

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Carli Kientzle at press@freedomfromfacebook.com
Today, Freedom From Facebook filed a legal complaint with the FTC against Facebook and is urging the commission to conduct a through investigation of the corporation.
The complaint calls on the FTC to fully investigate the recent breach of 50 million users' accounts, and conduct a broader investigation into two additional issues: whether Facebook violated its 2011 consent decree and whether it has become too large and complex to be governable. The coalition is urging the FTC to seek maximum civil penalties against Facebook and require Facebook to spin off WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger.
The need for the FTC to act is even greater in light of the bombshell New York Times story yesterday outlining Facebook's massive campaign to fight making any changes.
The full complaint can be accessed here, and follows below.
Before the
Washington, D.C.
Complaint seeking | Submitted November 15, 2018
investigation, enforcement, |
penalties, and other relief |
as appropriate against |
Facebook, Inc. |
_________________________ |
I. Introduction
1. On September 28, 2018, Facebook, Inc. announced that 50 million users had been compromised in a massive data breach that put their entire accounts in the hands of unknown rogue actors. An additional 40 million users also had their accounts reset due to uncertainty about the scope of the breach.
2. While Facebook, Inc. has released few details about the attack, it is clear that virtually all the information users provided to Facebook, Inc. was potentially exposed, including personal biographical data, private messages, photographs (including those uploaded but not shared), and credit card numbers. Once inside Facebook's security wall, the attackers stood in users' shoes - with complete and total control over their profiles, accounts, and social media interactions.
3. The attackers also gained access to any apps or services that the victims had linked to their Facebook account using the corporation's "Facebook Login" feature. This put Facebook-connected users of apps like Tinder, Bumble, Spotify, Uber and thousands more at risk of having their accounts hijacked and misused.
4. This breach is the latest in a long string of Facebook, Inc. privacy violations. In 2007, the company apologized for sharing private information with user friends without asking permission. In 2011, the company made false claims that users would retain meaningful control over their privacy, leading to a landmark 2011 Consent Decree with this agency. In 2013, a bug exposed emails and phone numbers. This bug was related to uploads of user contact lists. In 2017, the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal allowed the data of 87 million user profiles to be downloaded off the platform and used to manipulate the 2016 US Presidential election and Brexit referendum.
5. The breach also comes just a few months after Facebook, Inc.'s CEO Mark Zuckerberg told the United States Congress that "we have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good . . . . It will take some time to work through all of the changes we need to make, but I'm committed to getting it right."
7. Facebook, Inc. is a serial privacy violator that cannot be trusted. It has grown too big and its products have become too integrated and too complex to manage. Not only can we no longer trust Facebook, Inc. to manage its system safely, the corporation no longer has the capacity to do so effectively.
8. The organizations filing this Complaint seek a thorough investigation of the "View As" breach and appropriate enforcement using all available remedies against Facebook, Inc. for its apparent breaches of the FTC Act and the 2011 Consent Decree.
9. The organizations filing this Complaint also call for a broader investigation into a far more fundamental question - has Facebook, Inc. grown so large and complex that it is no longer governable at all?
II. The Freedom from Facebook Coalition
10. The Freedom from Facebook Coalition brings together diverse, non-partisan organizations representing consumers, workers, policy experts, creative artists and ordinary citizens from all walks of life demanding strong enforcement of consumer protection laws and a healthier, more open and transparent and competitive digital economy.
11. Our members include: Open Markets Institute, Citizens Against Monopoly, the Communications Workers of America, the Content Creators Coalition, Democracy for America, Demand Progress, Jewish Voters for Peace, Move On, MPower Change, Public Citizen, RootsAction, and Sum of Us.
III. Facebook, Inc.
12. Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its operational headquarters in Menlo Park, California, was founded in 2004 in Cambridge, Massachusetts by Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz, Andrew McCollum, and Chris Hughes. Facebook, Inc. owns three significant social networks: Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
13. Facebook, owned by Facebook Inc., is the largest social media network in the world with over 2 billion daily active users globally, including 214 million daily users in the United States alone. Every day its users post 55 million status updates, upload 350 million photographs, 'like' nearly 6 billion posts, and send 60 billion messages over its proprietary Messenger network. Its apps are downloaded 1.06 million times a day, and the corporation gains 400 new users every minute.
14. Much of Facebook Inc.'s growth has been fueled by mergers and acquisitions that expanded the corporation's product offerings while taking potential competitors off the field. These include the acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and the acquisitions of WhatsApp and Oculus VR in 2014. As far as we are aware, no proposed Facebook, Inc. acquisition has ever been blocked by a US regulatory authority.
15. Facebook, Inc. is currently one of the most valuable companies in the world. Fortune Magazine lists it as the 76th largest corporation in the United States by revenue, and it has a market value at the time of this filing of $406.41 billion (as of Nov. 15, 2018)].In the second quarter of 2018, the most recent for which data is available, it earned revenue of $13.23 billion, or $143.8 million a day.
