Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Public Policy & NGOs
Featured Stories
Pueblo Co. Sheriff Scores PETA Award for Asking Ranchers to Give Animals a Fighting Chance to Flee
NORFOLK, Virginia, July 3 -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued the following news release:
* * *
Pueblo Co. Sheriff Scores PETA Award for Asking Ranchers to Give Animals a Fighting Chance to Flee
Pueblo, Colo. - A Compassionate Police Department Award is on its way from PETA to the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office for urging ranchers unable to transport animals to safety to cut their fences so as to give cows, horses, and other animals a fighting chance to escape the fast-moving Aspen Acres fire.
The sheriff's office issued the plea on June 29, after high winds caused the fire ... Show Full Article NORFOLK, Virginia, July 3 -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued the following news release: * * * Pueblo Co. Sheriff Scores PETA Award for Asking Ranchers to Give Animals a Fighting Chance to Flee Pueblo, Colo. - A Compassionate Police Department Award is on its way from PETA to the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office for urging ranchers unable to transport animals to safety to cut their fences so as to give cows, horses, and other animals a fighting chance to escape the fast-moving Aspen Acres fire. The sheriff's office issued the plea on June 29, after high winds caused the fireto spread across 23,000 acres in just 12 hours. Now at over 28,000 acres with 0% containment, the fire has destroyed dozens of structures and forced the evacuation of residents in Rye, Beulah, San Isabel, Bishop's Castle, and other communities. Any animals unable to flee from the flames would surely have died.
"Terrified animals surrounded by fences face frightening, painful deaths when wildfires trap them, and the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office made the right call urging ranchers to help them escape," says PETA Founder Ingrid Newkirk. "PETA urges other authorities and residents to follow their lead and do whatever is needed to protect those in distress from wildfires and reminds everyone to never leave animals behind during evacuations if at all possible."
PETA notes that anyone who evacuates and intentionally abandons animals to fend for themselves may be prosecuted.Pueblo County authorities are directing those with transportation to a large-animal shelter at the Colorado State Fair, near the Gate 7 entrance. An evacuation center accepting small animals is open at the Pueblo County Recreation Center at 1650 Cooper Place. PETA offers the following lifesaving wildfire tips for animals:
* During evacuations, ranchers should cut fences and open stalls to allow cows, horses, and other large animals at least a fighting chance to escape.
* Small animals such as cats, rabbits, birds, guinea pigs, and gerbils should be placed securely in carriers (birds should be covered), and dogs should be kept on a secure harness and leash. Take enough food for your animals to last several days.
* Residents in areas affected by smoke and falling ash should keep animals indoors and avoid all outdoor activities, such as running with dogs.
* Anyone who sees animals in danger or distress should assist if possible, but if unable to help, should note their exact location and alert authorities immediately.
The Pueblo County Sheriff's Office will receive a framed certificate and delicious vegan chocolates from PETA.
* * *
PETA--whose motto reads, in part, that "animals are not ours to eat, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way"--points out that when it comes to the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a cow is a dog is a boy. For more information, please visit PETA.org or follow PETA on X, Facebook, or Instagram.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/pueblo-co-sheriff-scores-peta-award-for-asking-ranchers-to-give-animals-a-fighting-chance-to-flee/
[Category: Animals]
* * *
Pueblo Co. Sheriff Scores PETA Award for Asking Ranchers to Give Animals a Fighting Chance to Flee
Pueblo, Colo. - A Compassionate Police Department Award is on its way from PETA to the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office for urging ranchers unable to transport animals to safety to cut their fences so as to give cows, horses, and other animals a fighting chance to escape the fast-moving Aspen Acres fire.
The sheriff's office issued the plea on June 29, after high winds caused the fire ... Show Full Article NORFOLK, Virginia, July 3 -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued the following news release: * * * Pueblo Co. Sheriff Scores PETA Award for Asking Ranchers to Give Animals a Fighting Chance to Flee Pueblo, Colo. - A Compassionate Police Department Award is on its way from PETA to the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office for urging ranchers unable to transport animals to safety to cut their fences so as to give cows, horses, and other animals a fighting chance to escape the fast-moving Aspen Acres fire. The sheriff's office issued the plea on June 29, after high winds caused the fireto spread across 23,000 acres in just 12 hours. Now at over 28,000 acres with 0% containment, the fire has destroyed dozens of structures and forced the evacuation of residents in Rye, Beulah, San Isabel, Bishop's Castle, and other communities. Any animals unable to flee from the flames would surely have died.
"Terrified animals surrounded by fences face frightening, painful deaths when wildfires trap them, and the Pueblo County Sheriff's Office made the right call urging ranchers to help them escape," says PETA Founder Ingrid Newkirk. "PETA urges other authorities and residents to follow their lead and do whatever is needed to protect those in distress from wildfires and reminds everyone to never leave animals behind during evacuations if at all possible."
PETA notes that anyone who evacuates and intentionally abandons animals to fend for themselves may be prosecuted.Pueblo County authorities are directing those with transportation to a large-animal shelter at the Colorado State Fair, near the Gate 7 entrance. An evacuation center accepting small animals is open at the Pueblo County Recreation Center at 1650 Cooper Place. PETA offers the following lifesaving wildfire tips for animals:
* During evacuations, ranchers should cut fences and open stalls to allow cows, horses, and other large animals at least a fighting chance to escape.
* Small animals such as cats, rabbits, birds, guinea pigs, and gerbils should be placed securely in carriers (birds should be covered), and dogs should be kept on a secure harness and leash. Take enough food for your animals to last several days.
* Residents in areas affected by smoke and falling ash should keep animals indoors and avoid all outdoor activities, such as running with dogs.
* Anyone who sees animals in danger or distress should assist if possible, but if unable to help, should note their exact location and alert authorities immediately.
The Pueblo County Sheriff's Office will receive a framed certificate and delicious vegan chocolates from PETA.
* * *
PETA--whose motto reads, in part, that "animals are not ours to eat, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way"--points out that when it comes to the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a cow is a dog is a boy. For more information, please visit PETA.org or follow PETA on X, Facebook, or Instagram.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/pueblo-co-sheriff-scores-peta-award-for-asking-ranchers-to-give-animals-a-fighting-chance-to-flee/
[Category: Animals]
Peterson Institute for International Economics Issues Commentary: Fable of the Mythos Saga - Ad Hoc US AI Model Controls Could Help China
WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by senior research staffer Martin Chorzempa:
* * *
Fable of the Mythos saga: Ad hoc US AI model controls could help China
Proliferating export controls, import bans, and shortages of key components since COVID-19 have made supply chain resilience a top strategic concern for firms and governments. Both groups have spent billions of dollars identifying supply chain weak points, stockpiling inputs, and diversifying suppliers so that cars worth tens of thousands of dollars never ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by senior research staffer Martin Chorzempa: * * * Fable of the Mythos saga: Ad hoc US AI model controls could help China Proliferating export controls, import bans, and shortages of key components since COVID-19 have made supply chain resilience a top strategic concern for firms and governments. Both groups have spent billions of dollars identifying supply chain weak points, stockpiling inputs, and diversifying suppliers so that cars worth tens of thousands of dollars neveragain sit unfinished for want of a microchip.
It is with these concerns and visceral chokepoint memories in mind that executives and government officials are grappling with the question of how much they can rely on artificial intelligence (AI) tools as a key input. Can users trust that they will have uninterrupted access to the best AI models and that governments will not exploit their dependence as leverage?
The US government in June effectively answered "no," cutting off international access to the best American models in a move likely to prove a gift to China's AI ecosystem.
The US Department of Commerce on June 12 abruptly placed export controls on Anthropic's top-of-the-line Mythos and Fable models, ordering Anthropic to deny access for any non-US persons. Unable to verify user citizenship, Anthropic took down the models for everyone, including reportedly the US National Security Agency (NSA).
The US government's action meant that for the first time in the current AI boom, AI capabilities available to the global public took a step backward. Soon after, at the G7 Summit, French president Emmanuel Macron bluntly warned the United States that after this "nationalist" action, "we will not buy any model made by [US AI] companies if from one day to the next you can just turn off the switch." He also noted that US AI firms rely heavily on revenue earned worldwide to recoup the escalating costs of training frontier AI models.
Macron's warning came too late to prevent serious damage. Though international access to Fable was restored on July 1 with more restrictive guardrails, Mythos has been released only to American institutions for now. This episode is not likely to be a one-off, as OpenAI has reportedly agreed to give the US government approval rights over customers for its latest model as well.
The sudden US action, without any public criteria or carve-outs for allies, is likely to boost international adoption of Chinese AI models because Chinese firms tend to release their models as "open weight," meaning users can run them on their own computing power. Once a user downloads an open weight model, the provider cannot shut off access--a feature that just became a greater selling point.
Chinese firms provide no guarantee of access to future models and may decide to release their most powerful models as closed weight if they embrace safety concerns similar to those that drove the US government's June 12 order. But for now, the US action and slower US model releases may give Chinese AI firms a chance to narrow the lead of their American rivals.
Mythos and model access
Ever since ChatGPT was released in late 2022, the best new AI models were available to nearly anyone in the world for a relatively small subscription fee. The fees, ranging from $20 to $220 per month, would be easier to bear in wealthier countries, but engineers at startups next to OpenAI headquarters could use the same powerful model as a small business owner in Kenya, Chile, or Cambodia.1 Those days may be over, with serious consequences.
The first actions restricting access to US AI models preceded the US government's June 12 export control order. Anthropic decided that its Mythos model, announced on April 7, was too capable 2 of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in critical software systems to release broadly. Instead, it created "Project Glasswing" which allowed key firms early access to the model to conduct cyber defense. All the initial 12 Glasswing participants were American, but it is unclear whether this exclusion of foreign firms was purely Anthropic's choice or the result of US government pressure.3
The US government has no implemented export control authority that clearly would allow it to control Mythos access. However, the government reportedly successfully pressured Anthropic to delay expanding its roll out of the model, due to concerns about whether new users had sufficient security precautions and whether Anthropic had enough computing power to serve US government demand. The latter is ironic considering that an earlier dispute about guardrails for government AI use led the US Department of War to label Anthropic a "supply chain risk." 4 President Donald Trump even ordered the entire US executive branch to cease working with the company. Yet, Mythos seems to have led the government to reconsider. Press reports indicate the NSA was also using Anthropic for offensive cyber operations.
Project Glasswing had just expanded on June 2 to include 150 new organizations, reportedly including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the EU's cybersecurity agency, the SWIFT network for payment messages, and governments such as France and Germany. The US government reportedly cleared most but not all the new users. These organizations should have been able to use Mythos to start hardening their cyber defenses when Anthropic broadly released Fable 5, a "mythos-class" AI model, on June 9, with protections against cybersecurity-related use designed to differentiate it from Mythos.
Many of the key facts are disputed. Amazon reportedly discovered that these restrictions could be at least partially bypassed and reported this to the Trump administration. Anthropic, by contrast, claims that the supposed loophole in its safeguards is narrow and only unlocks capabilities "widely available from other models." Nevertheless, the administration's June 12 emergency export control5 led Anthropic to cut off access to both models.
Balancing act
The Mythos mess has erupted from multiple US goals that are in tension with one another. On the one hand, the United States wants to export the US AI "stack" of AI chips and cloud computing systems that train and run AI models, AI models themselves, and AI-based applications to generate revenue to sustain investment and establish global market share for US firms. But the United States also does not want adversaries to access frontier AI capabilities that can boost commercial competitiveness, military and strategic capabilities, and enable competing AI companies to "distill" or extract hard-won AI capabilities from US leaders. Broader access to US frontier AI, even while attempting to exclude competitors like China, will inevitably lead to leaks.
Before Trump's second presidential term began in 2025, the Biden administration's approach generally focused its export controls on depriving China of chips needed to train and run advanced AI models, including by denying the chips to a set of countries deemed a risk of diverting technology to China. It was only in its last days that the Biden administration issued the AI Diffusion Rule, which the current Trump administration criticized as overreach and withdrew before its main requirements took effect. That rule would have, for the first time, imposed controls on the model weights of certain advanced closed AI models while dividing countries into three tiers with varying access to US-origin advanced AI computing power.
