President Donald Trump and the Republican Party have spent the better part of the president’s second term radically reshaping the federal government. But in recent weeks, the GOP has set its sights on taking another run at an old target: the US census.

Since the first Trump administration, the right has sought to add a question to the census that captures a respondent’s immigration status and to exclude noncitizens from the tallies that determine how seats in Congress are distributed. In 2019, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the first Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the census.

But now, a little-known algorithmic process called “differential privacy,” created to keep census data from being used to identify individual respondents, has become the right’s latest focus. WIRED spoke to six experts about the GOP’s ongoing effort to falsely allege that a system created to protect people’s privacy has made the data from the 2020 census inaccurate.

If successful, the campaign to get rid of differential privacy could not only radically change the kind of data made available, but could put the data of every person living in the US at risk. The campaign could also discourage immigrants from participating in the census entirely.

The Census Bureau regularly publishes anonymized data so that policymakers and researchers can use it. That data is also sensitive: Conducted every 10 years, the census counts every person living in the United States, citizen and noncitizen alike. The data includes detailed information like the race, sex, and age, as well the languages they speak, their home address, economic status, and the number of people living in a house. This data is used for allocating the federal funds that support public services like schools and hospitals, as well as for how a state’s population is divided up and represented in Congress. The more people in a state, the more congressional representation—and more votes in the Electoral College.

As computers got increasingly sophisticated and data more abundant and accessible, census employees and researchers realized the data published by the Census Bureau could be reverse engineered to identify individual people. According to Title XIII of the US Code, it is illegal for census workers to publish any data that would identify individual people, their homes, or businesses. A government employee revealing this kind of information could be punished with thousands of dollars in fines or even a possible prison sentence.

For individuals, this could mean, for instance, someone could use census data without differential privacy to identify transgender youth, according to research from the University of Washington.

For immigrants, the prospect of being reidentified through census data could “create panic among noncitizens as well as their families and friends,” says Danah Boyd, a census expert and the founder of Data & Society, a nonprofit research group focused on the downstream effects of technology. LGBTQ+ people might not “feel safe sharing that they are in a same-sex marriage. There are plenty of people in certain geographies who do not want data like this to be public,” she says. This could also mean that information that might be available only through something like a search warrant would suddenly be obtainable. “Unmasking published records is not illegal. Then you can match it to large law enforcement databases without actually breaching the law.”

A need for noise

Differential privacy keeps that data private. It’s a mathematical framework whereby a statistical output can’t be used to determine any individual’s data in a dataset, and the bureau’s algorithm for differential privacy is called TopDown. It injects “noise” into the data starting at the highest level (national), moving progressively downward. There are certain constraints placed around the kind of noise that can be introduced—for instance, the total number of people in a state or census block has to remain the same. But other demographic characteristics, like race or gender, are randomly reassigned to individual records within a set tranche of data. This way, the overall number of people with a certain characteristic remains constant, while the characteristics associated with any one record don’t describe an individual person. In other words, you’ll know how many women or Hispanic people are in a census block, just not exactly where.

“Differential privacy solves a particular problem, which is if you release a lot of information, a lot of statistics, based on the same set of confidential data, eventually somebody can piece together what that confidential data had to be,” says Simson Garfinkel, former senior computer scientist for confidentiality and data access at the Census Bureau.

Differential privacy was first used on data from the 2020 census. Even though one couldn’t identify a specific individual from the data, “you can still get an accurate count on things that are important for funding and voting rights,” says Moon Duchin, a mathematics professor at Tufts University who worked with census data to inform electoral maps in Alabama. The first use of differential privacy for the census happened under the Trump presidency, though the reports themselves were published after he left office. Civil servants, not political appointees, are the ones responsible for determining how census data is collected and analyzed. Emails obtained by the Brennan Center later claimed that the officials at the Census Bureau, overseen by then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, expressed an “unusually high degree” of interest in the “technical matters” of the process, which deputy director and COO of the bureau Ron Jarmin called “unprecedented.”

It’s this data from the 2020 census that Republicans have taken issue with. On August 21, the Center for Renewing America, a right-wing think tank founded by Russ Vought, currently the director of the US Office of Management and Budget, published a blog post alleging that differential privacy “may have played a significant role in tilting the political scales favorably toward Democrats for apportionment and redistricting purposes.” The post goes on to acknowledge that, even if a citizenship question was added to the census—which Trump attempted during his first administration—differential privacy “algorithm will be able to mask characteristic data, including citizenship status.”