16. The bulk of Facebook, Inc.'s revenue comes from advertising targeted at its users using data the corporation collects from multiple channels, including information users share with its social networking subsidiaries and data it captures by tracking and surveilling user activities across the web.
17. Facebook, Inc.'s ability to mine user data and target ads is uniquely robust in the US economy, due to the corporation's extraordinary scale, the personal nature of information its users share, and the breadth of its related products and services including Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger. Only Google has comparable scale and reach, though even Google cannot match the depth of Facebook, Inc.'s social networking data.
18. Facebook, Inc.'s data reach is further extended by its "Facebook Login" product that allows user to sign up for other apps and websites based on their Facebook credentials and without creating a new, freestanding account. Facebook captures two-thirds of the social logins for sites that use this kind of external credentialing, giving it a rich new source of data about user activities at tens of thousands of non-Facebook websites.
IV. Facebook's Repeated Breaches of its Users' Privacy and Data Security
19. The 2006 launch of Facebook's "news feed" automatically broadcast a host of user activities and updates to all their friends as a default feature without clear disclosure or consent. Mark Zuckerberg admitted at the time that "We really messed this one up" and that the corporation "didn't build in the proper privacy controls right away".
20. Facebook's Beacon advertising system, launched in 2007, tracked users' activity on third-party partner sites back to Facebook and automatically posted them to user profiles, even when users weren't logged in to Facebook and despite user efforts to opt out of the program. Facebook, Inc. ultimately paid $9.5 million to settle these claims.
21. In 2010, a Harvard Professor filed a complaint with this agency revealing that Facebook was sharing user information with advertisers including profile details and web activity without disclosure and consent.
22. In November 2011, the FTC entered into a far ranging consent decree with this agency, arising out of repeated breaches of user privacy and false claims that Facebook, Inc. would protect user information. The charges grew out of a December 2009 change to the Facebook website that made users' private information public without their consent, and repeated Facebook, Inc. misrepresentations about the information it shared with third party apps, the it shared with advertisers, and the handling of data after user deleted or deactivated their accounts.
23. In 2011, Facebook incorporated facial recognition as a default setting on its 'tag suggestions' feature without clear disclosure or obtaining consent from users for this invasive new technology. After consumer outcry, Facebook, Inc. admitted "we should have been more clear with people during the roll-out process when this became available to them".
24. In January 2012, Facebook launched a secret experiment to manipulate user moods by feeding nearly 700,000 test subjects skewed diets of positive or negative news, without any disclosure or consent. The privacy watchdog EPIC filed a complaint with this agency about this unethical "research" study.
25. In 2013, a bug made the emails and phone numbers of 6 million Facebook users public to users who had some tangential connection to them on the site (ie. 'friends of friends'), despite that information being designated 'private' or for 'friends only'. This breach was not noticed by Facebook, Inc. but only came to light after a "white hat" hacker uncovered and reported it.
26. In what should have been a wakeup call ahead of the Cambridge Analytica, a software engineer was able to automatically scrape or harvest names, profile photos, and locations of users by entering their mobile phone numbers into the platform's "Who can find me?" feature, even if the phone numbers were set to private. By generating random phone numbers, he was able to collect data on thousands of users.
27. In 2018, it was revealed that the data of 87 million Facebook users was shared with political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. 270,000 users took a quiz designed by Cambridge Analytica to extract users' profile information and in the process, exposed the profile information of their entire "friends' list". Cambridge Analytica proceeded to sell this data, via their consulting services, to various parties, including the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and the Brexit "leave" campaign.
28. Facebook has used phone numbers provided by users for two-factor authentication security purposes in order to target advertisements, a use they did not clearly disclose, explain, or obtain separate consent for. This follows an earlier scandal in which the corporation spammed users' two-factor authentication number with texts and then automatically posted their replies to that spam as status updates for all to see.
29. In the spring of 2018, Android users realized Facebook was using its Messenger app to track and log their texts and phone calls. Facebook, Inc. claimed users granted Facebook permission to do this when they synced their phone contacts list with the Facebook Messenger app.
30. On October 11, 2018, Facebook suspended the Russian firm SocialDataHub "because they were scraping people's data" from the site.
V. Facebook's Many Promises to Protect Users' Privacy and Keep Their Data Secure
31. Since its inception, Facebook, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg have promised users that their data is protected, and they have complete control over their privacy on the platform.
32. In 2005, Mr. Zuckerberg said of the platform, "We're not forcing anyone to publicize any information about themselves. We give people pretty good control over their privacy. I mean you can make it so that no one can see anything, or no one can see your profile unless they're your friend."
