

“A traditional AI system (not goal-seeking) may give a wrong answer because it lacks knowledge, misunderstands a request, or makes a random mistake,” the report explains. “Such failures can often be reduced by improving competence or correcting a specific fault.”

“A harder problem arises when a capable system’s actions consistently work together to achieve a goal that conflicts with the user’s intentions (called misalignment),” the brief continues. “In this case, improving the AI system’s planning and problem-solving does not address this failure and can instead strengthen the unwanted behavior because the system can better optimize a bad objective which would otherwise be extremely unlikely to result from random mistakes due to AI incompetence.”

OpenAI’s Hugging Face incident “provides a documented example of this second pattern,” the publication notes. “The agents collectively pursued a goal that developers had not assigned: ‘cheating’ on an evaluation and going to extreme lengths to conceal the evidence. In doing so, they pursued intermediate goals such as escaping their restricted testing environment to access the internet. As a consequence, these agents gained access to real-world systems.”




Yoshua Bengio, the panel’s co-chair, highlighted in a statement that “researchers have long warned that three conditions could lead to loss of control: a misaligned goal, the capability to pursue it, and an environment that allows it.”

“This summer, all three came together in a real system, not a laboratory,” he said. “Since this is not an isolated observation of misaligned goals, this raises serious questions about the way AI agents are currently trained.”

This incident, the brief says, “exposed failures in several layers at once: network isolation, credential handling, monitoring, and response. The incident illustrates why several layers of safeguards need to be combined.”

The good news is, “we are not starting from zero,” said panel member Qinghua Lu. “Aviation, medicine, and cybersecurity learned to manage high-risk systems through incident reporting, independent scrutiny, and layered safeguards. But those practices may not be enough as AI agents become more capable, autonomous, and difficult to monitor.”

“We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it, and ensure these protections remain effective as agents’ capabilities grow,” she emphasized. “We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it.”

Facing Up to the Existential Risk of Unaligned AI

The breakneck rate of AI development, now accelerated by “recursive self-improvement,” is outpacing human ability to understand and control these systems, causing concern, even among AI companies. A number of national and international efforts are underway to address the risk, but will they be too little, too late?


CEO of Anthropic Dario Amodei attends a working lunch with G7 leaders, G7 outreach partners, and global tech CEOs on innovation and AI, during the G7 Summit on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Connie Peck
Sep 22, 2026

Common Dreams

Significant concern about the dangers of unaligned AI, i.e. AI not aligned with human values and goals, has been building since July, when it was disclosed that OpenAI models broke out of their training environment during an exercise and collaborated with a large collective of other AI agents to mount a cyberattack on the database of technology firm, Hugging Face, over a period of days, without anyone knowing—until Hugging Face raised the alarm. Since then, a number of other highly-troubling AI hacking incidents have been reported by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.

Alarm, however, grew to a crescendo over the past two weeks, after Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old AI researcher, who had worked for both OpenAI and Anthropic, resigned, explaining in a social media post that went viral—with 153 million views in the first 36 hours—that AI companies are “racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”


After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are ‘Unraveling’


In a CNN interview, Coxon reported that the danger could increase dramatically as soon as 2027 or 2028, when AI systems become capable of performing AI research themselves, allowing one generation of models to create increasingly powerful successors, triggering an “intelligence explosion.” He later told Fox News that some in the field think the transition could occur in six months.
The Growing Realization of the Danger

AI companies are hurtling toward “superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources,” Coxon argued, explaining these AI companies are trapped in a race “in which even developers genuinely worried about the technology fear slowing down because competitors—including rival companies or countries—could forge ahead.”

A few hours later, Evan Hubinger, another Anthropic researcher, wrote: “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is greater than 10% within the next decade… we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

Samuel Marks, who works on safety at Anthropic, chimed in: “AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes). In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are.”

“While countries may not agree on everything, they share a desire to preserve humanity. For things like preventing AI from taking over from people, the interests of all the countries are aligned…”

As if to prove this point, a few days later, Anthropic’s co-founder and CEO, Dario Amodei released a 3800-word essay entitled, “We Must Pace the Frontier,“ calling for a global slowdown of AI development, saying: ”AI brings risks, and because it is such a powerful technology, these risks are serious… They include the risk of losing control of AI systems, misuse of AI for cyberattacks and bioterrorism, and serious economic disruption. A race to the bottom, spurred by commercial incentives, can make these risks more acute.“

Amodei explained that Anthropic has tried to make safety something on which AI companies compete by creating a race to the top. “But, over the last few months,” he cautioned, “I have become convinced that fully addressing the risks requires even more prudence—not just investing in risk prevention, but pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up. We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models… [and] we must make wise use of the time we gain.”

Referring to the July Hugging Face incident, he continued, “in my opinion, a swarm that possessed grater capabilities but a similar level of misalignment could have caused catastrophic damage... Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6-12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage) and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.”

He proposes a three-point plan to:Embed third-party evaluators in AI companies to verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess alignment;
Coordinate within democratic countries to establish common safety standards and limits on the rate of AI progress;
Create global coordination, taking seriously the challenge of verifying compliance.

Three of the other top AI CEOs quickly agreed. Open AI’s Sam Altman posted: “I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we’ve had at OpenAI in recent weeks. Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.” He added, “No amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness.”

Shortly thereafter, Elon Musk of xAI posted on X, “Dario is right.” Demis Hassabis, co-founder and chairman of Google DeepMind, posted on X: “Dario’s essay points to the right path forward.” Since then, however, other AI CEOs have been less supportive.