Duchin and other experts who spoke to WIRED say that differential privacy does not change apportionment, or how seats in Congress are distributed—several red states, including Texas and Florida, gained representation after the 2020 census, while blue states like California lost representatives.

COUNTing the cost

On August 28, Republican Representative August Pfluger introduced the COUNT Act. If passed, it would add a citizenship question to the census and force the Census Bureau to “cease utilization of the differential privacy process.” Pfluger’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Differential privacy is a punching bag that’s meant here as an excuse to redo the census,” says Duchin. “That is what’s going on, if you ask me.”

On October 6, Senator Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana, sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, urging him to “investigate and correct errors from the 2020 Census that handed disproportionate political power to Democrats and illegal aliens.” The letter goes on to allege that the use of differential privacy “alters the total population of individual voting districts.” Similar to the COUNT Act and the Renewing America post, the letter also states that the 2030 Census “must request citizenship status.”

Peter Bernegger, a Wisconsin-based “election integrity” activist who is facing a criminal charge of simulating the legal process for allegedly falsifying a subpoena, amplified Banks’ letter on X, alleging that the use of differential privacy was part of “election rigging by the Obama/Biden administrations.” Bernegger’s post was viewed more than 236,000 times.

Banks’ office and Bernegger did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“No differential privacy was ever applied to the data used to apportion the House of Representatives, so the claim that seats in the House were affected is simply false,” says John Abowd, former associate director for research and methodology and chief scientist at the United States Census Bureau. Abowd oversaw the implementation of differential privacy while at the Census Bureau. He says that the data from the 2020 census has been successfully used by red and blue states, as well as redistricting commissions, and that the only difference from previous census data was that no one would be able to “reconstruct accurate, identifiable individual data to enhance the other databases that they use (voter rolls, drivers licenses, etc.).”

With a possible addition of the citizenship question, proposed by both Banks and the COUNT Act, Boyd says that census data would be even more sensitive, because that kind of information is not readily available in commercial data. “Plenty of data brokers would love to get their hands on that data.”

Shortly after Senator Banks published his letter, Abowd found himself in the spotlight. On October 9, the X account @amuse posted a blog-length post alleging that Abowd was the bureaucrat who “stole the House.” The post also alleged, without evidence, that the census results meant that “Republican states are projected to lose almost $90 billion in federal funds across the decade as a result of the miscounts. Democratic states are projected to gain $57 billion.” The account has more than 666,000 followers, including billionaire Elon Musk, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, and US pardon attorney Ed Martin. (Abowd told WIRED he was “keeping an eye” on the post, which was viewed more than 360,000 times.) That same week, America First Legal, the conservative nonprofit founded by now deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, posted about a complaint the group had recently filed in Florida, challenging the 2020 census results, alleging they were based upon flawed statistical methods, one of which was differential privacy.

The results of all this, experts tell WIRED, are that fewer people will feel safe participating in the census and that the government will likely need to spend even more resources to try to get an accurate count. Undercounting could lead to skewed numbers that could impact everything from congressional representation to the amount of funding a municipality might receive from the government.

Neither the proposed COUNT Act nor Senator Banks’ letter outlines an alternative to differential privacy. This means that the Census Bureau would likely be left with two options: Publish data that could put people at risk (which could lead to legal consequences for its staff), or publish less data. “At present, I do not know of any alternative to differential privacy that can safeguard the personal data that the US Census Bureau uses in their work on the decennial census,” says Abraham Flaxman, an associate professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington, whose team conducted the study on transgender youth.

Getting rid of differential privacy is not a “light thing,” says a Census employee familiar with the bureau’s privacy methods and who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press. “It may be for the layperson. But the entire apparatus of disclosure avoidance at the bureau has been geared for the last almost 10 years on differential privacy.” According to the employee, there is no immediately clear method to replace differential privacy.

Boyd says that the safest bet would simply be “what is known as suppression, otherwise known as ‘do not publish.’” (This, according to Garfinkel, was the backup plan if differential privacy had not been implemented for the 2020 census.)