But even this closest precedent to the Mythos and Fable controls did not go so far as to restrict who could use AI models. The diffusion rule's model controls would have only constrained AI labs' export of the model itself as expressed in its weights, with the idea that exporting the model to be served from computing power in a jurisdiction with lax cybersecurity could lead the entire model to leak.
While sharing concerns about leakage of US technology that could enhance Chinese AI capabilities, the Trump administration could not achieve consensus on a potential successor rule earlier this year. An AI executive order including a voluntary safety and security review that was pulled at the last minute and signed later on June 2 with some tweaks is another signal of the intense and unsettled debate within the administration. But declining to introduce some form of replacement for the diffusion rule left the administration without a clear framework or authorities to control frontier models like Mythos directly. The administration may not have had other tools to restrict the model, but the use of export controls with a clear US-foreign divide in access, with no carve-outs for even the closest allies, sent a particularly chilling signal.6
The Commerce Department's legal basis to control use of AI models through cloud means like Anthropic's API, as it did on June 12, is also contested.7 Export control jurisdiction does not typically apply to access to services--one reason that it has remained legal for Chinese firms to rent cloud-based access to powerful export-controlled AI chips. Congress has recognized this gap and considered but not passed a bill that would grant the Commerce Department this authority.
Fallout and Future
Much of the world already relies on US technology and firms for critical systems from cloud computing to payments and internet infrastructure, and the same pattern could recur for AI. US cloud computing firms have proven trustworthy with sensitive data, but AI requires even more trust because these systems go beyond data storage and analysis to guide and even make decisions for users. Potential users also need to trust AI actions and outputs for accuracy and "alignment" with user interests and policies. AI models are improving on these fronts.
However, the administration's June 12 order cutting off access for even close US allies who just negotiated Mythos access and maintaining a US/non-US dividing line for frontier capabilities is fueling concerns in Europe and around the world that the United States would use reliance on US technology as a leverage point. Some worry, for example, that the Trump administration would threaten to cut off AI access over trade deals or to gain control of Greenland. Pre-Mythos controls, senior European leaders flagged the risk of a "kill switch" for cloud providers.
The Mythos and Fable ban has further damaged the reputation of the United States and its firms as a supplier of technology and will fuel efforts around the world to at least hedge dependence on the United States--with China as the main beneficiary. It is reasonable to expect that the US safety concerns around cybersecurity risks, biosecurity risks, and more8 that led to these controls will only grow as AI systems become more powerful, and thus that government restrictions on AI technology will become the new norm--as OpenAI's GPT 5.6 rollout is likely to demonstrate.
The problem now is that there is no credible and consistent framework for controlling access that would give other governments and firms a sense of whether they would have early or even later reliable access to US frontier models, and what if any requirements the United States would place on that access.
A specific proposal is beyond the scope of this article, but the United States urgently needs a better framework if it intends to regulate deployment, preferably one developed together with leading firms and key allies that guarantees their early access to frontier models subject to transparent security precautions, a certification process for trusted users for cyber defense, and consistent, neutral procedures for emergencies that create a perceived need to narrow access to already deployed models (including an appeals process).
If future US model access is restricted by nationality, it will require American AI labs to create from scratch a know-your-customer (KYC) regime like banks. Unlike banks, though, US AI firms have rapidly built international user bases by minimizing friction for new users to sign up. There are precedents. For example, consumer-focused semiconductor companies also had to build stronger compliance systems to match more stringent export controls applied to their products since 2022.
Chinese firms will have strong incentives to undermine any AI model access controls by posing as other nationalities or buying through intermediaries. However, AI labs would have the hard task of trying to weed out unauthorized access across hundreds of millions of users, including also thorny issues of dealing with edge cases, such as Chinese nationals working at companies or studying at universities with access to the best models. The Commerce Department has lifted the restrictions on access for foreign nationals in US institutions, but restrictions could still be reimposed.9
Forcing users to identify themselves would also pose new questions about data privacy for users whose sensitive information would be associated with their real names and potentially shared with authorities.
China will gain, but will it stay open?
The recent government controls come at an inopportune time for US AI. While US firms have consistently been in the lead producing the world's best models, these are far more expensive than Chinese AI models that appear to be good enough for a growing variety of tasks--albeit with unknown security implications. Chinese models dominate the tier below US models as fast followers. Any migration from US models will likely be to Chinese models because no other countries have proven similarly capable of training near-frontier AI models.
As AI use has shifted from maximum $220 per month subscriptions to metered use of coding agents, costs have exploded to such an extent that even deep pocketed companies have indicated they are exploring Chinese models for some tasks. Chinese models have commensurately increased their share of use based on the limited data available. The fear of being cut off from US models thus adds to the cost concerns that have increased user openness to Chinese alternatives.
Many countries outside the United States and China have implicitly followed strategies that involve playing one against the other. Unable or unwilling to marshal the considerable resources required to compete at a fast-moving frontier, they hoped the threat of migrating to Chinese open models would be a check on US frontier labs' market power and US government leverage. After all, even Meta and xAI, despite amassing enormous computing investments and high-priced talent, have not been able to keep up with the frontier.
The main risk for the rest of the world is that China, with the same national security concerns as the United States, begins restricting access to some future generation of powerful models developed by Chinese firms. This could happen because of events that suddenly shift the equilibrium: For example, nonstate actors might use powerful Chinese open weight AI models, fine tune the guardrails out of them, and then engage in cyberattacks including against China. The inability to monitor and shut off access to open models applies to criminals too, after all.
Chinese labs may also shift away from open weight models for economic reasons, as it is challenging to create a sustainable business model for an AI lab if it releases the fruits of its expensive training runs for free. Third countries hoping to rely on China could then find themselves no longer able to use open weight Chinese models as a counterweight to the United States. The only way they could then access them could be through application programming interfaces (APIs) just as is the case for most US models today. That could involve sending sensitive data to China and ensuring models comply with Chinese censorship directives. Countries could also be forced to choose between an entirely Chinese or entirely American AI stack in a way that is not necessary today.
The US government seems to believe that AI has now crossed a threshold that requires restricted access to the best models. Its safety concerns may justify this assessment, but the government needs to explain its concerns to the international public. If it wants to restrict access while maintaining credibility, the administration urgently needs at least a provisional model access regime to replace the ad hoc de facto regime today in which the US government approves individual users and models without any clear criteria. The administration also should refrain from imposing restrictions based on a user's nationality, as did its June 12 export control letter to Anthropic.
* * *
Notes
Recently, more users, especially business users, are using plans that pay for usage, which can be significantly more expensive for intensive use of top of the line models.
This not a universally held view--some see it as mainly discovering already known vulnerabilities, at a large expense.
Anthropic has not publicly disclosed the full list of firms with Mythos access, which goes beyond the 12 Glasswing participants to a total of around 50 and may include foreign firms. But there is no evidence that any non-US participants were in the initial group.
The author has joined two amicus briefs on Anthropic's side in this matter but has no personal financial relationship or affiliation with Anthropic.
The export control took the form of an "is informed" letter that can be used to quickly control something. For example, is informed letters were sent to firms before the October 2022 export controls on AI chips and chipmaking equipment to stop Chinese buyers from using soon-to-be-banned transactions to stockpile before the rumored but not yet final controls could be designed and implemented.
The Commerce Department letter included "deemed export" restrictions that treat giving, say, an Anthropic engineer without US citizenship or permanent residency access to the model the same as exporting the model to their country of nationality.
One user has already sued the administration in an attempt to overturn the ban.
The AI space often refers to "CBRN" or chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks, among others.
The Commerce Department's June 30 letter to Anthropic lifting controls included lifting the "deemed export" controls that restricted access for foreign nationals.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2026/fable-mythos-saga-ad-hoc-us-ai-model-controls-could-help-china
[Category: Economics]
* * *
Fable of the Mythos saga: Ad hoc US AI model controls could help China
Proliferating export controls, import bans, and shortages of key components since COVID-19 have made supply chain resilience a top strategic concern for firms and governments. Both groups have spent billions of dollars identifying supply chain weak points, stockpiling inputs, and diversifying suppliers so that cars worth tens of thousands of dollars never ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 -- The Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by senior research staffer Martin Chorzempa: * * * Fable of the Mythos saga: Ad hoc US AI model controls could help China Proliferating export controls, import bans, and shortages of key components since COVID-19 have made supply chain resilience a top strategic concern for firms and governments. Both groups have spent billions of dollars identifying supply chain weak points, stockpiling inputs, and diversifying suppliers so that cars worth tens of thousands of dollars neveragain sit unfinished for want of a microchip.
It is with these concerns and visceral chokepoint memories in mind that executives and government officials are grappling with the question of how much they can rely on artificial intelligence (AI) tools as a key input. Can users trust that they will have uninterrupted access to the best AI models and that governments will not exploit their dependence as leverage?
The US government in June effectively answered "no," cutting off international access to the best American models in a move likely to prove a gift to China's AI ecosystem.
The US Department of Commerce on June 12 abruptly placed export controls on Anthropic's top-of-the-line Mythos and Fable models, ordering Anthropic to deny access for any non-US persons. Unable to verify user citizenship, Anthropic took down the models for everyone, including reportedly the US National Security Agency (NSA).
The US government's action meant that for the first time in the current AI boom, AI capabilities available to the global public took a step backward. Soon after, at the G7 Summit, French president Emmanuel Macron bluntly warned the United States that after this "nationalist" action, "we will not buy any model made by [US AI] companies if from one day to the next you can just turn off the switch." He also noted that US AI firms rely heavily on revenue earned worldwide to recoup the escalating costs of training frontier AI models.
Macron's warning came too late to prevent serious damage. Though international access to Fable was restored on July 1 with more restrictive guardrails, Mythos has been released only to American institutions for now. This episode is not likely to be a one-off, as OpenAI has reportedly agreed to give the US government approval rights over customers for its latest model as well.
The sudden US action, without any public criteria or carve-outs for allies, is likely to boost international adoption of Chinese AI models because Chinese firms tend to release their models as "open weight," meaning users can run them on their own computing power. Once a user downloads an open weight model, the provider cannot shut off access--a feature that just became a greater selling point.
Chinese firms provide no guarantee of access to future models and may decide to release their most powerful models as closed weight if they embrace safety concerns similar to those that drove the US government's June 12 order. But for now, the US action and slower US model releases may give Chinese AI firms a chance to narrow the lead of their American rivals.
Mythos and model access
Ever since ChatGPT was released in late 2022, the best new AI models were available to nearly anyone in the world for a relatively small subscription fee. The fees, ranging from $20 to $220 per month, would be easier to bear in wealthier countries, but engineers at startups next to OpenAI headquarters could use the same powerful model as a small business owner in Kenya, Chile, or Cambodia.1 Those days may be over, with serious consequences.
The first actions restricting access to US AI models preceded the US government's June 12 export control order. Anthropic decided that its Mythos model, announced on April 7, was too capable 2 of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in critical software systems to release broadly. Instead, it created "Project Glasswing" which allowed key firms early access to the model to conduct cyber defense. All the initial 12 Glasswing participants were American, but it is unclear whether this exclusion of foreign firms was purely Anthropic's choice or the result of US government pressure.3
The US government has no implemented export control authority that clearly would allow it to control Mythos access. However, the government reportedly successfully pressured Anthropic to delay expanding its roll out of the model, due to concerns about whether new users had sufficient security precautions and whether Anthropic had enough computing power to serve US government demand. The latter is ironic considering that an earlier dispute about guardrails for government AI use led the US Department of War to label Anthropic a "supply chain risk." 4 President Donald Trump even ordered the entire US executive branch to cease working with the company. Yet, Mythos seems to have led the government to reconsider. Press reports indicate the NSA was also using Anthropic for offensive cyber operations.