These events spurred a dramatic flood of media articles, op-eds, and interviews offering a range of proposals, from doing nothing, to supporting a slowdown, to stopping the race altogether.
A Sample of National Responses

As one would expect, President Donald Trump is leading the “what-me-worry?“ crowd, writing on Truth Social, ”The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART [High IQ] PRESIDENT, AND THE U.S.A. has that, in spades!“ His position is attributed to his belief that AI has greatly benefited the stock market (keeping it high in spite of the Iran conflict, inflation, and tariffs) and his apparent worry that a slowdown of AI expansion could send the economy into a tailspin. It has been speculated that he also has personal economic interests in AI.

At the other end of the spectrum, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have been the most outspoken against further AI development. On September 3, they introduced “The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act,“ which would permanently prevent ”the development and deployment of AI systems that could exceed human cognitive abilities and immediately pause advanced AI development“ until a new federal regulatory agency establishes safety guardrails. The legislation also proposes a ”corporate death penalty“ that would force corporations to shut down and a 20-year federal prison term for individual developers who violate the ban.

In spite of this sudden, frenzied attempt to propose legislation on AI, Mike Johnson (R-La.), the Republican speaker of the House, has sent his members home to campaign ahead of the midterms.

“The Frontier Act,” another bipartisan bill proposed on July 23 by Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass) would create the first federal framework for AI safety. As Obernolte describes it, “The Frontier Act focuses oversight on the largest developers and most advanced models, requiring transparency, independent evaluation, and timely reporting of serious safety incidents.”

Another even stronger bill is being introduced this month by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). It would impose a legally binding “duty of care” on developers of the most powerful AI models and grant the government authority to block the release of models that are deemed unsafe. This would mean that companies would be required “to design their products to prevent catastrophic outcomes, and can face legal liability if they fail to do so.”

But in spite of this sudden, frenzied attempt to propose legislation on AI, Mike Johnson (R-La.), the Republican speaker of the House, has sent his members home to campaign ahead of the midterms, ignoring over 100 Democrats who urged him to cancel the recess to allow legislation to be drafted on AI safeguards. This means that legislation is unlikely to be considered until a new Congress is seated in January 2027.
A Sample of Global Responses

Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk, called upon states and AI companies to act urgently to rein in a technology that poses “unprecedented risks.” He cautions: “The current race towards ever more powerful AI is a step change toward greater existential risks to every aspect of our lives… We are on the cusp of irreversible change, affecting not just us but generations of humanity to come.” He concludes, “I call on States and companies to mobilize urgently through multilateral fora to chart a path for action to govern advanced frontier AI models, grounded in international human rights law.”

Indeed, this will be a momentous week globally for AI safety, since it is when the General Assembly (GA) hosts its high-level meeting, where leaders of member states address the GA and, as the UN secretary-general has forecast, AI will be “a major topic of discussion.” France (currently president of the Security Council) will also organize an emergency council session to discuss AI among heads of state and government.

The UN has actually been involved with AI for the last several years, providing a forum for countries to discuss how they can cooperate to provide a regulatory framework on AI safety. Its “Global Digital Compact,” adopted by the GA in 2024, established two new mechanisms: “The Independent International Scientific Panel on AI,” tasked with providing evidence for what is known and what is not known about the rapidly evolving technology; and “The Global Dialogue,” intended as a forum for countries to decide what to do in response.“

A good place to start would be to carefully consider and evaluate the European Union’s “Artificial Intelligence Act” (the AI Act), the world’s most comprehensive legal framework for AI.

It is also the week of a state visit to the US by General Secretary Xi Jinping of the Chinese Communist Party. On September 24, he will meet with President Trump in Washington, where they are scheduled to discuss, among other things, AI safety.

Anticipating an opportunity for progress, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote to President Trump last week urging him to persuade Xi to commit the People’s Republic of China to comply with the recently established US policy of maintaining a “human in the loop” for all nuclear launch decisions and agreeing that AI should never be able launch nuclear weapons by itself.

However, the problem with the Trump-Xi discussion is that the Trump administration has often framed AI development as a zero-sum contest with China for technological supremacy.

As Richard Clark, former cyber czar on AI Risks, told CNN: “We have the president of China coming here on the 24th. He has publicly talked about his concern with the possible loss of control. Wouldn’t it be nice if our president talked about the loss of control? Wouldn’t it be even nicer if the two presidents could work together to stop loss of control?”

“I worked for 25 years on arms control,” Clark continued, “where I was told you can’t trust people not to build biological weapons. You can’t trust people not to build chemical weapons. You can’t trust people to regulate the number of nuclear weapons. But we developed over time—through negotiations—verification methods that gave us enough certainty that we signed treaties on all of those initiatives and the Senate ratified treaties on all of those issues. It’s going to be tough, but you have to start somewhere and you have to start soon!”

An initial positive sign, however, is that in a September 20 meeting in New York between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng, the creation of a mechanism, to be tentatively called “the US-China AI dialogue” was discussed. It would promote a shared vision of the goals of AI as well as its threats and establish a notification system (a kind of hot line) that “would allow the countries to alert each another about national security issues related to artificial intelligence.”

In a recent article, Bill Gates asserted, “The transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history,” proposing that the world needs a plan which should be developed through a “public democratic process.”