Another would be for the Census Bureau to only publish population counts, meaning that demographic information like the race or age of respondents would be left out. “This is a problem, because we use census data to combat discrimination,” says Boyd. “The consequences of losing this data is not being able to pursue equity.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Read full article

Comments

As efforts continue to hold some of the world’s largest fossil fuel corporations liable for destructive and deadly climate impacts, backlash from the politically powerful oil and gas industry and its allies in government is on the rise, bolstered by the Trump administration’s allegiance to fossil fuels.

From lobbying Congress for liability protection to suing states over their climate liability laws and lawsuits, attempts to shield Big Oil from potential liability and to shut down climate accountability initiatives are advancing on multiple fronts.

“The effort has escalated dramatically in the past six or seven months,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, an organization that advocates for holding fossil fuel companies accountable for selling products they knew were dangerously warming the planet.

Pushback to liability initiatives from fossil fuel interests is not new. But the political landscape has shifted dramatically this year as the second Trump administration works to reward loyalists and campaign donors, including fossil fuel interests.

The oil and gas industry spent $445 million during the last election cycle to influence President Donald Trump and Congress, including $96 million on Trump’s re-election campaign, according to the progressive advocacy group Climate Power.

“What has changed is that there is a new administration,” said Lisa Graves, founder and executive director of True North Research, a national investigative watchdog group. And the Trump administration, she said, “is continuing to defend the fossil fuel industry and assail anyone who dares try to hold them accountable.”

Over the past eight years, communities across the country have filed tobacco-style lawsuits targeting ExxonMobil and major players in the fossil fuel industry, seeking to recover damages for localized climate impacts or to force companies to cease greenwashing and other misleading behavior.

More than 30 of these lawsuits brought by municipal, tribal, and state governments are working their way through the courts, and several are now closer than ever to reaching trial.

At the same time, some states are enacting or considering so-called climate superfund legislation that would hold large fossil fuel companies strictly liable for climate damages and require them to help pay for a portion of climate change costs incurred by state governments. Vermont and New York both passed climate superfund laws last year, and similar legislation is pending in a handful of other states.

In response to these budding accountability efforts, the fossil fuel industry, the Trump administration, Republicans in Congress, and GOP attorneys general are mounting what Wiles describes as a “massive orchestrated campaign” to try to stop climate liability laws and lawsuits in their tracks, and to push for legal immunity akin to what gun manufacturers received two decades ago. Trump’s Department of Justice has even filed highly unusual, if not unprecedented, lawsuits against Vermont and New York seeking to overturn their climate superfund statutes.

“It’s just this superbly choreographed effort on the part of the oil industry and its allies to get gun-industry-style legal immunity for all the damage that they’ve caused,” Wiles told Inside Climate News.

Oil industry is lobbying Congress for a liability shield 

Among the climate liability lawsuits inching closer to trial: a consumer protection case brought by Massachusetts against ExxonMobil, and suits seeking damages filed by Honolulu, Hawaii, and Boulder, Colorado.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal earlier this year and confirmed by The New York Times last month, industry representatives are lobbying Congress for a liability shield of some kind.

The details remain unclear. But the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group, reports lobbying on “draft legislation related to state efforts to impose liability on the oil and gas industry,” while disclosures from ConocoPhillips show that the company has lobbied on the matter of “state superfund legislation,” including draft legislation in Congress addressing it.

Neither API nor ConocoPhillips responded to requests for comment.

Pat Parenteau, emeritus professor of law at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Inside Climate News that he thinks immunity provisions for the fossil fuel industry are unlikely to pass the Senate.

But the fact that the fossil fuel industry is lobbying for legal protections suggests to Wiles that the industry realizes it could be facing serious legal jeopardy. “Let’s be clear. You don’t seek a [liability] waiver unless you know you’re guilty,” Wiles said.

Over the summer, language emerged in a draft House Appropriations Committee spending bill that specifically would prohibit the District of Columbia from using funds to enforce its consumer protection law “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims.” The bill that included this provision passed the committee but was not brought to the full House for a vote.

But climate accountability advocates say the provision was still alarming because it effectively would have shut down DC’s ongoing consumer protection lawsuit against Big Oil. That suit, filed in 2020, alleges that several major oil companies lied to consumers about the climate risks of their products and that they continue to mislead consumers through greenwashing campaigns. In April, the DC Superior Court rejected the companies’ motions to dismiss the suit.

Anne Havemann, deputy director and general counsel at Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said the appropriations provision “is a threat to this ongoing lawsuit.”

“If [DC] can’t use any money to prosecute these cases and advance these cases, then it effectively can’t work on them,” she said.