Project Glasswing had just expanded on June 2 to include 150 new organizations, reportedly including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the EU's cybersecurity agency, the SWIFT network for payment messages, and governments such as France and Germany. The US government reportedly cleared most but not all the new users. These organizations should have been able to use Mythos to start hardening their cyber defenses when Anthropic broadly released Fable 5, a "mythos-class" AI model, on June 9, with protections against cybersecurity-related use designed to differentiate it from Mythos.
Many of the key facts are disputed. Amazon reportedly discovered that these restrictions could be at least partially bypassed and reported this to the Trump administration. Anthropic, by contrast, claims that the supposed loophole in its safeguards is narrow and only unlocks capabilities "widely available from other models." Nevertheless, the administration's June 12 emergency export control5 led Anthropic to cut off access to both models.
Balancing act
The Mythos mess has erupted from multiple US goals that are in tension with one another. On the one hand, the United States wants to export the US AI "stack" of AI chips and cloud computing systems that train and run AI models, AI models themselves, and AI-based applications to generate revenue to sustain investment and establish global market share for US firms. But the United States also does not want adversaries to access frontier AI capabilities that can boost commercial competitiveness, military and strategic capabilities, and enable competing AI companies to "distill" or extract hard-won AI capabilities from US leaders. Broader access to US frontier AI, even while attempting to exclude competitors like China, will inevitably lead to leaks.
Before Trump's second presidential term began in 2025, the Biden administration's approach generally focused its export controls on depriving China of chips needed to train and run advanced AI models, including by denying the chips to a set of countries deemed a risk of diverting technology to China. It was only in its last days that the Biden administration issued the AI Diffusion Rule, which the current Trump administration criticized as overreach and withdrew before its main requirements took effect. That rule would have, for the first time, imposed controls on the model weights of certain advanced closed AI models while dividing countries into three tiers with varying access to US-origin advanced AI computing power.
But even this closest precedent to the Mythos and Fable controls did not go so far as to restrict who could use AI models. The diffusion rule's model controls would have only constrained AI labs' export of the model itself as expressed in its weights, with the idea that exporting the model to be served from computing power in a jurisdiction with lax cybersecurity could lead the entire model to leak.
While sharing concerns about leakage of US technology that could enhance Chinese AI capabilities, the Trump administration could not achieve consensus on a potential successor rule earlier this year. An AI executive order including a voluntary safety and security review that was pulled at the last minute and signed later on June 2 with some tweaks is another signal of the intense and unsettled debate within the administration. But declining to introduce some form of replacement for the diffusion rule left the administration without a clear framework or authorities to control frontier models like Mythos directly. The administration may not have had other tools to restrict the model, but the use of export controls with a clear US-foreign divide in access, with no carve-outs for even the closest allies, sent a particularly chilling signal.6
The Commerce Department's legal basis to control use of AI models through cloud means like Anthropic's API, as it did on June 12, is also contested.7 Export control jurisdiction does not typically apply to access to services--one reason that it has remained legal for Chinese firms to rent cloud-based access to powerful export-controlled AI chips. Congress has recognized this gap and considered but not passed a bill that would grant the Commerce Department this authority.
Fallout and Future
Much of the world already relies on US technology and firms for critical systems from cloud computing to payments and internet infrastructure, and the same pattern could recur for AI. US cloud computing firms have proven trustworthy with sensitive data, but AI requires even more trust because these systems go beyond data storage and analysis to guide and even make decisions for users. Potential users also need to trust AI actions and outputs for accuracy and "alignment" with user interests and policies. AI models are improving on these fronts.
However, the administration's June 12 order cutting off access for even close US allies who just negotiated Mythos access and maintaining a US/non-US dividing line for frontier capabilities is fueling concerns in Europe and around the world that the United States would use reliance on US technology as a leverage point. Some worry, for example, that the Trump administration would threaten to cut off AI access over trade deals or to gain control of Greenland. Pre-Mythos controls, senior European leaders flagged the risk of a "kill switch" for cloud providers.
The Mythos and Fable ban has further damaged the reputation of the United States and its firms as a supplier of technology and will fuel efforts around the world to at least hedge dependence on the United States--with China as the main beneficiary. It is reasonable to expect that the US safety concerns around cybersecurity risks, biosecurity risks, and more8 that led to these controls will only grow as AI systems become more powerful, and thus that government restrictions on AI technology will become the new norm--as OpenAI's GPT 5.6 rollout is likely to demonstrate.
The problem now is that there is no credible and consistent framework for controlling access that would give other governments and firms a sense of whether they would have early or even later reliable access to US frontier models, and what if any requirements the United States would place on that access.
A specific proposal is beyond the scope of this article, but the United States urgently needs a better framework if it intends to regulate deployment, preferably one developed together with leading firms and key allies that guarantees their early access to frontier models subject to transparent security precautions, a certification process for trusted users for cyber defense, and consistent, neutral procedures for emergencies that create a perceived need to narrow access to already deployed models (including an appeals process).
If future US model access is restricted by nationality, it will require American AI labs to create from scratch a know-your-customer (KYC) regime like banks. Unlike banks, though, US AI firms have rapidly built international user bases by minimizing friction for new users to sign up. There are precedents. For example, consumer-focused semiconductor companies also had to build stronger compliance systems to match more stringent export controls applied to their products since 2022.
Chinese firms will have strong incentives to undermine any AI model access controls by posing as other nationalities or buying through intermediaries. However, AI labs would have the hard task of trying to weed out unauthorized access across hundreds of millions of users, including also thorny issues of dealing with edge cases, such as Chinese nationals working at companies or studying at universities with access to the best models. The Commerce Department has lifted the restrictions on access for foreign nationals in US institutions, but restrictions could still be reimposed.9
Forcing users to identify themselves would also pose new questions about data privacy for users whose sensitive information would be associated with their real names and potentially shared with authorities.
China will gain, but will it stay open?
The recent government controls come at an inopportune time for US AI. While US firms have consistently been in the lead producing the world's best models, these are far more expensive than Chinese AI models that appear to be good enough for a growing variety of tasks--albeit with unknown security implications. Chinese models dominate the tier below US models as fast followers. Any migration from US models will likely be to Chinese models because no other countries have proven similarly capable of training near-frontier AI models.
As AI use has shifted from maximum $220 per month subscriptions to metered use of coding agents, costs have exploded to such an extent that even deep pocketed companies have indicated they are exploring Chinese models for some tasks. Chinese models have commensurately increased their share of use based on the limited data available. The fear of being cut off from US models thus adds to the cost concerns that have increased user openness to Chinese alternatives.
Many countries outside the United States and China have implicitly followed strategies that involve playing one against the other. Unable or unwilling to marshal the considerable resources required to compete at a fast-moving frontier, they hoped the threat of migrating to Chinese open models would be a check on US frontier labs' market power and US government leverage. After all, even Meta and xAI, despite amassing enormous computing investments and high-priced talent, have not been able to keep up with the frontier.
The main risk for the rest of the world is that China, with the same national security concerns as the United States, begins restricting access to some future generation of powerful models developed by Chinese firms. This could happen because of events that suddenly shift the equilibrium: For example, nonstate actors might use powerful Chinese open weight AI models, fine tune the guardrails out of them, and then engage in cyberattacks including against China. The inability to monitor and shut off access to open models applies to criminals too, after all.
Chinese labs may also shift away from open weight models for economic reasons, as it is challenging to create a sustainable business model for an AI lab if it releases the fruits of its expensive training runs for free. Third countries hoping to rely on China could then find themselves no longer able to use open weight Chinese models as a counterweight to the United States. The only way they could then access them could be through application programming interfaces (APIs) just as is the case for most US models today. That could involve sending sensitive data to China and ensuring models comply with Chinese censorship directives. Countries could also be forced to choose between an entirely Chinese or entirely American AI stack in a way that is not necessary today.
The US government seems to believe that AI has now crossed a threshold that requires restricted access to the best models. Its safety concerns may justify this assessment, but the government needs to explain its concerns to the international public. If it wants to restrict access while maintaining credibility, the administration urgently needs at least a provisional model access regime to replace the ad hoc de facto regime today in which the US government approves individual users and models without any clear criteria. The administration also should refrain from imposing restrictions based on a user's nationality, as did its June 12 export control letter to Anthropic.
* * *
Notes
Recently, more users, especially business users, are using plans that pay for usage, which can be significantly more expensive for intensive use of top of the line models.
This not a universally held view--some see it as mainly discovering already known vulnerabilities, at a large expense.
Anthropic has not publicly disclosed the full list of firms with Mythos access, which goes beyond the 12 Glasswing participants to a total of around 50 and may include foreign firms. But there is no evidence that any non-US participants were in the initial group.
The author has joined two amicus briefs on Anthropic's side in this matter but has no personal financial relationship or affiliation with Anthropic.
The export control took the form of an "is informed" letter that can be used to quickly control something. For example, is informed letters were sent to firms before the October 2022 export controls on AI chips and chipmaking equipment to stop Chinese buyers from using soon-to-be-banned transactions to stockpile before the rumored but not yet final controls could be designed and implemented.
The Commerce Department letter included "deemed export" restrictions that treat giving, say, an Anthropic engineer without US citizenship or permanent residency access to the model the same as exporting the model to their country of nationality.
One user has already sued the administration in an attempt to overturn the ban.
The AI space often refers to "CBRN" or chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks, among others.
The Commerce Department's June 30 letter to Anthropic lifting controls included lifting the "deemed export" controls that restricted access for foreign nationals.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2026/fable-mythos-saga-ad-hoc-us-ai-model-controls-could-help-china
[Category: Economics]
Lebanon/Israel: Framework Agreement Betrays Victims of War Crimes in Lebanon
NEW YORK, July 3 [Category: International] -- Human Rights Watch issued the following news:
* * *
Lebanon/Israel: Framework Agreement Betrays Victims of War Crimes in Lebanon
*
(Beirut) - The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, 2026, threatens to betray war crimes victims in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch and five human rights and press freedom organizations said today. Parts of the text appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums. Others seem to acquiesce to the prolonged and indefinite ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 [Category: International] -- Human Rights Watch issued the following news: * * * Lebanon/Israel: Framework Agreement Betrays Victims of War Crimes in Lebanon * (Beirut) - The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, 2026, threatens to betray war crimes victims in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch and five human rights and press freedom organizations said today. Parts of the text appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums. Others seem to acquiesce to the prolonged and indefiniteforced displacement of tens of thousands of residents of vast swathes of southern Lebanon occupied by Israeli forces.
The agreement comes following months of hostilities resulting in immense civilian harm, including as a result of war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and gross human rights abuses. Yet, Clause 13 of the agreement commits the governments of Israel and Lebanon to the cessation of "all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora."
To the extent that this agreement is interpreted to prevent Lebanon and Israel from having recourse to international courts, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it would contradict the countries' international legal obligations to pursue accountability for serious international crimes committed on their territories. The agreement does not appear to commit Israel to halt any initiatives in international forums against Hezbollah.
Clause 3 further violates international law and the prohibition of forced displacement, conditioning the return of residents to specified zones along the border, currently occupied by Israel, to the "successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure." Under international humanitarian law, people must be allowed to return once hostilities have ended or the reasons for their displacement cease to exist.
"Time and time again, we have seen civilians in Lebanon pay the price for successive cycles of conflict and serious violations and crimes under international law with no accountability," said Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International. "Victims of war crimes and other violations deserve justice. Any agreement that fails to center their rights to justice, accountability, and reparations will falter underneath the very impunity it builds. The past few years have made it abundantly clear: rampant impunity comes at a cost to us all. States that claim to uphold the international legal order must speak out: justice, reparation, and respect for international law in Lebanon and beyond are nonnegotiable."
Since 2023, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Legal Agenda, the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), the Union of Journalists in Lebanon, and other rights groups have documented the Israeli military's repeated violations of the laws of war and apparent war crimes in Lebanon. They include apparent direct attacks on civilian objects and civilians, indiscriminate attacks and other unlawful attacks that have killed medical personnel, journalists, and entire families; and the unlawful use of white phosphorus, which causes horrific burns, over residential areas.