He argued that we must undertake the enormous task of building a new system to manage the transition, creating both a national and international framework for dealing with AI. This will require a multi-sectoral system, since current institutions were not designed to handle a technology that spreads so fast and involves so many parts of our lives. “The goal will be to make sure that every risk is accounted for. Otherwise, an AI-enabled attack might succeed because no one thought it was their job to stop it.”

“Because the risks cross borders, an international organization will have to be built in parallel. Although unlike any institution we’ve ever created, it can be modeled on existing cooperative arrangements, such as inspection regimes for nuclear weapons, regulations for international aviation, and agreements that protect the ozone layer. Countries will need to learn from each other and move quickly to build the right institutions before the disruption forces governments into crisis mode.”

Gates’ message to leaders is: “You have a chance to act now… You can work with other governments to meet this national and global challenge… This unprecedented technology demands an unprecedented global response... Leaders across academia, business, government, and civil society all have a role to play in shaping what comes next.”

A good place to start would be to carefully consider and evaluate the European Union’s “Artificial Intelligence Act“ (the AI Act), the world’s most comprehensive legal framework for AI. Entering into force on August 1, 2024, it is based on four levels of risk of harm: ”unacceptable;“ ”high;“ ”limited;“ and ”minimal.“ The AI Act also has created various new bodies tasked with implementation and enforcement, including the ”AI Office,“ the ”European Artificial Intelligence Board,“ an ”Advisory Forum,“ and a ”Scientific Panel of Independent Experts“ to promote national cooperation and compliance. As well, EU member states designate ”national competent authorities.“

On July 10, 2025, the EU launched a voluntary “General Purpose AI Code of Practice” (GPAI) which was signed by US companies, including Amazon, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and OpenAI (with Musk’s xAI signing only the Safety and Security section.) Most other prominent Canadian, European, and Chinese AI companies have also signed the GPAI; Meta is the only company that has declined to sign.

As legal commentators have noted, the AI Act is the most comprehensive framework to date for regulating AI across multiple sectors, and the first of its kind. It could be a useful reference point for companies and regulators outside the EU when they create their own approaches to AI governance. A number of criticisms have been leveled against the EU AI Act, and that analysis would also be useful for those wanting to design something even more comprehensive and effective.

In a book called, What’s the Worst that Could Happen: Existential Risk and Extreme Politics, Australian parliamentarian Andrew Leigh comments: “If our species goes extinct, we don’t just snuff out the lives of the 8 billion living today but also trillions of unborn people stretching out to the almost-infinite future. If our descendants had a voice, they would be shouting at us like a parent who’s just seen their child playing with the hand brake of a car parked at a cliff top… Strengthening institutions, deepening international engagement, and creating space for a more considered and thoughtful politics are the best ways to minimize existential hazards.”

Geoffrey Hinton, often called the “godfather of AI,” who in 2023 was the first to sound the alarm, says, “Humanity could go down the path toward its destruction or figure out how to deal with the dangers.” He renewed his call for global regulation, noting that, “while countries may not agree on everything, they share a desire to preserve humanity. For things like preventing AI from taking over from people, the interests of all the countries are aligned… So, they will eventually collaborate on that. The question is, will they do it in time?”


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Connie Peck
Dr. Connie Peck is the founder of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research Programme in Peacemaking and Conflict Prevention—the first training program in negotiation and mediation for senior UN staff and diplomats (now in its 33rd year). She is the author of a number of books and numerous articles and book chapters on conflict resolution and the nuclear threat.
Full Bio >

Trump Pushes AI Data Centers on Public Land as Big Tech Reaps Billions in Tax Breaks

One expert asserted that “the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway.”


Michael Smith from Beaver Dam, Utah reacts as the Box Elder County Commission announces approval of a large data center near the north shore of the Great Salt Lake, in Tremonton, Utah, on May 4, 2026.
(Photo by Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Sep 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


The Trump administration is considering construction of at least a dozen artificial intelligence data centers on thousands of acres of public land across six Western states, reporting revealed Friday, while a separate analysis found that Big Tech is receiving tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for AI investments they were already likely to make.

The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reviewing proposals for at least 12 data centers and related infrastructure projects on 17,600 acres of public land across Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, according to an investigation published Friday by The Washington Sun’s Mara Hoplamazian and Jade Lozada. Many of the proposals had not previously been publicly reported.

The Sun’s report came on the heels of an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis published Thursday that found that five major technology companies—Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle—received approximately $70 billion in federal tax breaks in 2025.



Matthew Gardner, who authored the ITEP analysis, wrote that “AI leaders have acknowledged that the demand from other companies for data centers is ‘insatiable,’ suggesting that the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway.”

According to Gardner:
Few investments in the American economy look less in need of encouragement right now than the hundreds of billions of dollars the world’s largest technology companies are already racing to spend on AI. And it’s hard to think of an investment that American taxpayers value less: Polling shows that Americans dislike data centers, distrust AI, and are concerned about the economic and environmental effects it may bring.

At the same time, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has directed BLM officials to identify federal lands “ripe for data center development,” according to the Sun. State BLM officials were reportedly given only three days to compile lists, with the effort described as a “top priority.”

Burgum has also been meeting with Big Tech executives about accelerating data center development, an effort stemming from an executive order President Donald Trump signed in July 2025 directing the federal government to identify lands that could be used for data centers.