Big Oil lawyers seek Supreme Court intervention 

A parallel effort to skirt accountability is playing out in the courts. Fossil fuel companies are vigorously defending themselves in climate liability lawsuits, and they have seen some success in recent months getting cases dismissed by state trial courts.

Now Boulder’s lawsuit is back before the nation’s highest court on a fresh petition from the oil company defendants, after Colorado courts, including the state Supreme Court, refused to dismiss the case. The question posed by the companies in their petition is whether federal law precludes such state law claims.

It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will take up the case this time.

In January, the Supreme Court denied a similar petition from oil companies in a case brought by Honolulu. Courts in Hawaii have rejected the companies’ bids to have the case dismissed, and with the Supreme Court declining to intervene, Honolulu’s case is advancing toward a trial.

Parenteau said the prospect of facing a trial and a potential adverse verdict likely has the oil companies extremely worried. “They’re certainly frightened of a trial just from a reputational standpoint,” he said.

The new petition in the Boulder case now offers the Supreme Court another opportunity to step in. Should the justices decide to intervene, legal experts say that it could essentially shut down all climate liability attempts.

“If they do step in, that’s huge. That changes everything,” Parenteau said. “That is the end game.”

“In one fell swoop it could get rid of all of these cases,” said James May, a law professor at Washburn University.

On October 9, over 100 Republican House members submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court backing oil companies ExxonMobil and Suncor in their petition to block Boulder’s lawsuit from moving forward. It is the first time that Republicans in Congress have called on the Supreme Court to intervene in this litigation and to shut down not just this one lawsuit but all others like it.

“In recent years, multiple state and local governments have launched a courtroom war against the American energy industry,” the brief asserts in its opening. “It must stop now.”

The 103 Republican House members who signed onto the brief argue that the municipal and state lawsuits against oil and gas companies are trying to “dictate national energy policy” and that only the federal government has the authority to regulate transboundary greenhouse gas emissions.

“They are arguing that it’s solely EPA’s role to regulate greenhouse gases, but the Trump administration is attempting to eliminate that role by revoking the Endangerment Finding. If that revocation goes through and survives in the courts, it will greatly weaken the oil companies’ preemption defense,” Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told Inside Climate News.

“This full-court press to block these lawsuits shows that the oil companies and their allies in Congress are really nervous about what would come out if any of these cases actually went to trial,” Gerrard added.

Trump administration on the offensive 

The Trump administration, through its Department of Justice, is fully backing the fossil fuel industry in climate liability litigation, filing amicus briefs, for example, in cases now pending before the US Supreme Court and the Maryland Supreme Court.

But its efforts to shield the industry from accountability extend beyond friend-of-the-court briefs.

Following a White House meeting where oil company executives raised concerns about state climate laws and lawsuits, Trump issued an executive order in April directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to try to put a stop to these legal initiatives.

In response, the DOJ then sued four states, including preemptive suits brought against Hawaii and Michigan before either state had filed such a lawsuit (Hawaii sued major oil companies the next day). The DOJ’s other lawsuits targeted Vermont and New York to try to strike down their climate superfund laws, which are based on the “polluter pays” logic of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program aimed at forcing polluting companies to remediate damage from toxic waste sites.

Advances in a field known as climate attribution science have made the “polluter pays” aspect of the superfund laws possible, enabling scientists to quantify the individual contributions of major fossil fuel producers to climate impacts such as sea level rise and heat waves.

The DOJ has now filed motions for summary judgment in both of these lawsuits, asking federal courts to permanently block the states’ climate superfund laws.

“Vermont’s flagrantly unconstitutional statute threatens to throttle energy production, despite this Administration’s efforts to unleash American energy. It’s high time for the courts to put a stop to this crippling state overreach,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson said in a statement issued by the DOJ on September 16.

Havemann, with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, told Inside Climate News that the current Trump administration seems to be taking a more aggressive approach to protecting the fossil fuel industry and to fighting attempts to hold it accountable.

“The Trump administration has come in and used many different tools in its toolbox to go after these accountability lawsuits and the laws that also seek to hold the biggest polluters accountable for climate damages,” she said. “It’s very much on the radar of the Trump administration in a way that it has not been in the past.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Enter the Dragon”

With US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) holding the gavel, climate litigation came up as the subject of a Republican-led congressional hearing this summer before a Judiciary Committee subcommittee.