Amnesty International found in a recent report that the Israeli military has forcibly displaced tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians, committing the war crime of unlawful transfer, while continuing the extensive destruction of civilian property and infrastructure it began in 2024 across southern Lebanon. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also documented Hezbollah's firing of unguided rockets at northern Israel, which have unlawfully killed and injured civilians.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, Legal Agenda, CLDH, and other Lebanese and international rights and media groups, have repeatedly called for investigations into, accountability, and reparation for international law violations committed during the ongoing hostilities. In a February 2026 open letter to Lebanon's deputy prime minister and justice minister, the groups highlighted the urgent need for decisive action from Lebanon's government to ensure justice, accountability, and reparations for victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Lebanon, including seeking accountability at international legal forums.
"It is imperative that Lebanon promptly provides the ICC with the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute such crimes," said Wadih Al Asmar, president of CLDH. "Any delay amounts to tolerance of impunity and further injustice for victims."
The groups called on the authorities to accede to the ICC's Rome Statute and file a declaration with the ICC, accepting the court's jurisdiction under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, to investigate and prosecute crimes under international law committed on Lebanese territory since at least October 2023, and support the establishment of prompt, thorough, independent, and impartial domestic judicial investigations into war crimes committed on Lebanese territory. Lebanon's parliament should put into place a legal framework for these efforts by adopting, without delay, a law criminalizing war crimes and other acts that are crimes under international law, in line with international standards.
In March, hostilities escalated again, as did serious international law violations. A UN Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' (OHCHR) assessment team is already deployed in Lebanon, documenting violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses committed since March 2, at the request of Lebanese authorities.
Under OHCHR's terms of reference, to which Lebanese authorities agreed, the UN team would "examine options for accountability that may be available" and "safely document, preserve and secure all information collected together, with a view to enhancing its use in future accountability processes."
Victims of serious international law violations, as well as their family members and loved ones, have demanded justice.
"Not only does this agreement risk further entrenching impunity, but it includes a clause that signals that political expediency outweighs the fundamental rights of those who have suffered atrocious violations," said Lama Fakih, program director at Human Rights Watch. "It risks denying justice to victims at a time when mounting evidence points to repeated unlawful Israeli attacks causing extensive civilian harm and widespread destruction."
Since October 8, 2023, more than 8,700 people, including at least 569 children and 357 medical workers, have been killed in Lebanon, according to Lebanon's Health Ministry. Israeli forces have also repeatedly targeted and killed identifiable journalists covering the war, according to Reporters Without Borders. Hezbollah attacks have killed at least 32 civilians since October 2023, according to Israeli media.
Hundreds of thousands of people remain displaced in Lebanon following displacement orders issued by the Israeli military, which has also occupied nearly 600 square kilometers of Lebanon's border villages, prohibiting residents from returning.
While the agreement notes that both Israel and Lebanon recognize the importance of "the safe return of [southern Lebanon's] civilian population," it effectively consents to the prolonged and indefinite displacement of tens of thousands of residents of southern Lebanon by making their return, as well as reconstruction, contingent on conditions subject to "confirmation". The agreement makes no mention of justice or reparation for victims of serious international humanitarian law violations, such as those subjected to unlawful transfer and those whose homes and agricultural lands have been unlawfully destroyed.
"The Lebanese government has conceded a right that is not its right: the right of the victims to pursue and hold the perpetrators accountable," said Elsy Moufarrej, president of the Union of Journalists in Lebanon. "This is the right of the people who lost their loved ones, whose homes and memories were destroyed. This is the right of those who performed their duties despite the dangers, like journalists and emergency medical workers."
The Lebanese and Israeli governments should not implement the agreement in a way that overlooks the rights of victims and survivors and should make clear that the agreement, including clauses 3 and 13, does not override the two government's international legal obligations, the groups said.
Governments, including those that have previously supported accountability for crimes under international law committed in Lebanon, should make clear that their support for a political settlement does not extend to provisions that foreclose the possibility of justice, reparation and return of the displaced, the groups said.
"Accountability and respect for international law are not bargaining chips," said Ghida Frangieh, head of litigation at Legal Agenda, "They are legal obligations. International law is clear: States cannot waive or negotiate away their obligation to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Nor can states extinguish individual rights to truth, justice, and reparation.
"Lebanese authorities should urgently take concrete steps to uphold their obligations under international law by pursuing every possible path to accountability, including granting jurisdiction to the ICC and pursuing reparation for international law violations. And they must secure the right of the displaced to return to their homes. There cannot be peace without justice."
List of signatories:
* Amnesty International
* Human Rights Watch
* Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH)
* Legal Agenda
* Reporters Without Borders
* Union of Journalists in Lebanon
***
Original text here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/07/03/lebanon/israel-framework-agreement-betrays-victims-of-war-crimes-in-lebanon
* * *
Lebanon/Israel: Framework Agreement Betrays Victims of War Crimes in Lebanon
*
(Beirut) - The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, 2026, threatens to betray war crimes victims in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch and five human rights and press freedom organizations said today. Parts of the text appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums. Others seem to acquiesce to the prolonged and indefinite ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 [Category: International] -- Human Rights Watch issued the following news: * * * Lebanon/Israel: Framework Agreement Betrays Victims of War Crimes in Lebanon * (Beirut) - The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, 2026, threatens to betray war crimes victims in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch and five human rights and press freedom organizations said today. Parts of the text appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums. Others seem to acquiesce to the prolonged and indefiniteforced displacement of tens of thousands of residents of vast swathes of southern Lebanon occupied by Israeli forces.
The agreement comes following months of hostilities resulting in immense civilian harm, including as a result of war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and gross human rights abuses. Yet, Clause 13 of the agreement commits the governments of Israel and Lebanon to the cessation of "all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora."
To the extent that this agreement is interpreted to prevent Lebanon and Israel from having recourse to international courts, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), it would contradict the countries' international legal obligations to pursue accountability for serious international crimes committed on their territories. The agreement does not appear to commit Israel to halt any initiatives in international forums against Hezbollah.
Clause 3 further violates international law and the prohibition of forced displacement, conditioning the return of residents to specified zones along the border, currently occupied by Israel, to the "successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure." Under international humanitarian law, people must be allowed to return once hostilities have ended or the reasons for their displacement cease to exist.
"Time and time again, we have seen civilians in Lebanon pay the price for successive cycles of conflict and serious violations and crimes under international law with no accountability," said Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International. "Victims of war crimes and other violations deserve justice. Any agreement that fails to center their rights to justice, accountability, and reparations will falter underneath the very impunity it builds. The past few years have made it abundantly clear: rampant impunity comes at a cost to us all. States that claim to uphold the international legal order must speak out: justice, reparation, and respect for international law in Lebanon and beyond are nonnegotiable."
Since 2023, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Legal Agenda, the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), the Union of Journalists in Lebanon, and other rights groups have documented the Israeli military's repeated violations of the laws of war and apparent war crimes in Lebanon. They include apparent direct attacks on civilian objects and civilians, indiscriminate attacks and other unlawful attacks that have killed medical personnel, journalists, and entire families; and the unlawful use of white phosphorus, which causes horrific burns, over residential areas.
Amnesty International found in a recent report that the Israeli military has forcibly displaced tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians, committing the war crime of unlawful transfer, while continuing the extensive destruction of civilian property and infrastructure it began in 2024 across southern Lebanon. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also documented Hezbollah's firing of unguided rockets at northern Israel, which have unlawfully killed and injured civilians.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, Legal Agenda, CLDH, and other Lebanese and international rights and media groups, have repeatedly called for investigations into, accountability, and reparation for international law violations committed during the ongoing hostilities. In a February 2026 open letter to Lebanon's deputy prime minister and justice minister, the groups highlighted the urgent need for decisive action from Lebanon's government to ensure justice, accountability, and reparations for victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Lebanon, including seeking accountability at international legal forums.
"It is imperative that Lebanon promptly provides the ICC with the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute such crimes," said Wadih Al Asmar, president of CLDH. "Any delay amounts to tolerance of impunity and further injustice for victims."
The groups called on the authorities to accede to the ICC's Rome Statute and file a declaration with the ICC, accepting the court's jurisdiction under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, to investigate and prosecute crimes under international law committed on Lebanese territory since at least October 2023, and support the establishment of prompt, thorough, independent, and impartial domestic judicial investigations into war crimes committed on Lebanese territory. Lebanon's parliament should put into place a legal framework for these efforts by adopting, without delay, a law criminalizing war crimes and other acts that are crimes under international law, in line with international standards.
In March, hostilities escalated again, as did serious international law violations. A UN Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights' (OHCHR) assessment team is already deployed in Lebanon, documenting violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses committed since March 2, at the request of Lebanese authorities.
Under OHCHR's terms of reference, to which Lebanese authorities agreed, the UN team would "examine options for accountability that may be available" and "safely document, preserve and secure all information collected together, with a view to enhancing its use in future accountability processes."
Victims of serious international law violations, as well as their family members and loved ones, have demanded justice.
"Not only does this agreement risk further entrenching impunity, but it includes a clause that signals that political expediency outweighs the fundamental rights of those who have suffered atrocious violations," said Lama Fakih, program director at Human Rights Watch. "It risks denying justice to victims at a time when mounting evidence points to repeated unlawful Israeli attacks causing extensive civilian harm and widespread destruction."
Since October 8, 2023, more than 8,700 people, including at least 569 children and 357 medical workers, have been killed in Lebanon, according to Lebanon's Health Ministry. Israeli forces have also repeatedly targeted and killed identifiable journalists covering the war, according to Reporters Without Borders. Hezbollah attacks have killed at least 32 civilians since October 2023, according to Israeli media.
Hundreds of thousands of people remain displaced in Lebanon following displacement orders issued by the Israeli military, which has also occupied nearly 600 square kilometers of Lebanon's border villages, prohibiting residents from returning.
While the agreement notes that both Israel and Lebanon recognize the importance of "the safe return of [southern Lebanon's] civilian population," it effectively consents to the prolonged and indefinite displacement of tens of thousands of residents of southern Lebanon by making their return, as well as reconstruction, contingent on conditions subject to "confirmation". The agreement makes no mention of justice or reparation for victims of serious international humanitarian law violations, such as those subjected to unlawful transfer and those whose homes and agricultural lands have been unlawfully destroyed.
"The Lebanese government has conceded a right that is not its right: the right of the victims to pursue and hold the perpetrators accountable," said Elsy Moufarrej, president of the Union of Journalists in Lebanon. "This is the right of the people who lost their loved ones, whose homes and memories were destroyed. This is the right of those who performed their duties despite the dangers, like journalists and emergency medical workers."
The Lebanese and Israeli governments should not implement the agreement in a way that overlooks the rights of victims and survivors and should make clear that the agreement, including clauses 3 and 13, does not override the two government's international legal obligations, the groups said.
Governments, including those that have previously supported accountability for crimes under international law committed in Lebanon, should make clear that their support for a political settlement does not extend to provisions that foreclose the possibility of justice, reparation and return of the displaced, the groups said.
"Accountability and respect for international law are not bargaining chips," said Ghida Frangieh, head of litigation at Legal Agenda, "They are legal obligations. International law is clear: States cannot waive or negotiate away their obligation to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Nor can states extinguish individual rights to truth, justice, and reparation.
"Lebanese authorities should urgently take concrete steps to uphold their obligations under international law by pursuing every possible path to accountability, including granting jurisdiction to the ICC and pursuing reparation for international law violations. And they must secure the right of the displaced to return to their homes. There cannot be peace without justice."