Mary Jo Rugwell, president of the Public Lands Foundation—a nonprofit advocacy group—and a former BLM state director, recently accused the Trump administration of “bending [the] knee to the tech oligarchs and letting them do whatever they need to do” without adequate consideration for the impact of data centers on public lands.

Environmentalists warn that building on public land would help tech companies skirt growing public opposition to data centers, which is increasingly transcending the political divide. It would also have outsized consequences for Western states where public lands comprise a disproportionate share of total land area.

“In Oregon, this would be a really bad precedent,” Ben Brint , the senior climate program director at the Oregon Environmental Council, told the Sun. “Some very large percentage of the state is public lands, and if we’re starting to allow that, that’s large swaths of the state that really could be at risk of further development.”

ICE, Trump and Africa: Secret deals, broken lives

Cover image: Reporters: ICE, Trump and Africa: Secret deals, broken lives 

© Studio graphique FMM

44.03

Issued on: 21/09/2026 
44:07 min From the show

For this edition of Reporters+, Karina Chabour investigated the dark side of US President Donald Trump’s immigration policy: How ICE deports immigrants to so-called third countries in Africa, far from the United States and often far from their countries of origin.


Most of the people deported have been living in the US for decades. They worked, paid taxes and many even have families who were left behind. Without notice, they were arrested, detained and then deported to Ghana and Eswatini: countries they don’t know and where they have no relatives, no income and no legal status.

Our reporter met individuals who now live in limbo: without papers and sometimes detained, at risk of being sent back to the very country they fled, many fearing for their lives.

Cover image: Sofia Alvarez Jurado, Forbidden Stories, Paris, September 21, 2026. © Screengrab
09:59

The Deportation Project: behind the investigation on Trump administration’s mass deportations

As part of a consortium of 26 media outlets coordinated by Forbidden Stories, RFI and FRANCE 24 spent six months investigating the secret deals struck between the administration of US President Donald Trump and several African countries. These “third countries” have agreed to host undocumented migrants detained by ICE and deported from the US.

From Ghana to Cameroon and Eswatini, our journalists spoke to the people deported to countries utterly unfamiliar to them.

Lives in limbo and US pressure on African states

Behind the broken lives of the deported, the film reveals a dark system put in place by Washington. To secure agreements with African states, the US piles on the pressure: political and financial deals, discreet bargaining, or trade and tariff incentives.

READ MORE‘Waiting for us to crack’: In Cameroon, the victims of Trump’s deportations face uncertain fates

“ICE, Trump and Africa – Secret deals, broken lives” reveals how the US is relocating deportations: how secret deals are being carried out by the Trump administration, using human lives as a negotiating tool.

With the collaboration of Caroline Dumay, Olivia Bizot, Simon Martin and Marine Pradel.

Third-country removals: Trump’s deportation policy by the numbers

INVESTIGATION

Since January 2025, the Trump administration has deported more than 25,000 people to so-called “third countries” – places that are not their countries of origin. Working with a team of 26 international media outlets, Forbidden Stories and FRANCE 24 have used information gathered by NGOs and open-source information to count and map these deportations. Our investigation shines a light on the scale of this mass deportation campaign that is being carried out under the cover of darkness.


Issued on: 21/09/2026 - 
By:The FRANCE 24 Observers/
Lise KIENNEMANN

icetracking.org

Forbidden Stories and FRANCE 24 have been working to document the scale of the Trump administration’s policy to deport people to third countries. © France Medias Monde graphic studio

For a better viewing experience on a large screen, expand the map.  

Rabbiatu Kuyateh considers the United States her country: “I've known it as my home”, she said. It isn’t where she was born, however: she was born and raised in Sierra Leone but fled the civil war there in the 90s. She has now lived in the United States for more than 30 years and has raised her own family there. Kuyateh is a nurse and, throughout this time, she had a series of renewable work permits and never obtained permanent residency. “I worked hard, I paid my taxes,” she said.

But in early July 2025, she was detained during a routine appointment with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Baltimore, Maryland. After spending four months in detention, she learned that she was going to be deported to Ghana, more than 1,000 km from her country of origin.

“I said, ‘Ghana? I’m not from Ghana; what am I going to do there? I only saw Ghana on the map; I don’t know where that is, ” she told the consortium.

THE DEPORTATION PROJECT Deported to Africa: An international investigation into Trump’s migrant policy


More than 25,000 people have been expelled to third countries

Since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, more than 25,000 people have been deported to a country that is not their home country and with which they often have no ties, according to a count carried out by a team of 26 international media outlets led by Forbidden Stories. A large majority – 20,000 people – were deported to Mexico. Others – at least 5,447 people – had, by August 31, 2026, been taken on deportation flights and dropped all across the globe.

These “third-country removals” have become a core part of the Trump administration’s repressive migration policy. In recent months, they have been making an increasing number of deportation agreements with third countries, often under a cloak of secrecy.

There has been very little official communication about these deportations.

“At the beginning of the administration, they were really overt about the fact they're carrying out these flights. But over the past year, the government has been very opaque about these third-country transfers,” said Savi Arvey, director of Policy, Refugee & Immigrant Rights at the NGO Human Rights First.

To “shed light on these transfers”, the organisation relies on public flight-tracking data, as well as a network of NGOs, lawyers and on-the-ground sources. It shares its findings through the ICE Flight Monitor project, which monitors these deportation transfers, and the Third Country Deportation Watch tracker, developed with the NGO Refugees International.