The hearing’s provocative title: “Enter the Dragon—China and the Left’s Lawfare Against American Energy Dominance.”

Cruz used the hearing to attack climate liability lawsuits and claim that they are a nefarious left-wing plot that is in part funded by, and that benefits, the Chinese Communist Party. “Both China and the Democrats want to bankrupt the American energy industry,” Cruz said during the hearing.

NPR’s Michael Copley reported last month that “Cruz’s office has not offered evidence that China or a China-linked nonprofit that Cruz identified by name has funded climate lawsuits in the United States.”

In response to that reporting, Cruz told Inside Climate News that “NPR deliberately ignored objective facts.”

“The Chinese Communist Party uses cut-outs and ‘nonprofits’ to shape US energy policy, funding propaganda, advocacy, and litigation that harm American workers,” Cruz said in an emailed statement, which was also included in the NPR story after it was published. The “China-linked nonprofit” referenced in the NPR story, Energy Foundation China, does fund some climate initiatives, Cruz said in his statement.

“In January 2024, three House committee chairs opened an investigation into Chinese influence, citing EFC’s ties and funding of groups like [the Natural Resources Defense Council] and RMI,” he added.

A spokesperson for RMI, a nonprofit group working on the global energy transition, said that the organization “does not participate in litigation.” RMI’s “work supported by Energy Foundation China, which is a US-based charitable organization, is focused squarely on the energy transition inside of China,” the spokesperson added.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a nonprofit group that works to protect public health and the environment, does some “work in China for one reason: there’s not a single global environmental problem that can be fixed unless China is part of the solution,” NRDC spokesperson Josh Mogerman said. He added that the organization “does not fundraise in China” and that “money from China does not fund NRDC litigation in the United States, period.”

Cruz, who represents the country’s biggest oil and gas producing state, did not respond to Inside Climate News’ question about whether he supports immunizing oil companies from liability.

GOP attorneys general enter the fray 

During the Cruz-led hearing, the Republican attorney general for the state of Kansas, Kris Kobach, testified as one of the majority witnesses. He referenced the New York and Vermont climate superfund laws, claiming these statutes impose extraterritorial regulation on energy companies, and mentioned that his state and other Republican-led states are suing to try to overturn these state laws.

“We will continue these fights in court as state attorneys general. But we do need some help from Congress,” Kobach said. He suggested that Congress could legislate to expressly preempt state climate laws like the climate superfund laws.

Kobach and 15 other Republican state attorneys general also made this suggestion, along with several other recommendations for congressional action, in a letter addressed to Bondi, the US attorney general.

The June 12 letter references Trump’s executive orders to “unleash” fossil fuels and protect the fossil fuel industry from “state overreach.” The letter says its purpose is to “suggest additional steps” the Department of Justice could take to effectuate these orders and assist in the “fight against anti-energy interests.”

Specifically, the Republican AGs suggest the DOJ could recommend legislation to reinforce federal preemption of state climate liability laws or lawsuits; restrict federal funding for states seeking to impose liability on energy companies; create a right of removal to federal district court for climate suits; and, among other items, stop “activist-funded climate lawsuits” with a liability shield, similar to the law that granted immunity for gun manufacturers.

Wiles, with the Center for Climate Integrity, said it is especially striking to see Republican attorneys general explicitly recommend a similar liability shield for fossil fuel companies. “The attorneys general actually called for Congress to enact a gun-style liability waiver for the oil industry,” he said. “We saw how that [gun industry immunity] ended up. It certainly was not helpful in curbing gun violence or in serving any public interest objective.”

The coordinated litigation strategies and actions of Republican state attorneys general in defense of fossil fuel and other industries stem from an organization called the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which Graves said was created in the wake of the tobacco industry being held accountable through the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.

The organization, which currently lists 29 Republican state attorneys general as members, has been funded through donations from conservative judicial activists like Leonard Leo as well as from corporate interests including those in the fossil fuel industry. The American Petroleum Institute gave over $125,000 to RAGA in 2024, and in the first six months of this year Chevron’s Policy, Government and Public Affairs division donated $25,000 to the organization, for example.

Graves describes RAGA as a “pay-to-play organization.”

“It has a pay sheet listing what kind of access you get to attorneys general based on how much you give,” she told Inside Climate News.

“These attorneys general use the prestige of their office and their power and the resources that their taxpayers are providing to serve the interests of industry, select industries that they are most tied to, and that certainly includes the fossil fuel industry,” Graves added.