List of signatories:
* Amnesty International
* Human Rights Watch
* Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH)
* Legal Agenda
* Reporters Without Borders
* Union of Journalists in Lebanon
***
Original text here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/07/03/lebanon/israel-framework-agreement-betrays-victims-of-war-crimes-in-lebanon
Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities Issues Commentary: How 10 Cents a Meal is Changing the Nation
TRAVERSE CITY, Michigan, July 3 (TNSrpt) -- Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities issued the commentary on July 2, 2026, by policy and engagement specialist Amanda Brezzell:
* * *
How 10 Cents a Meal is Changing the Nation
In How Michigan Shaped the Field: The National Impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal Program, the report authors examine how a state-funded local food purchasing initiative influenced food policy development across the United States. The report explores the history, implementation, and broader impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal program, highlighting how it became a ... Show Full Article TRAVERSE CITY, Michigan, July 3 (TNSrpt) -- Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities issued the commentary on July 2, 2026, by policy and engagement specialist Amanda Brezzell: * * * How 10 Cents a Meal is Changing the Nation In How Michigan Shaped the Field: The National Impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal Program, the report authors examine how a state-funded local food purchasing initiative influenced food policy development across the United States. The report explores the history, implementation, and broader impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal program, highlighting how it became anational model for local food purchasing incentives (LFPIs). Through surveys, interviews, and policy analysis, the authors demonstrate how Michigan's approach influenced advocacy efforts, program design, implementation strategies, and evaluation practices in numerous states. The report not only documents the success of this food procurement program, but also illustrates how innovative public policies can shape broader food systems change.
The 10 Cents a Meal program began as a pilot project in 2016 and expanded into a statewide initiative supporting schools and early childhood education centers. The reimbursement program supports institutions in purchasing Michigan-grown fruits, vegetables, and legumes. This has increased access to fresh local foods while supporting regional farmers. Before the program was unexpectedly removed from the Michigan state budget in 2025, it helped feed healthy food to over 600,000 children across the state and generated over $7 million in revenue for Michigan farmers and food businesses in the 2024-25 program year.
In November 2025, The National Farm to School Network and Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems partnered to launch a national survey for advocates and practitioners to share how the 10 Cents a Meal Program impacted farm to school-related work and policies in their states. The survey collected responses from individuals in 16 states who represented state agencies, school nutrition departments, and advocacy organizations.
The 10 Cents a Meal National Impact Report, published in May 2026, details the insights provided by the national survey. Stakeholders identified the 10 Cents a Meal program as an important source of inspiration when developing their own local food purchasing initiatives. The report identifies five key areas of influence: program design, advocacy, evaluation, implementation, and the inclusion of funding for early childhood education settings. By providing a practical model and sharing implementation tools and evaluation data, Michigan helped establish local food purchasing incentives as a credible and effective policy strategy.
Despite 10 Cents a Meal being canceled in 2025-26, the program's influence continues through the many policies and programs it inspired elsewhere. A central finding of the report is that Michigan's impact extended far beyond state borders. For the last several months, program advocates have been working to restore 10 Cents a Meal in the FY27 Michigan state budget.
A key reason why 10 Cents had broad impact is that rather than simply providing funding, Michigan developed a framework that other states could adapt to their own circumstances. These findings emphasize the importance of evaluation in public policy, and highlight the idea that successful policy innovation can spread when program administrators provide evidence of measurable outcomes and practical implementation tools. Michigan invested heavily in documenting outcomes and publishing annual reports. These evaluations and commitment to transparency provided policymakers and advocates with evidence that local food purchasing incentives could support multiple goals simultaneously, including improving access to fresh foods for children, strengthening local agricultural economies, and building relationships between schools and farmers. The report notes that data collection and transparent reporting were essential factors in the program's broader influence. Rather than relying solely on success stories, Michigan generated measurable evidence that other states could then use to justify similar investments.
The report also highlights Michigan's leadership in expanding local food purchasing programs to include early childhood education providers. Michigan was among the first states to broaden the reach of farm-to-school initiatives and recognize the importance of introducing healthy, locally sourced foods to children under five. By incorporating childcare centers and home-based providers, Michigan demonstrated that local food purchasing programs could serve a wider population than traditional school-based initiatives. The authors suggest that this innovation influenced policy discussions in other states and helped establish early childhood education as an important component of farm-to-school programs.
While the report provides a compelling account of Michigan's influence, the study also has limitations. It focuses primarily on policy development and implementation rather than long-term outcomes such as student health, educational achievement, or sustained economic benefits for farmers. Because the current evidence presented is persuasive, further research could examine these long-term impacts and, depending on study results, possibly strengthen the argument for expanding similar programs.
Overall, How Michigan Shaped the Field provides a detailed analysis of a relatively small state-funded initiative that helped shift policy nationwide. This successful policy initiative became an important case study in food system innovation. The report demonstrates how thoughtful program design, financial incentives, and rigorous evaluation can influence policy development far beyond a program's state of origin. Its findings are particularly relevant for other states and and even other nations that want to continue to invest in school food programs and explore ways to strengthen local food systems.
Although additional research on long-term outcomes would be valuable, the report offers a persuasive argument that local food purchasing incentives can create meaningful benefits for children, schools, farmers, and communities. Michigan's experience provides a useful example of how targeted financial incentives could complement existing farm-to-school programs and contribute to a more resilient and locally connected food system.
The work to restore 10 Cents a Meal in Michigan is not done! Please use this link to sign our current action alert and show your support for the program.
* * *
Amanda Brezzell is Groundwork's Policy & Engagement Specialist.
amanda.brezzell@groundworkcenter.org
* * *
REPORT: https://www.canr.msu.edu/foodsystems/uploads/resources/How-Michigan-Shaped-the-Field-the-National-Impact-of-Michigans-10-Cents-a-Meal-Program%201.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://groundworkcenter.org/how-10-cents-a-meal-is-changing-the-nation/
[Category: Sociological]
* * *
How 10 Cents a Meal is Changing the Nation
In How Michigan Shaped the Field: The National Impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal Program, the report authors examine how a state-funded local food purchasing initiative influenced food policy development across the United States. The report explores the history, implementation, and broader impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal program, highlighting how it became a ... Show Full Article TRAVERSE CITY, Michigan, July 3 (TNSrpt) -- Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities issued the commentary on July 2, 2026, by policy and engagement specialist Amanda Brezzell: * * * How 10 Cents a Meal is Changing the Nation In How Michigan Shaped the Field: The National Impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal Program, the report authors examine how a state-funded local food purchasing initiative influenced food policy development across the United States. The report explores the history, implementation, and broader impact of Michigan's 10 Cents a Meal program, highlighting how it became anational model for local food purchasing incentives (LFPIs). Through surveys, interviews, and policy analysis, the authors demonstrate how Michigan's approach influenced advocacy efforts, program design, implementation strategies, and evaluation practices in numerous states. The report not only documents the success of this food procurement program, but also illustrates how innovative public policies can shape broader food systems change.
The 10 Cents a Meal program began as a pilot project in 2016 and expanded into a statewide initiative supporting schools and early childhood education centers. The reimbursement program supports institutions in purchasing Michigan-grown fruits, vegetables, and legumes. This has increased access to fresh local foods while supporting regional farmers. Before the program was unexpectedly removed from the Michigan state budget in 2025, it helped feed healthy food to over 600,000 children across the state and generated over $7 million in revenue for Michigan farmers and food businesses in the 2024-25 program year.
In November 2025, The National Farm to School Network and Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems partnered to launch a national survey for advocates and practitioners to share how the 10 Cents a Meal Program impacted farm to school-related work and policies in their states. The survey collected responses from individuals in 16 states who represented state agencies, school nutrition departments, and advocacy organizations.
The 10 Cents a Meal National Impact Report, published in May 2026, details the insights provided by the national survey. Stakeholders identified the 10 Cents a Meal program as an important source of inspiration when developing their own local food purchasing initiatives. The report identifies five key areas of influence: program design, advocacy, evaluation, implementation, and the inclusion of funding for early childhood education settings. By providing a practical model and sharing implementation tools and evaluation data, Michigan helped establish local food purchasing incentives as a credible and effective policy strategy.
Despite 10 Cents a Meal being canceled in 2025-26, the program's influence continues through the many policies and programs it inspired elsewhere. A central finding of the report is that Michigan's impact extended far beyond state borders. For the last several months, program advocates have been working to restore 10 Cents a Meal in the FY27 Michigan state budget.
A key reason why 10 Cents had broad impact is that rather than simply providing funding, Michigan developed a framework that other states could adapt to their own circumstances. These findings emphasize the importance of evaluation in public policy, and highlight the idea that successful policy innovation can spread when program administrators provide evidence of measurable outcomes and practical implementation tools. Michigan invested heavily in documenting outcomes and publishing annual reports. These evaluations and commitment to transparency provided policymakers and advocates with evidence that local food purchasing incentives could support multiple goals simultaneously, including improving access to fresh foods for children, strengthening local agricultural economies, and building relationships between schools and farmers. The report notes that data collection and transparent reporting were essential factors in the program's broader influence. Rather than relying solely on success stories, Michigan generated measurable evidence that other states could then use to justify similar investments.
The report also highlights Michigan's leadership in expanding local food purchasing programs to include early childhood education providers. Michigan was among the first states to broaden the reach of farm-to-school initiatives and recognize the importance of introducing healthy, locally sourced foods to children under five. By incorporating childcare centers and home-based providers, Michigan demonstrated that local food purchasing programs could serve a wider population than traditional school-based initiatives. The authors suggest that this innovation influenced policy discussions in other states and helped establish early childhood education as an important component of farm-to-school programs.
While the report provides a compelling account of Michigan's influence, the study also has limitations. It focuses primarily on policy development and implementation rather than long-term outcomes such as student health, educational achievement, or sustained economic benefits for farmers. Because the current evidence presented is persuasive, further research could examine these long-term impacts and, depending on study results, possibly strengthen the argument for expanding similar programs.
Overall, How Michigan Shaped the Field provides a detailed analysis of a relatively small state-funded initiative that helped shift policy nationwide. This successful policy initiative became an important case study in food system innovation. The report demonstrates how thoughtful program design, financial incentives, and rigorous evaluation can influence policy development far beyond a program's state of origin. Its findings are particularly relevant for other states and and even other nations that want to continue to invest in school food programs and explore ways to strengthen local food systems.
Although additional research on long-term outcomes would be valuable, the report offers a persuasive argument that local food purchasing incentives can create meaningful benefits for children, schools, farmers, and communities. Michigan's experience provides a useful example of how targeted financial incentives could complement existing farm-to-school programs and contribute to a more resilient and locally connected food system.
The work to restore 10 Cents a Meal in Michigan is not done! Please use this link to sign our current action alert and show your support for the program.
* * *
Amanda Brezzell is Groundwork's Policy & Engagement Specialist.
amanda.brezzell@groundworkcenter.org
* * *
REPORT: https://www.canr.msu.edu/foodsystems/uploads/resources/How-Michigan-Shaped-the-Field-the-National-Impact-of-Michigans-10-Cents-a-Meal-Program%201.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://groundworkcenter.org/how-10-cents-a-meal-is-changing-the-nation/
[Category: Sociological]
GAZA: After 1,000 Days of War, Gaza's Children Dream of Home and a Better Future
WESTPORT, Connecticut, July 3 -- Save the Children, an organization that says it is giving children a healthy start in life, opportunity to learn and protection from harm, posted the following news release:
* * *
GAZA: After 1,000 Days of War, Gaza's Children Dream of Home and a Better Future
GAZA - After 1,000 days of war, children in Gaza have lost homes, schools and a sense of safety, but many have told Save the Children that they have not lost hope for the future.
At least 21,000 children are confirmed to have been killed by the Israeli forces since the start of the war in October 2023, ... Show Full Article WESTPORT, Connecticut, July 3 -- Save the Children, an organization that says it is giving children a healthy start in life, opportunity to learn and protection from harm, posted the following news release: * * * GAZA: After 1,000 Days of War, Gaza's Children Dream of Home and a Better Future GAZA - After 1,000 days of war, children in Gaza have lost homes, schools and a sense of safety, but many have told Save the Children that they have not lost hope for the future. At least 21,000 children are confirmed to have been killed by the Israeli forces since the start of the war in October 2023,with an additional unknown number of children buried under rubble. Over 800,000 children - the vast majority of children in Gaza - are displaced, and it's estimated that more than 7,000 are separated from family.
The conflict began with the atrocities committed in Israel on October 7, 2023. The deadly violence included the abduction of children and adults as hostages. One thousand days later, the definitive ceasefire that would truly protect children remains unrealized
The ongoing violence continues to terrify children, with the United Nations Population Fund reporting that 96% of children in Gaza feel that death is imminent.