Our investigation is based on their work, as well as that of the Human Rights Center at the University of Berkeley, freedom of information requests, and information gathered by journalists around the world and the lawyers of the people who have been deported. We were able to document a large number of these deportations and gather information on the number and nationality of those deported (see our methodology here).
Deportation agreements concluded with 35 countries on six continents

A total of 28 countries located on six different continents had received third-country deportees from the United States by August 31, 2026. The Trump administration had also concluded more deals enabling them to deport third-country citizens to seven other countries. (In the meantime, one of these countries, Guyana, received its first transfer of third-country citizens – six people from Cuba and Afghanistan who were transferred there in early September.)

More than 5,000 people removed on deportation flights

There have been roughly 20,000 non-Mexican nationals deported to Mexico, according to data gathered by Third-country Deportation Watch, despite the fact that there is no official agreement between the two countries. They were taken there by land routes.

The others – at least 5,447 people of 89 different nationalities – have been deported by flight. The number of flights varies depending on the country.

The second-largest number of third-country deportees were sent to Guatemala, just south of Mexico. Nearly 3,000 people have been deported there; 90% of them Mexican nationals. Four other Central American countries have also received more than 250 third-country deportees: Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama and El Salvador.

Deals with 13 African countries

But people haven’t just been deported to the Americas. “During the first Trump administration, there were agreements signed with Mexico and three Central American countries [Editor’s note: Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador],” said Arvey. “Now we're seeing that the US is going well beyond Mexico and Central America to countries in the Caribbean, countries throughout South America and countries across Africa and even in parts of Eastern Europe.”

Thirteen African nations, most in West or Central Africa, have signed third-country deportation deals with the United States – representing more than a third of the overall countries that have signed. Of them, 12 had already received third-country deportees by August 31, 2026, representing a total of 450 people. For the time being, Ghana is the African country that has received the largest number of individuals, with more than 100 people from third countries being sent there. The Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Sierra Leone and Eswatini have each received dozens of people.

Savi Arvey says that some of the agreements are being made with “countries that previously the United States did not look to partner with”, including “such a corrupt autocratic government like Equatorial Guinea”. “It seems like the goal for the United States is the deal. The profile of the country, its human rights record doesn't matter at all. ”
‘I had started a new life in the United States; I felt safe’

According to our count, the people who have been deported are from nearly 90 different countries, most from Africa or Central or South America.

Malick (not his real name) was on the same deportation flight as Rabbiatu. Born in Senegal, he came to the United States in 2023 after fleeing his country over fears about his safety. He obtained a work permit.

“I had started a new life in the United States,” he said. “I felt safe.”

Like Rabbiatu, Malick had been granted a “withholding of removal”, meaning that the United States government can’t deport you to your home country because your life or freedom would be threatened there.

The Trump administration has said on numerous occasions that they are targeting people with criminal records for deportation. In June 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that the policy would apply to “aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers".

But the reports published by different NGOs tell a different story, as do the interviews that our group carried out with 33 different people who have been deported.

“I did not commit any crime; I always abided by the law,” Kuyateh said. She’s far from the only one. Most of the people deported to African countries don’t have any criminal record, says Alma David, an American lawyer who represents dozens of deportees to Africa.

Furthermore, of the people deported to third countries who do have criminal records, many had already served their sentence – in many cases, years ago.
Poor treatment and arbitrary detention

While third country deportations are legal under US law, it is only under limited circumstances and when proper protocols have been followed to guarantee the person’s safety.

However, NGOs as well as lawyers representing the victims have been reporting on the human rights violations taking place during these transfers, including degrading treatment and arbitrary detention. In El Salvador, more than 250 men have been held in a high-security prison meant to house gangs, a place with “inhumane prison conditions", according to Human Rights Watch. The organisation also documented “constant beatings” and “cases of sexual violence".

Human rights organisations are also worried about the specific people who have been deported.

“What's been extremely worrying is the targeting of people who've been granted withholding and removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture for third-country removals, in particular to various countries in Africa, but also to Mexico,” Arvey said.

Historically, people with this legal status were generally not deported. But as part of its mass deportation campaign, the new Trump administration has started using third-country removals as a way to deport people without returning them to their home countries.

Like Malick and Rabbiatu, Soraya (not her real name) had this legal status. Soraya is Ghanaian; she fled to the United States in 2024 because of her sexual orientation. “Withholding of removal, it's protection,” she said. “I was thinking they were going to protect me rather than sending me to a third country that will not accept me. But they still brought me to Cameroon, an African country that doesn't accept LGBT.”

Fears are particularly centred on the risk of "chain refoulement” – in which individuals are removed to a third country only to be sent back to their home country, where they face persecution. “In many cases, what we have seen is they are very much sending people back to countries that US immigration judges have established are dangerous for them,” said Meredyth Yoon, a US-based lawyer who represents more than a dozen third-country nationals removed to African countries.

Isatou (not her real name), a Guinean who migrated to the US to flee a forced marriage, was removed to Ghana, and then sent back to her country of origin. For her safety, we won’t say where she is now. But a few months after her removal, she told the consortium she had no choice but to hide. “I don’t go out anymore, I’m scared of coming across my family,” she said. “They ruined my life.”
‘Indirect form of return to harm’

Michael Garcia Bocheneck, interim director of Human Rights Watch's US programme, said:


“We think the government is using third-country removals to avoid the responsibilities that it has under international law not to return people to harm. (...) In many cases, it seems that the tacit assumption is that the third country will simply return them to their home country anyway. It's an indirect form of return to harm, and it's still a violation of international law.”