The Republican Attorneys General Association did not respond to a request for comment.

“A perilous moment”

The intensifying backlash to climate accountability efforts coming from the fossil fuel industry and its political defenders is happening at a time when some political scholars warn that the US is sliding into some form of authoritarianism, which advocates say magnifies the challenges of holding powerful interests to account writ large.

“It’s a perilous moment for democratic norms and institutions,” said Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Anybody who is pursuing policy change or litigation for accountability or enforcement is counting on the courts to be a real backstop for democratic institutions,” Mulvey told Inside Climate News.

Should the fossil fuel industry somehow succeed in securing legal immunity, Wiles said it “would be consistent with the erosion of the rule of law that we’re seeing.”

“No industry should be above the law,” he added.

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Read full article

Comments

In a recent article published in the New York Times, author Casey Michael Henry argues that today's tech industry keeps borrowing dystopian sci-fi aesthetics and ideas -- often the parts that were meant as warnings -- and repackages them as exciting products without recognizing that they were originally cautionary tales to avoid. "The tech industry is delivering on some of the futuristic notions of late-20th-century science fiction," writes Henry. "Yet it seems, at times, bizarrely unaware that many of those notions were meant to be dystopian or satirical -- dismal visions of where our worst and dumbest habits could lead us." Here's an excerpt from the report: You worry that someone in today's tech world might watch "Gattaca" -- a film that features a eugenicist future in which people with ordinary DNA are relegated to menial jobs -- and see it as an inspirational launching point for a collaboration between 23andMe and a charter school. The material on Sora, for instance, can feel oddly similar to the jokes about crass entertainment embedded in dystopian films and postmodern novels. In the movie "Idiocracy," America loved a show called "Ow! My Balls!" in which a man is hit in the testicles in increasingly florid ways. "Robocop" imagined a show about a goggle-eyed pervert with an inane catchphrase. "The Running Man" had a game show in which contestants desperately collected dollar bills and climbed a rope to escape ravenous dogs. That Sora could be prompted to imagine a game show in which Michel Foucault chokeslams Ronald Reagan, or Prince battles an anaconda, doesn't feel new; it feels like a gag from a 1990s writer or a film about social decay. The echoes aren't all accidental. Modern design has been influenced by our old techno-dystopias -- particularly the cyberpunk variety, with its neon-noir gloss and "high tech, low life" allure. From William Gibson novels to films like "The Matrix," the culture has taken in countless ruined cityscapes, all-controlling megacorporations, high-tech body modifications, V.R.-induced illnesses, deceptive A.I. paramours, mechanical assassins and leather-clad hacker antiheroes, navigating a dissociative cyberspace with savvily repurposed junk-tech. This was not a world many people wanted to live in, but its style and ethos seem to reverberate in the tech industry's boldest visions of the future.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The speedy demolition of the East Wing of the White House last week has health advocates and Democratic lawmakers seeking answers about what efforts were taken, if any, to keep workers and passersby safe from potential plumes of asbestos that could arise from the destruction, according to a report by The Washington Post.

The East Wing was originally constructed in 1902 and was renovated in 1942, and asbestos was used extensively in government buildings during this period, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), a nonprofit focused on preventing asbestos exposure. Anyone who inadvertently breathes in asbestos fibers launched into the air by construction work could be at heightened risk of lung diseases and cancer.

“Every building of this age must undergo full asbestos inspection and abatement before any demolition begins,” Linda Reinstein, president and cofounder of ADAO, said in a press statement.

In a letter to the president last week, Reinstein wrote, “Federal law requires comprehensive asbestos inspection, notification, and abatement before any demolition. As of this date, no publicly available information demonstrates that these statutory obligations have been fulfilled.”

The Post reported late Thursday that though the White House says abatement work was performed, it has still not released any documentation on the inspections or the work. It has also declined to identify the companies involved, although, based on photographs, ACECO has been identified as the company handling the demolition.

An excavator works to clear rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished on October 23, 2025, in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty | Eric Lee

Images of the East Wing’s destruction have shown clouds of dust and workers with no personal protective equipment, the Post noted. The site has drawn tourists and crowds. Dirt from the project has been taken by dump trucks to a nearby park. The only mitigation effort that is clear is the use of water hoses, which construction companies use to tamp down hazardous dust clouds.