In personal testimonies, children supported by Save the Children said that they wanted people to hear their stories of how the war was impacting them and realize that they wanted to be treated like any other child - with a home, an education, and a safe future.
"We could die at any moment. I hope the war stops for us," Amani*, a 14-year-old Palestinian girl, said. "I hope the war stops so that I can continue my education in Gaza and live my rights as a human like any girl in other countries. I would like to live with love, peace, and an easy life. There are many children in Gaza whose voices are not heard."
Bisan*, 14, said: "My wish is for the war to stop, for every one of us to return to their home, and for our lives to return to how they were."
Reem*, 16, told Save the Children that she had many dreams for her future and would not give those up, wanting to fulfil her mother's dream of becoming a doctor.
"The most important thing is for my voice and others to reach everyone, so people know what we're going through. I have many, many dreams. Even before the war I always dreamed of traveling and studying abroad. That hasn't changed. I still hold onto that dream. l will travel and continue my education."
Food insecurity is also ravaging children in Gaza, with an estimated 245,000 children in Gaza at risk of or affected by malnutrition. The flow of humanitarian aid remains limited, food prices are unaffordable for most families, and available food lacks proper nutrition.
Ahlam*, 36, a mother of twins suffering from malnutrition, says: "The children need food, but I have nothing. I do not have the money to buy them anything. Since January, I have been looking for food for them. They are in pain from time to time. They are not growing normally."
Since the declaration of a ceasefire last October, more than 265 children have been reported killed by the Israeli forces. Recently, an eight-year-old boy was reported killed when an Israeli drone hit tents sheltering displaced people in Deir el -Balah in central Gaza. A 13-year-old girl was killed by shrapnel from Israeli tank shelling at the weekend in southern Gaza. Last month 18-year-old Raghad Ashour was killed by an Israeli strike on her way to take her high school exams.
Palestinians are being pushed inside less than 40% of Gaza's territory behind the "Yellow Line". The "Yellow Line" has also reportedly shifted, expanding the area under Israeli military control and further shrinking the space available to Palestinian families.
Save the Children's Regional Director for the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe, Ahmad Ahendawi, said:
"Every day for the past 1,000 days, the world has failed one million children in Gaza by not intervening to stop the killing and maiming of children.
"As their young fragile bodies were blown to bits and pieces by bombs and missiles, the world sold those same weapons to the Government of Israel. As children died from hunger and disease, the Government of Israel failed to live up to its legal obligations to provide humanitarian access, including sufficient nutritious food into Gaza, and the world continued trade agreements with the Government of Israel.
"Even nine months since a 'ceasefire' when over 275 children have been killed by the Israeli forces, the world continues to ignore the voices and needs of children as they simply demand that they be treated like any other child in the world."
Save the Children is calling for the "ceasefire" agreement to become an immediate and definitive ceasefire as the first step to save lives and end grave violations of children's rights. There must be full accountability for crimes against children. Those responsible must be investigated and held to account, to break the cycle of impunity and prevent further harm.
Save the Children is calling on governments to immediately suspend the transfer of arms to Israel and ensure that they do not support or sustain unlawful practices in the occupied Palestinian territory. Member States must also ban trade, economic cooperation and services that maintain or support illegal Israeli settlements, in line with the International Court of Justice's 2024 Advisory Opinion. This would represent a necessary step to end the systematic violation of Palestinian children's fundamental rights.
*Names changed to protect identity
* * *
Notes:
1. Save the Children has worked in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1953, with a permanent presence since 1973. We work with partners to help provide quality education, protection for children, early childhood development support, and employment opportunities for young people.
Together with our partners, Save the Children helped nearly 890,000 people in the oPt in 2025, including almost 430,000 children. As of May 2026, we have supported over 218,000 people, including over 107,000 children in Gaza, through our multisectoral programming.
We have been responding to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza directly and through our partnerships with local organizations. In Gaza, we're currently, running two health clinics, 15 nutrition points, water and sanitation services (8 hygiene promotion sites, 59 water trucking sites, 49 sanitation facilities, and 39 solid waste management points), child protection programs including mental health support and case management at 21 sites, education in 63 temporary learning spaces, and cash transfer programs to support families whose livelihoods have been decimated.
2. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) expected to be published in early July will provide more details about the malnutrition crisis facing children in Gaza.
3. According to UNOCHA, the occupied Palestinian territory flash appeal is only 12-24% funded against a minimum need of $2 billion. Humanitarian donors must urgently scale up their funding to the response to meet the needs of children and families in Gaza.
* * *
Save the Children believes every child deserves a future. Since our founding more than 100 years ago, we've been advocating for the rights of children worldwide. In the United States and around the world, we give children a healthy start in life, the opportunity to learn and protection from harm. We do whatever it takes for children - every day and in times of crisis - transforming the future we share. Our results, financial statements and charity ratings reaffirm that Save the Children is a charity you can trust. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.savethechildren.org/us/about-us/media-and-news/2026-press-releases/gaza-children-dream-of-home-and-better-future
[Category: Sociological]
* * *
GAZA: After 1,000 Days of War, Gaza's Children Dream of Home and a Better Future
GAZA - After 1,000 days of war, children in Gaza have lost homes, schools and a sense of safety, but many have told Save the Children that they have not lost hope for the future.
At least 21,000 children are confirmed to have been killed by the Israeli forces since the start of the war in October 2023, ... Show Full Article WESTPORT, Connecticut, July 3 -- Save the Children, an organization that says it is giving children a healthy start in life, opportunity to learn and protection from harm, posted the following news release: * * * GAZA: After 1,000 Days of War, Gaza's Children Dream of Home and a Better Future GAZA - After 1,000 days of war, children in Gaza have lost homes, schools and a sense of safety, but many have told Save the Children that they have not lost hope for the future. At least 21,000 children are confirmed to have been killed by the Israeli forces since the start of the war in October 2023,with an additional unknown number of children buried under rubble. Over 800,000 children - the vast majority of children in Gaza - are displaced, and it's estimated that more than 7,000 are separated from family.
The conflict began with the atrocities committed in Israel on October 7, 2023. The deadly violence included the abduction of children and adults as hostages. One thousand days later, the definitive ceasefire that would truly protect children remains unrealized
The ongoing violence continues to terrify children, with the United Nations Population Fund reporting that 96% of children in Gaza feel that death is imminent.
In personal testimonies, children supported by Save the Children said that they wanted people to hear their stories of how the war was impacting them and realize that they wanted to be treated like any other child - with a home, an education, and a safe future.
"We could die at any moment. I hope the war stops for us," Amani*, a 14-year-old Palestinian girl, said. "I hope the war stops so that I can continue my education in Gaza and live my rights as a human like any girl in other countries. I would like to live with love, peace, and an easy life. There are many children in Gaza whose voices are not heard."
Bisan*, 14, said: "My wish is for the war to stop, for every one of us to return to their home, and for our lives to return to how they were."
Reem*, 16, told Save the Children that she had many dreams for her future and would not give those up, wanting to fulfil her mother's dream of becoming a doctor.
"The most important thing is for my voice and others to reach everyone, so people know what we're going through. I have many, many dreams. Even before the war I always dreamed of traveling and studying abroad. That hasn't changed. I still hold onto that dream. l will travel and continue my education."
Food insecurity is also ravaging children in Gaza, with an estimated 245,000 children in Gaza at risk of or affected by malnutrition. The flow of humanitarian aid remains limited, food prices are unaffordable for most families, and available food lacks proper nutrition.
Ahlam*, 36, a mother of twins suffering from malnutrition, says: "The children need food, but I have nothing. I do not have the money to buy them anything. Since January, I have been looking for food for them. They are in pain from time to time. They are not growing normally."
Since the declaration of a ceasefire last October, more than 265 children have been reported killed by the Israeli forces. Recently, an eight-year-old boy was reported killed when an Israeli drone hit tents sheltering displaced people in Deir el -Balah in central Gaza. A 13-year-old girl was killed by shrapnel from Israeli tank shelling at the weekend in southern Gaza. Last month 18-year-old Raghad Ashour was killed by an Israeli strike on her way to take her high school exams.
Palestinians are being pushed inside less than 40% of Gaza's territory behind the "Yellow Line". The "Yellow Line" has also reportedly shifted, expanding the area under Israeli military control and further shrinking the space available to Palestinian families.
Save the Children's Regional Director for the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe, Ahmad Ahendawi, said:
"Every day for the past 1,000 days, the world has failed one million children in Gaza by not intervening to stop the killing and maiming of children.
"As their young fragile bodies were blown to bits and pieces by bombs and missiles, the world sold those same weapons to the Government of Israel. As children died from hunger and disease, the Government of Israel failed to live up to its legal obligations to provide humanitarian access, including sufficient nutritious food into Gaza, and the world continued trade agreements with the Government of Israel.
"Even nine months since a 'ceasefire' when over 275 children have been killed by the Israeli forces, the world continues to ignore the voices and needs of children as they simply demand that they be treated like any other child in the world."
Save the Children is calling for the "ceasefire" agreement to become an immediate and definitive ceasefire as the first step to save lives and end grave violations of children's rights. There must be full accountability for crimes against children. Those responsible must be investigated and held to account, to break the cycle of impunity and prevent further harm.
Save the Children is calling on governments to immediately suspend the transfer of arms to Israel and ensure that they do not support or sustain unlawful practices in the occupied Palestinian territory. Member States must also ban trade, economic cooperation and services that maintain or support illegal Israeli settlements, in line with the International Court of Justice's 2024 Advisory Opinion. This would represent a necessary step to end the systematic violation of Palestinian children's fundamental rights.
*Names changed to protect identity
* * *
Notes:
1. Save the Children has worked in the occupied Palestinian territory since 1953, with a permanent presence since 1973. We work with partners to help provide quality education, protection for children, early childhood development support, and employment opportunities for young people.
Together with our partners, Save the Children helped nearly 890,000 people in the oPt in 2025, including almost 430,000 children. As of May 2026, we have supported over 218,000 people, including over 107,000 children in Gaza, through our multisectoral programming.
We have been responding to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza directly and through our partnerships with local organizations. In Gaza, we're currently, running two health clinics, 15 nutrition points, water and sanitation services (8 hygiene promotion sites, 59 water trucking sites, 49 sanitation facilities, and 39 solid waste management points), child protection programs including mental health support and case management at 21 sites, education in 63 temporary learning spaces, and cash transfer programs to support families whose livelihoods have been decimated.
2. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) expected to be published in early July will provide more details about the malnutrition crisis facing children in Gaza.
3. According to UNOCHA, the occupied Palestinian territory flash appeal is only 12-24% funded against a minimum need of $2 billion. Humanitarian donors must urgently scale up their funding to the response to meet the needs of children and families in Gaza.
* * *
Save the Children believes every child deserves a future. Since our founding more than 100 years ago, we've been advocating for the rights of children worldwide. In the United States and around the world, we give children a healthy start in life, the opportunity to learn and protection from harm. We do whatever it takes for children - every day and in times of crisis - transforming the future we share. Our results, financial statements and charity ratings reaffirm that Save the Children is a charity you can trust. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.savethechildren.org/us/about-us/media-and-news/2026-press-releases/gaza-children-dream-of-home-and-better-future
[Category: Sociological]
Environmental Defense Fund: Solar Project Brings More Clean Energy to Culebra Residents in Puerto Rico
NEW YORK, July 3 -- The Environmental Defense Fund posted the following news release:
* * *
Solar Project Brings More Clean Energy to Culebra Residents in Puerto Rico
Community solar initiative provides reliable electricity to 15 families who depend on medical and specialized equipment
-
Environmental Defense Fund announced a new community-based solar initiative in Culebra that will provide clean and reliable energy to 15 families who rely on electricity to operate life-sustaining medical and specialized equipment.