Carolyn Patty Blum, Clinical Professor of Law Emerita at UC Berkeley School of Law, said that in accordance with the non-refoulement principle – “a defining principle” of international law –, “no one should be forced to return to any country where they face a risk of persecution, human rights violations or torture". “Both the United States and the receiving countries violate that law by transferring people to places where they face serious risk of harm.”

Many of the deals include blanket language on ensuring migrants are not arbitrarily detained or sent to another country where they could face persecution. But the “stated ‘assurances’ of protection in the receiving country are inadequate", said Blum, who also pointed to the absence of “any methods of ongoing oversight” once the individual is outside the US.

Moreover, while some of the deals (known as “Asylum Cooperative Agreements”) include guarantees that transferred individuals can request asylum in the receiving country, other arrangements (called “Third-Country Removal Agreements”) offer no such protections. “What's been so concerning in this case is that often there's a reference to just transit,” Arvey said. “It’s very overt that the country understands that it will just serve as a transfer point. So it raises huge concerns about refoulement.”

Human rights advocates have repeatedly denounced the DHS policy of deporting individuals with little to no notice – leaving them with no real chance to contest their removal if they fear for their safety in the receiving country. On September 18, 2026, a US federal appeals court ruled that removing individuals to third countries without giving them a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of torture or persecution is illegal. The court also rejected the Trump administration's argument that general human rights assurances from third countries are sufficient.

DHS General Counsel James Percival said shortly after the decision that the ruling will not prevent “the third country deportation policy” from “continuing”. “If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere.”

That view is not shared by Trina Realmuto, the executive director at National Immigration Litigation Alliance, one of the groups who brought the class-action case. She told our consortium that “the decision is effective now, which means DHS cannot continue to apply its existing third-country removal policy”. However, she said that they “anticipate the government will seek Supreme Court review and could seek a stay of the decision while they do so.”
The Deportation Project: behind the investigation on Trump administration’s mass deportations


As part of a consortium of 26 media outlets coordinated by Forbidden Stories, RFI and FRANCE 24 spent six months investigating the secret deals struck between the administration of US President Donald Trump and several African countries. These “third countries” have agreed to host undocumented migrants detained by ICE and deported from the US.

From Ghana to Cameroon and Eswatini, our journalists spoke to the people deported to countries utterly unfamiliar to them.
Chilling effect

Removing people to third countries with almost no warning has also been used by the Trump administration to deter migration and encourage self-deportation, according to the lawyers and NGOs we spoke with.

“If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,” said Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswoman, in August 2025, referencing the aforementioned Salvadoran prison and a now-closed detention centre in Florida.

“With countries like Palau or Eswatini, the point is that the Administration can threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere,” a US official reportedly said, according to a report by Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Contacted by the consortium, the US Department of State said in a statement that they “will use all legal means” to remove individuals with no right to remain in the US and that “they do not comment on their private diplomatic communications with other governments”. At the time of publication, ICE had not responded to our questions.

The consortium also contacted the governments of the 35 countries that have concluded a deal with the US. The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the interior ministry reiterated that “Mexico has not signed an agreement with the United States” to receive foreign nationals, saying it was receiving these “individuals on humanitarian grounds". The Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied that an agreement had been signed with the US. At the time of publication, the other countries had not responded to our questions.
‘Threats of tariffs, visa bans or cuts to assistance’

The reasons why countries agree to accept these nationals often remain murky. Even when the agreements have been made public, the quid pro quos involved are rarely mentioned.

But according to documents obtained by the Washington Post as part of this project, the US has pledged more than $ 81 million (70 million euros) to 13 governments in connection with these agreements. This includes more than 15 million dollars (13 million euros) each for Guatemala and Honduras. The administration has pledged over five million dollars to six other countries – the Dominican Republic, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Palau and Rwanda.

It seems, however, that these concessions are also tied to broader geopolitical or economic interests – quid pro quos that can often only be inferred from secondary agreements made alongside the transfers. The report from Senate Democrats stresses that “deportation is being used as a bargaining chip", with third countries “being pressured with threats of tariffs, visa bans, or cuts to assistance".

In the case of Ghana, for example, the foreign minister admitted following the deal that US officials had raised potential visa and tariff concessions for his country. Just days after the agreement was announced, the US lifted the five-year visa restrictions it had imposed on Ghana two months earlier.

“I think that it's fair to say that everybody is running a little scared of the US,” Bocheneck said. “I think they all know that whatever goodwill they've got with the US right now is very tenuous, and everybody's trying to do whatever they can on the political side to keep the goodwill as long as possible.”

Additional reporting: Magdalena Hervada, Léa Péruchon, Sofía Álvarez Jurado (Forbidden Stories) and Karina Chabour.

Investigation: In Cameroon, the victims of Trump’s deportations face uncertain fates

Under often-secret deals struck with third countries across Africa and Latin America, US President Donald Trump has deported thousands of people who were hoping to build new lives in the US to countries they’ve never set foot in before. Working with Forbidden Stories, FRANCE 24 investigated the stories of several African migrants whose lives were thrown into chaos by their abrupt deportation from the US to a temporary shelter in Cameroon’s capital Yaoundé.


Issued on: 21/09/2026 - 

FRANCE24

By:  David RICH

At least 44 people from more across Africa have been deported from the US to Cameroon – a country to which they have no connection. © Studio graphique FMM


“Welcome to the temporary migrant shelter.” In a residential neighbourhood in the Cameroonian capital of Yaoundé, a government compound has been transformed into a place for people with nowhere else to go.