No response

On Thursday, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to ACECO, asking if it followed federal health and safety standards to mitigate risks of asbestos. “ACECO’s work falls squarely within a network of federal regulations governing demolition, hazardous-material handling, and worker protection,” the senator wrote.

In a separate letter Thursday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) sought “lawful transparency” on the demolition, including the asbestos abatement plan.

In DC, asbestos abatement processes can only be done by a licensed contractor, who is required to notify the Department of Energy and Environment 10 days in advance of such work, then post notices of asbestos abatement around the area of work three days beforehand.

But reporting by the Post found that ACECO is not licensed to abate asbestos in DC. “Our understanding is that as of August 18, 2022, Aceco LLC is no longer engaged in asbestos abatement services,” a DC Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection spokesperson told The Post. “The company’s asbestos abatement license in the District of Columbia was voluntarily canceled by the owner on that date.”

ACECO has not responded to questions from media and, amid the White House work, has taken down its website for the most part, only providing a page that says it’s under construction.

ADAO’s Reinstein told the Post that the White House has not responded to the organization’s letter. “I learned 20 years ago when I cofounded ADAO, no response is a response,” she told the Post.

As Ars Technica has reported, Trump has a startlingly supportive stance on the use of asbestos. In his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, Trump wrote that asbestos is “100% safe, once applied.” He blamed the mob for its reputation as a carcinogen, writing: “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal.”

Read full article

Comments

Blogger and technologist Anil Dash, writing about OpenAI's recently launched browser, Atlas: When I first got Atlas up and running, I tried giving it the easiest and most obvious tasks I could possibly give it. I looked up "Taylor Swift showgirl" to see if it would give me links to videos or playlists to watch or listen to the most popular music on the charts right now; this has to be just about the easiest possible prompt. The results that came back looked like a web page, but they weren't. Instead, what I got was something closer to a last-minute book report written by a kid who had mostly plagiarized Wikipedia. The response mentioned some basic biographical information and had a few photos. Now we know that AI tools are prone to this kind of confabulation, but this is new, because it felt like I was in a web browser, typing into a search box on the Internet. And here's what was most notable: there was no link to her website. I had typed "Taylor Swift" in a browser, and the response had literally zero links to Taylor Swift's actual website. If you stayed within what Atlas generated, you would have no way of knowing that Taylor Swift has a website at all. Unless you were an expert, you would almost certainly think I had typed in a search box and gotten back a web page with search results. But in reality, I had typed in a prompt box and gotten back a synthesized response that superficially resembles a web page, and it uses some web technologies to display its output. Instead of a list of links to websites that had information about the topic, it had bullet points describing things it thought I should know. There were a few footnotes buried within some of those response, but the clear intent was that I was meant to stay within the AI-generated results, trapped in that walled garden. During its first run, there's a brief warning buried amidst all the other messages that says, "ChatGPT may give you inaccurate information", but nobody is going to think that means "sometimes this tool completely fabricates content, gives me a box that looks like a search box, and shows me the fabricated content in a display that looks like a web page when I type in the fake search box." And it's not like the generated response is even that satisfying.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: As you're hunting through real estate listings for a new home in Franklin, Tennessee, you come across a vertical video showing off expansive rooms featuring a four-poster bed, a fully stocked wine cellar, and a soaking tub. In the corner of the video, a smiling real estate agent narrates the walk-through of your dream home in a soothing tone. It looks perfect -- maybe a little too perfect. The catch? Everything in the video isAI-generated. The real property is completely empty, and the luxury furniture is a product of virtual staging. The realtor's voice-over and expressions were born from text prompts. Even the camera's slow pan over each room is orchestrated by AI, because there was no actual video camera involved. Any real estate agent can create "exactly that, at home, in minutes," says Alok Gupta, a former product manager at Facebook and software engineer at Snapchat who cofounded AutoReel, an app that allows realtors to turn images from their property listings into videos. He said that between 500 and 1,000 new listing videos are being created with AutoReel every day, with realtors across the US and even in New Zealand and India using the technology to market thousands of properties. This is one of many AI tools, including more familiar ones like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini, that are quickly reshaping the real estate industry into something that isn't necessarily, well, real. "People that want to buy a house, they're going to make the largest investment of their lifetime," said Nathan Cool, a real estate photographer who runs an educational YouTube channel. "They don't want to be fooled before they ever arrive."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.