"We remain committed to advancing greater energy security in Puerto Rico. ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 -- The Environmental Defense Fund posted the following news release: * * * Solar Project Brings More Clean Energy to Culebra Residents in Puerto Rico Community solar initiative provides reliable electricity to 15 families who depend on medical and specialized equipment - Environmental Defense Fund announced a new community-based solar initiative in Culebra that will provide clean and reliable energy to 15 families who rely on electricity to operate life-sustaining medical and specialized equipment. "We remain committed to advancing greater energy security in Puerto Rico.This is especially important now that the hurricane season, which began last month, is underway," said Daniel Whittle, Associate Vice President, Resilient Caribbean, Environmental Defense Fund.
The systems, installed by Power Solar, include rooftop solar panels paired with battery storage. During power outages, these systems enable families to continue operating essential medical equipment while also keeping medications properly refrigerated - providing much-needed relief for families with special medical needs.
"Initiatives like this not only provide immediate relief but also demonstrate the power of collaboration between community groups and nonprofit organizations - a meaningful step toward greater local energy resilience and community self-sufficiency," said Abimarie Otano Cruz, EDF Senior Manager for Energy Transition and a resident of Culebra.
As an island municipality, Culebra faces unique challenges. Its electric system is more vulnerable, repairs following severe weather events or grid failures are more difficult to coordinate, and response times are often longer than on Puerto Rico's main island. The project was carried out in partnership with the local organizations Mujeres de Islas and Foundation for a Better Puerto Rico, with support from Banco Popular and the Lowenstein Foundation.
These 15 households join the 45 families previously served through EDF's pilot solar project in Culebra, expanding access to clean, reliable energy solutions across the island municipality.
EDF remains committed to identifying effective and equitable energy solutions that can deliver clean, affordable, and reliable electricity to communities throughout Puerto Rico while meeting the everyday needs of families and strengthening the island's resilience to climate change. In Puerto Rico, EDF's work focuses on advancing community-driven solar-plus-storage projects in Culebra and supporting a coalition of organizations working to drive systemic transformation of the island's electric system. EDF takes an integrated approach, combining technical expertise with experience in energy reform and sustainable financing to help develop long-term solutions to Puerto Rico's energy challenges.
* * *
With more than 3 million members, Environmental Defense Fund creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. To do so, EDF links science, economics, law, and innovative private-sector partnerships to turn solutions into action. edf.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.edf.org/media/solar-project-brings-more-clean-energy-culebra-residents-puerto-rico
[Category: Environment]
* * *
Solar Project Brings More Clean Energy to Culebra Residents in Puerto Rico
Community solar initiative provides reliable electricity to 15 families who depend on medical and specialized equipment
-
Environmental Defense Fund announced a new community-based solar initiative in Culebra that will provide clean and reliable energy to 15 families who rely on electricity to operate life-sustaining medical and specialized equipment.
"We remain committed to advancing greater energy security in Puerto Rico. ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 -- The Environmental Defense Fund posted the following news release: * * * Solar Project Brings More Clean Energy to Culebra Residents in Puerto Rico Community solar initiative provides reliable electricity to 15 families who depend on medical and specialized equipment - Environmental Defense Fund announced a new community-based solar initiative in Culebra that will provide clean and reliable energy to 15 families who rely on electricity to operate life-sustaining medical and specialized equipment. "We remain committed to advancing greater energy security in Puerto Rico.This is especially important now that the hurricane season, which began last month, is underway," said Daniel Whittle, Associate Vice President, Resilient Caribbean, Environmental Defense Fund.
The systems, installed by Power Solar, include rooftop solar panels paired with battery storage. During power outages, these systems enable families to continue operating essential medical equipment while also keeping medications properly refrigerated - providing much-needed relief for families with special medical needs.
"Initiatives like this not only provide immediate relief but also demonstrate the power of collaboration between community groups and nonprofit organizations - a meaningful step toward greater local energy resilience and community self-sufficiency," said Abimarie Otano Cruz, EDF Senior Manager for Energy Transition and a resident of Culebra.
As an island municipality, Culebra faces unique challenges. Its electric system is more vulnerable, repairs following severe weather events or grid failures are more difficult to coordinate, and response times are often longer than on Puerto Rico's main island. The project was carried out in partnership with the local organizations Mujeres de Islas and Foundation for a Better Puerto Rico, with support from Banco Popular and the Lowenstein Foundation.
These 15 households join the 45 families previously served through EDF's pilot solar project in Culebra, expanding access to clean, reliable energy solutions across the island municipality.
EDF remains committed to identifying effective and equitable energy solutions that can deliver clean, affordable, and reliable electricity to communities throughout Puerto Rico while meeting the everyday needs of families and strengthening the island's resilience to climate change. In Puerto Rico, EDF's work focuses on advancing community-driven solar-plus-storage projects in Culebra and supporting a coalition of organizations working to drive systemic transformation of the island's electric system. EDF takes an integrated approach, combining technical expertise with experience in energy reform and sustainable financing to help develop long-term solutions to Puerto Rico's energy challenges.
* * *
With more than 3 million members, Environmental Defense Fund creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. To do so, EDF links science, economics, law, and innovative private-sector partnerships to turn solutions into action. edf.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.edf.org/media/solar-project-brings-more-clean-energy-culebra-residents-puerto-rico
[Category: Environment]
Center for Biological Diversity Issues Letter to Royal Caribbean Group
WASHINGTON, July 3 (TNSletter) -- The Center for Biological Diversity issued the following letter to Royal Caribbean Group:
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
June 24, 2026
Michael Bayley
President and Chief Executive Officer
Royal Caribbean International
1050 Caribbean Way
Miami, Florida 33132
mbayley@rccl.com
CorporateCommunications@rccl.com
-
Palle Laursen
Executive Vice President and Head of Marine
Royal Caribbean Group
1050 Caribbean Way
Miami, Florida 33132
plaursen@rccl.com
-
Jason T. Liberty
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Royal Caribbean Group
1050 Caribbean ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 (TNSletter) -- The Center for Biological Diversity issued the following letter to Royal Caribbean Group: * * * Here is the text of the letter: June 24, 2026 Michael Bayley President and Chief Executive Officer Royal Caribbean International 1050 Caribbean Way Miami, Florida 33132 mbayley@rccl.com CorporateCommunications@rccl.com - Palle Laursen Executive Vice President and Head of Marine Royal Caribbean Group 1050 Caribbean Way Miami, Florida 33132 plaursen@rccl.com - Jason T. Liberty Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Royal Caribbean Group 1050 CaribbeanWay
Miami, Florida 33132
jliberty@rccl.com
-
R. Alexander Lake
Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer
Royal Caribbean Group
1050 Caribbean Way
Miami, Florida 33132
alake@rccl.com
-
RE: Request to Adopt Measures to Protect Whales from Collisions with Royal Caribbean Cruise Ships
Dear Mr. Bayley, Mr. Liberty, Mr. Laursen, and Mr. Lake:
On July 19, 2026, a Royal Caribbean cruise ship pulled into port in Seward, Alaska with a dead whale draped across its bulbous bow.1 The whale was later determined to be an endangered pregnant fin whale.2 Federal scientists preliminarily determined that the whale suffered "blunt force trauma to the jaw, spine, and ribs consistent with a ship strike."3 This event is a stark, tragic reminder of the harm that cruise ships can have on whales. Indeed, ship strikes are a leading cause of large whale mortality around the world and present a major threat to many species, including endangered fin and blue whales, critically endangered North Pacific and North Atlantic right whales, gray whales, and more. This event is also the reason for this letter--to urge you to adopt a policy requiring your cruise ships to slow to 10 knots or less when traversing through important whale habitat areas.
The best available science shows that a 10-knot speed limit is the most effective way to prevent deadly ship strikes of large whales in areas where these whales and vessels overlap. Adopting 10 knots as a mandatory speed limit for your cruise ships will therefore better protect large whales from suffering deadly ship strikes, help prevent your company from committing violations of federal law,4 and better enable your company to live up to its promise of achieving "a higher standard of sustainability."5
Ship Strikes Threaten Numerous Species of Large Whales and Slowing Ships Down Is the Only Effective Way to Prevent Deadly Vessel Strikes
At least 75 marine species are affected by ship strikes, including large and small cetaceans, whale sharks, sharks, seals, sea otters, and sea turtles.6 Deaths from collisions with vessels have been identified as one of the top human threats to large whale populations globally, which coincides with a quadrupling in global shipping density since 1992.7
A recent scientific study found that shipping occurs in more than 90 percent of whale habitat around the world, where the whales are at risk of being struck by these vessels. The study examined "a dataset of 435,000 whale locations to generate global distribution models for four globally ranging species" of large whales and "then combined >35 billion positions from 176,000 ships to produce a global estimate of whale-ship collision risk."8 It determined that "[w]ithin each of the blue, humpback and sperm whales' ranges . . . large vessels traveled the equivalent of more than 4600 times the distance to the moon and back each year."9 It determined that every ocean region contains "substantial" ship-strike risk for all four species; with particular hot spots largely concentrated around coastal areas, where there is heavier ship traffic.10
As relevant here, scientists have defined a ship strike as "a forceful impact between any part of a watercraft, most commonly the bow or propeller, and a live cetacean, often resulting in death, major injuries or physical trauma."11 Ship strikes can injury or kill whales by causing blunt force trauma resulting in fractures, hemorrhage, and/or blood clots.12 Direct propeller strikes can result in fatal blood loss, lacerations, and/or amputations.13
These events not only injure and kill individual whales, but in the case of imperiled populations, can have significant impacts on the species' chances of survival and recovery. Scientists have determined, for example, that "death from vessel collisions may be a significant impediment to population growth and recovery" of endangered whales off the U.S. West Coast, including blue whales, fin whales and humpback whales.14 And for small populations, like North Pacific right whales and North Atlantic right whales, ship strikes represent an existential threat to the continued existence of these whales.15 Gray whales are also especially vulnerable to ship strikes given they migrate and feed along the coast "where they overlap with heavy shipping traffic."16
Human-caused deaths of large whales harms ocean ecosystems as well, given the vital role that whales play in our ocean, including the cycling and transferring of nutrients; fertilizing phytoplankton, which is the base of the food chain; and acting as a carbon sink throughout their lifetime.17
The best available science establishes that vessel speed is the single most important factor affecting both the probability of a whale strike and the lethality of that strike. Higher vessel speeds are associated not only with increased lethality but also with increased strike risk, while lower speeds reduce both dimensions of harm through basic physical mechanisms and improved avoidance opportunities.18 Indeed, the U.S. federal government, through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), has repeatedly recognized that reducing vessel speed directly lowers the risk of serious injury and mortality because the probability that a collision will be fatal increases sharply as vessel speed rises.19 One study determined that for every 1-knot increase in vessel speed, the likelihood that a vessel strike would result in the death or serious injury of a large whale increases 1.5 times; it determined, for example, that the probability of a fatal strike event is 20 percent at 9 knots, 50 percent at 11.8 knots, 80 percent at 15.3 knots, and near 100 percent above 15.3 knots.20 More recent NMFS-led work reaffirms that decreasing vessel speed reduces the probability that a strike will be lethal across vessel classes.21
This detection-independent feature makes mandatory speed limits uniquely effective relative to alternative approaches. A recent NMFS report, as well as the broader peer-reviewed scientific literature, demonstrate both that detection technologies are presently immature and that, as a structural matter, they are incapable of replacing the effectiveness of speed-based mitigation.22 Unlike technology-dependent measures that rely on successful detection under variable environmental conditions, speed limits operate continuously and predictably regardless of visibility, sea state, or the performance of sensing systems.
Moreover, even where whales are successfully detected, avoidance is not assured. Observational and simulation-based research shows that detection opportunities are often "limited and temporary," and that significant delays occur between detection, human interpretation, and vessel maneuvering.23 For large cruise ships and other large vessels in particular, the time and distance required to alter course or reduce speed frequently exceed the available window for effective avoidance--physical and operational constraints that cannot be eliminated through technological improvements.