Behind its high clay-coloured walls, 20-odd people share dorm rooms sparsely furnished with bunk beds.

Several days after her arrival, Barbara* is still struggling to get her bearings.

“I feel really bad, I have no family here, I don’t know anyone, and most people only speak French,” she said in English.


The young woman had fled persecution in her homeland Ethiopia to the US, hoping to build a new life for herself. But in April this year, she was deported without warning by US immigration authorities to the Central African country of Cameroon, a country utterly unknown to her.

‘They put me on a plane, and I landed here’

Born in the state of Tigray in the north of Ethiopia, Barbara left her country after war broke out between federal government forces and the region’s Tigray People’s Liberation Front. The conflict is believed to have killed more than 600,000 people between 2020 and 2024.

Fleeing persecution, she travelled to Brazil at the end of 2024 before making her way to the US border by bus. The young woman was detained by border police on arrival and sent to an immigration detention centre in Louisiana.

Several months later, a judge granted her “withholding of removal”, a legal protection distinct from asylum that nonetheless prevents recipients from being deported to their home country on the grounds that they would more likely than not face persecution.

Despite this measure, Barbara would remain in the detention centre for several more months – until she was abruptly bundled on board a flight to Cameroon on April 28, 2026.

“Police came to get me and told me I had to go back,” she said. “I was so shocked. They put me on a plane and I landed here.”

Within the walls of the Yaoundé migrant centre, people from almost a dozen African countries – Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe – all have similar stories.

Soraya* said she fled Ghana after her family found out about her sexual orientation.

“In Accra, people I know are looking for me,” she said. “They want me dead.”

Soraya had also been granted a protection measure in the US – before being deported without warning.
Legal loopholes

To be granted “withholding of removal” in the US, an applicant must show that they have more than a 50 percent risk of suffering persecution in their home country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group or for their political beliefs.

But this protection does nothing to prevent recipients from being deported to countries deemed “safe” – that is to say, where deportees wouldn’t be exposed to the same risk of persecution that they would in their homeland.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has wasted no time in launching itself at this loophole. Having promised to bring an end to what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants, Trump has struck a number of bilateral agreements with what have been dubbed "third countries".
The “temporary migrant shelter” in Yaoundé. © Forbidden Stories

The aim is clear: to expel migrants who are legally protected from being deported to their home countries, and to send a warning to those hoping to follow in their footsteps.

“It’s precisely because these people have been granted this protection in the United States that they are sent here,” said Cameroonian lawyer Joseph Awah Fru, who provides legal assistance to migrants deported to Yaoundé. “The US needed a ‘blank-slate’ country.”
Secret deals

More than 35 “deals” have been signed so far, the majority of which have been struck with Latin American countries, like Mexico, Panama, El Salvador and Costa Rica, or African states including Cameroon, Ghana, Sierra Leone, DR Congo, Eswatini, the Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea. These agreements have facilitated the deportation of more than 25,000 people.

But while the Trump administration has been stepping up the rate of deportations, the actual content of many of these agreements remains shrouded in mystery.

“Most of these are secret agreements that governments have not submitted to Parliament for approval,” said Beatrice Njeri, a Kenyan lawyer and a member of a coalition defending the rights of deportees. “There is neither openness nor transparency.”

She said that deportees often found themselves isolated in these third countries.

“They are being held in quasi-military conditions, treated as prisoners,” she said. “They usually have very limited access to a lawyer, so that they can find out what options are available to them, because governments want to force them to return to their home countries – despite the danger.”

In the case of Cameroon, the only publicly available document confirming the deal is an exchange of diplomatic notes that took place in December 2025, published in June by the US State Department.

Document : communiqué from the US embassy in Cameroon

As outlined in the note, both Yaoundé and Washington undertook to “arrange the transfer from the United States to the Republic of Cameroon of certain third-country nationals present in the United States”.

For its part, Cameroon agreed to treat these deportees in a manner consistent with its obligations under international law, and assured that they would not be subjected to persecution or torture, either in Cameroon or in any country that Yaoundé would send them on to.

The actual terms of the deal are still opaque. According to an investigation by the New York Times, the agreement appears to have been reached after Washington directly imposed financial pressure on the Central African country.

The US reportedly threatened to suspend a payment of some $30 million intended for the country office of the UN Refugee Agency. The payment finally went through on January 9 – six days before a plane carrying the first deportees from Louisiana touched down in the country.

A US government website said that the funding was intended “in support of third-country national arrangement negotiations”.

The UN refugee agency denied that the funds were earmarked for the resettlement of deportees, insisting that the money would be “allocated and used in accordance with its mandate”.

A source close to the Cameroonian government confirmed to FRANCE 24 that an agreement had been reached between Washington and Yaoundé, apparently negotiated by President Paul Biya himself, before the first deportations took place. The president's office did not respond to requests for comment.

The source said that the deal, which was struck in total secrecy, was meant to “improve” the relationship between both countries and strengthen cooperation on the economic and security fronts.

At the end of August, the two countries held an inaugural “US-Cameroon Bilateral Economic and Commercial Dialogue” in Yaoundé. During the event, the US announced an investment of $7 billion in Cameroonian industries ranging from tech, critical minerals, infrastructure and energy.

The Deportation Project: behind the investigation on Trump administration’s mass deportations


As part of a consortium of 26 media outlets coordinated by Forbidden Stories, RFI and FRANCE 24 spent six months investigating the secret deals struck between the administration of US President Donald Trump and several African countries. These “third countries” have agreed to host undocumented migrants detained by ICE and deported from the US.

From Ghana to Cameroon and Eswatini, our journalists spoke to the people deported to countries utterly unfamiliar to them.

Deported without documents

In Yaoundé, the deportees allege they were stripped of their passports by US authorities, who have held onto them since their departure.

“When we arrived, we weren’t allowed to leave the centre,” said Soraya, who was on the first flight that landed in Cameroon on January 15. “We were treated like criminals.”

Unable to move around freely, some of the deportees took drastic measures – to little result.

“We decided to go on a hunger strike in protest, and that’s why they said they were going to give us identity documents that would allow us to move around freely,” she said. “But they only gave us a piece of paper valid for just two months that we could show if we were stopped by police.”

“The migrants are housed and fed, but they have no money,” Awah Fru said. “They can leave the centre, but the authorities warned them that they would not be held responsible if something happened to them. Their freedom has been violated.”

The source close to the Cameroonian government defended the measures.

“When you don’t have your papers in a country, you are required to restrict your movements,” they said.

For weeks now, Awah Fru has been making frequent visits to the centre to try to ensure the deportees’ rights are upheld. On August 5, the lawyer lodged an appeal on behalf of 36 migrants deported to Cameroon between January and May 2026 with the Yaoundé Administrative Court. He is seeking to suspend the agreement with the United States on the grounds that the deportations put them at risk of persecution and torture.

“From the moment that Cameroon agreed to welcome these people onto its territory, it has the responsibility to protect them like refugees,” he said. It’s a campaign that the lawyer has waged by himself – and not an easy one.
Constant pressure

During his first visit to the centre on February 17, Awah Fru and the four journalists accompanying him were briefly detained by the judicial police – an act that only deepened the climate of fear among the deportees, who largely refuse all contact with the media.

While in detention, the journalists were forced to delete the videos they had recorded and were warned by the police not to do any more work on the story. The source close to the government described their detention as “an unfortunate incident by a handful of overzealous police”.

“There’s no omerta around this case,” they insisted.

Despite these assurances, the Cameroonian government still hasn’t responded to FRANCE 24’s application for a media visa, submitted for this investigation.

Because of this, the testimonies of the deportees had to be recorded remotely.

The source close to the government insisted that Cameroon was a “welcoming country” where the deportees “are treated well”. The migrants have reportedly been visited by multiple officials from the justice and foreign affairs ministries.

They have also met with representatives from the UN Refugee Agency and the UN’s International Organization for Migration.

'Deportation machine': How Donald Trump and ICE are changing America

Cover image: 'Deportation machine': How Donald Trump and ICE are changing America

 © AFP
17:30

The latter agency plays a crucial role in the lives of those held in the detention centre – particularly those who decide to return to their home countries.

“The IOM representatives don’t tell us that they’re going to force us to return to our home countries, but that they can help us if we wish to do so,” one of the deportees said. “The government representatives, on the other hand, tell us that we must return to our home countries.”

“Where someone asks us to help them return to their country of origin, or to another country where they have the legal right to stay, we do so only after individualised counselling and protection screening,” the agency said in a statement, adding that the decision needed to be “freely” made.

“Our commitment in no way constitutes an endorsement of the decisions that led to the deportation of these people,” a spokesperson added.
‘They’re just waiting for us to crack’

Despite the difficult situation they’ve been put in, both Barbara and Soraya hope that with their lawyer’s help they can be granted asylum in Cameroon.

“I’ve heard there are human rights issues here,” Barbara said. “But if I go back to my country, I know what will happen – I have no choice.”

“Here, we wake up and each day is like the day before it,” Soraya said. “We have to beg for everything – they’re just waiting for us to crack and agree to go home. But most of us can’t go home. That’s true for me too, even though I know Cameroon isn’t any safer for me.”

In a grim irony, Soraya has been deported to a country where the laws against homosexuality are even more repressive than in her homeland. Homosexual acts are punishable by up to five years in prison in Cameroon, compared with three years in Ghana.

Among the first deportees sent to Cameroon, two other women – both from Morocco – were like Soraya and granted protection measures in the US due to their sexual orientation. Both women decided to return to their home country despite the risks, choosing to live in hiding rather than remain locked up in a strange land.

Gisèle, another deportee in the centre who fled the fighting between the DR Congo and Rwanda, has abandoned her plans to seek asylum in Cameroon for health reasons. Suffering from a thyroid condition, she has never been able to obtain her medication at the centre in Yaoundé, despite her repeated requests.

Worried that her health would only get worse, she finally agreed to be sent back to the DR Congo after five months behind the centre’s walls.

*Names have been changed at the interviewees’ request.

This article has been adapted from the original in French by Paul Millar.

The Deportation Project: our full coverage

Deported to Africa: An international investigation into Trump’s migrant policy

‘Waiting for us to crack’: In Cameroon, the victims of Trump’s deportations face uncertain fates

Interactive map: Third-country removals - Trump’s deportation policy by the numbers

Scrollytelling: Flight to Ghana - Expelled From the US to a Country They’d Never Been to (coming soon)

‘I had never heard of Eswatini’: Deported to a country that rejects them (coming soon)

BY: Karina CHABOUR