Finally, a positive detection still requires real-time decision-making from the ship's crew to lower speeds. External pressures could affect the crew's decision-making, such as meeting cruise schedules, and lead to crews failing to slow down to 10 knots or less. Mandatory speed limits remove flawed decision-making, incorporate slowdowns into the cruise schedules from the outset, and ensure that ships are always traveling at a safer speed for whales.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Transverse Important Whale Habitat that Would Benefit from a Slow-Down
Royal Caribbean cruise ships in U.S. waters travel through many important whale habitat areas where there are no ship speed limits in place and whales are at risk of deadly ship strikes.
For example, your ships leaving from Los Angeles ports appear to travel though biologically important areas (BIA) for large whales, including an area considered a BIA for fin whales during June, July, August, September, October, and November; an area considered a BIA for blue whales during June, July, August, September, October, and November; an area considered a BIA for gray whale reproduction during March, April, and May; and other BIAs for gray whale migrations during November, December, January, February, March, April, May, June. Scientists have determined that Los Angeles/Long Beach ports are one of the highest-risk regions for ship collisions with whales on the U.S. West Coast.24
And your ships calling on ports in Alaska appear to travel near or through several other BIAs for large whales, including an area in the Gulf of Alaska considered a BIA for gray whales during January, March, April, May, November, and December; an area in the Gulf of Alaska considered a BIA for sperm whales during April, May, June, July, August, and September;25 and critical habitat for North Pacific right whales.26
Enacting a policy that your ships slow to 10 knots or less when traveling through these and other important whale habitat areas--including known feeding, migration, breeding, and high-use areas identified by relevant scientific and regulatory authorities--would help prevent the deaths of large whales caused by collisions with your ships.27 It would also help prevent Royal Caribbean from liability for violations of the ESA, which broadly prohibits harming or killing a member of an endangered species;28 and for violations of the MMPA, which broadly prohibits the harassing and killing of any marine mammal.29 And it would help Royal Caribbean achieve its sustainability goals.
Conclusion
We urge you to adopt a policy requiring your cruise ships to slow to 10 knots or less in important whale habitat areas. Please feel free to contact us to discuss this request.
Sincerely,
Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Program Director, Center for Biological Diversity, miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org
Kristen Monsell, Oceans Legal Director, Center for Biological Diversity, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Cooper Freeman, Alaska Director, Center for Biological Diversity, cfreeman@biologicaldiversity.org
Cc:
Renee Limoge Reeve, Government & Community Relations, CLIA, renee@akcruise.org Lanie Downs, Community Relations & Public Affairs, CLIA, lanie@akcruise.org
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/oceans/pdfs/2026-06-24----CBD-Letter-to-Royal-Caribbean.pdf
News Release here: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/whale-hitting-cruise-ship-was-likely-traveling-above-safe-speeds-analysis-finds-2026-07-01/
[Category: Biology]
* * *
Here is the text of the letter:
June 24, 2026
Michael Bayley
President and Chief Executive Officer
Royal Caribbean International
1050 Caribbean Way
Miami, Florida 33132
mbayley@rccl.com
CorporateCommunications@rccl.com
-
Palle Laursen
Executive Vice President and Head of Marine
Royal Caribbean Group
1050 Caribbean Way
Miami, Florida 33132
plaursen@rccl.com
-
Jason T. Liberty
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Royal Caribbean Group
1050 Caribbean ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 3 (TNSletter) -- The Center for Biological Diversity issued the following letter to Royal Caribbean Group: * * * Here is the text of the letter: June 24, 2026 Michael Bayley President and Chief Executive Officer Royal Caribbean International 1050 Caribbean Way Miami, Florida 33132 mbayley@rccl.com CorporateCommunications@rccl.com - Palle Laursen Executive Vice President and Head of Marine Royal Caribbean Group 1050 Caribbean Way Miami, Florida 33132 plaursen@rccl.com - Jason T. Liberty Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Royal Caribbean Group 1050 CaribbeanWay
Miami, Florida 33132
jliberty@rccl.com
-
R. Alexander Lake
Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer
Royal Caribbean Group
1050 Caribbean Way
Miami, Florida 33132
alake@rccl.com
-
RE: Request to Adopt Measures to Protect Whales from Collisions with Royal Caribbean Cruise Ships
Dear Mr. Bayley, Mr. Liberty, Mr. Laursen, and Mr. Lake:
On July 19, 2026, a Royal Caribbean cruise ship pulled into port in Seward, Alaska with a dead whale draped across its bulbous bow.1 The whale was later determined to be an endangered pregnant fin whale.2 Federal scientists preliminarily determined that the whale suffered "blunt force trauma to the jaw, spine, and ribs consistent with a ship strike."3 This event is a stark, tragic reminder of the harm that cruise ships can have on whales. Indeed, ship strikes are a leading cause of large whale mortality around the world and present a major threat to many species, including endangered fin and blue whales, critically endangered North Pacific and North Atlantic right whales, gray whales, and more. This event is also the reason for this letter--to urge you to adopt a policy requiring your cruise ships to slow to 10 knots or less when traversing through important whale habitat areas.
The best available science shows that a 10-knot speed limit is the most effective way to prevent deadly ship strikes of large whales in areas where these whales and vessels overlap. Adopting 10 knots as a mandatory speed limit for your cruise ships will therefore better protect large whales from suffering deadly ship strikes, help prevent your company from committing violations of federal law,4 and better enable your company to live up to its promise of achieving "a higher standard of sustainability."5
Ship Strikes Threaten Numerous Species of Large Whales and Slowing Ships Down Is the Only Effective Way to Prevent Deadly Vessel Strikes
At least 75 marine species are affected by ship strikes, including large and small cetaceans, whale sharks, sharks, seals, sea otters, and sea turtles.6 Deaths from collisions with vessels have been identified as one of the top human threats to large whale populations globally, which coincides with a quadrupling in global shipping density since 1992.7
A recent scientific study found that shipping occurs in more than 90 percent of whale habitat around the world, where the whales are at risk of being struck by these vessels. The study examined "a dataset of 435,000 whale locations to generate global distribution models for four globally ranging species" of large whales and "then combined >35 billion positions from 176,000 ships to produce a global estimate of whale-ship collision risk."8 It determined that "[w]ithin each of the blue, humpback and sperm whales' ranges . . . large vessels traveled the equivalent of more than 4600 times the distance to the moon and back each year."9 It determined that every ocean region contains "substantial" ship-strike risk for all four species; with particular hot spots largely concentrated around coastal areas, where there is heavier ship traffic.10
As relevant here, scientists have defined a ship strike as "a forceful impact between any part of a watercraft, most commonly the bow or propeller, and a live cetacean, often resulting in death, major injuries or physical trauma."11 Ship strikes can injury or kill whales by causing blunt force trauma resulting in fractures, hemorrhage, and/or blood clots.12 Direct propeller strikes can result in fatal blood loss, lacerations, and/or amputations.13
These events not only injure and kill individual whales, but in the case of imperiled populations, can have significant impacts on the species' chances of survival and recovery. Scientists have determined, for example, that "death from vessel collisions may be a significant impediment to population growth and recovery" of endangered whales off the U.S. West Coast, including blue whales, fin whales and humpback whales.14 And for small populations, like North Pacific right whales and North Atlantic right whales, ship strikes represent an existential threat to the continued existence of these whales.15 Gray whales are also especially vulnerable to ship strikes given they migrate and feed along the coast "where they overlap with heavy shipping traffic."16
Human-caused deaths of large whales harms ocean ecosystems as well, given the vital role that whales play in our ocean, including the cycling and transferring of nutrients; fertilizing phytoplankton, which is the base of the food chain; and acting as a carbon sink throughout their lifetime.17
The best available science establishes that vessel speed is the single most important factor affecting both the probability of a whale strike and the lethality of that strike. Higher vessel speeds are associated not only with increased lethality but also with increased strike risk, while lower speeds reduce both dimensions of harm through basic physical mechanisms and improved avoidance opportunities.18 Indeed, the U.S. federal government, through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), has repeatedly recognized that reducing vessel speed directly lowers the risk of serious injury and mortality because the probability that a collision will be fatal increases sharply as vessel speed rises.19 One study determined that for every 1-knot increase in vessel speed, the likelihood that a vessel strike would result in the death or serious injury of a large whale increases 1.5 times; it determined, for example, that the probability of a fatal strike event is 20 percent at 9 knots, 50 percent at 11.8 knots, 80 percent at 15.3 knots, and near 100 percent above 15.3 knots.20 More recent NMFS-led work reaffirms that decreasing vessel speed reduces the probability that a strike will be lethal across vessel classes.21
This detection-independent feature makes mandatory speed limits uniquely effective relative to alternative approaches. A recent NMFS report, as well as the broader peer-reviewed scientific literature, demonstrate both that detection technologies are presently immature and that, as a structural matter, they are incapable of replacing the effectiveness of speed-based mitigation.22 Unlike technology-dependent measures that rely on successful detection under variable environmental conditions, speed limits operate continuously and predictably regardless of visibility, sea state, or the performance of sensing systems.
Moreover, even where whales are successfully detected, avoidance is not assured. Observational and simulation-based research shows that detection opportunities are often "limited and temporary," and that significant delays occur between detection, human interpretation, and vessel maneuvering.23 For large cruise ships and other large vessels in particular, the time and distance required to alter course or reduce speed frequently exceed the available window for effective avoidance--physical and operational constraints that cannot be eliminated through technological improvements.
Finally, a positive detection still requires real-time decision-making from the ship's crew to lower speeds. External pressures could affect the crew's decision-making, such as meeting cruise schedules, and lead to crews failing to slow down to 10 knots or less. Mandatory speed limits remove flawed decision-making, incorporate slowdowns into the cruise schedules from the outset, and ensure that ships are always traveling at a safer speed for whales.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Transverse Important Whale Habitat that Would Benefit from a Slow-Down
Royal Caribbean cruise ships in U.S. waters travel through many important whale habitat areas where there are no ship speed limits in place and whales are at risk of deadly ship strikes.
For example, your ships leaving from Los Angeles ports appear to travel though biologically important areas (BIA) for large whales, including an area considered a BIA for fin whales during June, July, August, September, October, and November; an area considered a BIA for blue whales during June, July, August, September, October, and November; an area considered a BIA for gray whale reproduction during March, April, and May; and other BIAs for gray whale migrations during November, December, January, February, March, April, May, June. Scientists have determined that Los Angeles/Long Beach ports are one of the highest-risk regions for ship collisions with whales on the U.S. West Coast.24
And your ships calling on ports in Alaska appear to travel near or through several other BIAs for large whales, including an area in the Gulf of Alaska considered a BIA for gray whales during January, March, April, May, November, and December; an area in the Gulf of Alaska considered a BIA for sperm whales during April, May, June, July, August, and September;25 and critical habitat for North Pacific right whales.26
Enacting a policy that your ships slow to 10 knots or less when traveling through these and other important whale habitat areas--including known feeding, migration, breeding, and high-use areas identified by relevant scientific and regulatory authorities--would help prevent the deaths of large whales caused by collisions with your ships.27 It would also help prevent Royal Caribbean from liability for violations of the ESA, which broadly prohibits harming or killing a member of an endangered species;28 and for violations of the MMPA, which broadly prohibits the harassing and killing of any marine mammal.29 And it would help Royal Caribbean achieve its sustainability goals.
Conclusion
We urge you to adopt a policy requiring your cruise ships to slow to 10 knots or less in important whale habitat areas. Please feel free to contact us to discuss this request.
Sincerely,
Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Program Director, Center for Biological Diversity, miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org
Kristen Monsell, Oceans Legal Director, Center for Biological Diversity, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Cooper Freeman, Alaska Director, Center for Biological Diversity, cfreeman@biologicaldiversity.org
Cc:
Renee Limoge Reeve, Government & Community Relations, CLIA, renee@akcruise.org Lanie Downs, Community Relations & Public Affairs, CLIA, lanie@akcruise.org
* * *
Original text and footnotes here: https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/oceans/pdfs/2026-06-24----CBD-Letter-to-Royal-Caribbean.pdf
News Release here: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/whale-hitting-cruise-ship-was-likely-traveling-above-safe-speeds-analysis-finds-2026-07-01/
[Category: Biology]