33. A decade later, Mr. Zuckerberg responded to the NSA PRISM program's collection and use of Facebook data, writing in a personal post, "To keep the internet strong, we need to keep it secure. That's why at Facebook we spend a lot of our energy making our services and the whole internet safer and more secure. We encrypt communications, we use secure protocols for traffic, we encourage people to use multiple factors for authentication and we go out of our way to help fix issues we find in other people's services."
34. Facebook, Inc. and Mr. Zuckerberg continue to promise data security to users, even as that data is repeatedly compromised. After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Zuckerberg wrote, "We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again... We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further and make our community safer for everyone going forwar
35. In a full-page newspaper ad purchased and placed around the same time, Mr. Zuckerberg again promised to more completely protect users' data: "This was a breach of trust, and I'm sorry we didn't do more at the time. We're now taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. . . I promise to do better for you."
36. In April of this year, Mr. Zuckerberg testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasizing the responsibility of Facebook's developers to protect user data and once again stating the corporation was committed to stopping such breaches: "It's not enough to give people control of their information, we have to make sure developers they've given it to are protecting it too. Across the board, we have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good. It will take some time to work through all of the changes we need to make, but I'm committed to getting it right."
37. However, influential voices in tech including former Facebook insiders have questioned these statements and commitments
38. After selling his corporation, WhatsApp, to Facebook, Inc. 2014 and subsequently leaving the corporation a few years later, Brian Acton told Forbes, "I sold my users' privacy. I made a choice and a compromise. And I live with that every day."
39. Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, Inc. who left the corporation in 2007, said in response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, "The idea that this was unforeseeable seems like a stretch. The public reckoning now is very much overdue."
40. Apple CEO Tim Cook, differentiating Apple from Facebook, Inc., warned about the platform: "[Apple has] never believed that these detailed profiles of people, that have incredibly deep personal information that is patched together from several sources, should exist. [These profiles] can be abused against our democracy. It can be abused by advertisers as well."
41. Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook, Inc., has spoken out at length about what the platform has become, arguing that Facebook has "behaved irresponsibly in the pursuit of massive profits" and has "consciously combined persuasive techniques developed by propagandists in the gambling industry with technology in ways that threaten public health and democracy."
42. McNamee has warned about the risk of using Facebook, Inc. to user privacy, telling CNBC, "There's been an increasing understanding that when you're using Facebook, a lot of bad things are going to happen to you, as a user. That is not a 100 percent guarantee, but the risk is really, really high."
VI. The 2018 Breach of Facebook's "View As" Feature
43. On September 28, 2018, Facebook, Inc. disclosed a major security breach that had potentially affected nearly 50 million user accounts. On October 12, the company clarified that 30 million accounts appear to have been actually compromised.
44. By exploiting a vulnerability in Facebook's "View As" feature - which allows users to see how their profiles appear to others - hackers were able to harvest highly sensitive "access tokens" that could then be used, in Facebook's words, to "take over" accounts. Facebook, Inc. describes these access tokens as "digital keys" that would let hackers pose as the user online, engage with their friends and contacts, and use or share any of their information, including private messages, pictures that had been uploaded but not shared, and payment methods.
45. In addition, because these access tokens are used to verify "Facebook Login" requests, the hackers could also access and use any linked app or third-party service, including dating sites, health portals, and message boards.
46. The potential harms of this kind of data breach go well beyond the ordinary damage caused by compromise of sensitive information. In our connected culture, being impersonated online is a deeply personal invasion that could run from the merely embarrassing - like having an unflattering photo shared - to the devastating - including lost friendships or broken relationships. The Ashley Madison breach - a severe breach but one that did not raise the even more invasive specter of online impersonation - resulted in suicides, divorces, and job losses.
47. At this point, the toll of the Facebook "View As" breach is not known. Facebook, Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated on September 28 that "We do not yet know whether these accounts were misused." Several days later, the corporation reported it had "so far" found no evidence the access tokens were used to breach third party apps. On October 12, it revealed that extensive personal information had been breached along with access tokens, including "surname, gender, locale/language, relationship status, religion, hometown, self-reported current city, birthdate, device types used to access Facebook, education, work, the last 10 places they checked into or were tagged in, website, people or Pages they follow, and the 15 most recent searches."
48. FTC action is needed to ensure that Facebook, Inc. cannot sweep this matter under the rug with such vague and incomplete assurances. It is the only way to ensure victims of this breach have accurate information about what happened to them.
49. While European investigators have opened up their own review of this matter, it is vital for US enforcers to act as well. Facebook, Inc. is an American corporation and many US citizens were undoubtedly victims of this breach. The FTC has jurisdiction and a responsibility to protect US consumers and to set standards for the US-driven internet economy.
VII. Claims
50. The Freedom from Facebook Coalition asks the Commission to investigate and act on the following specific claims as well as any other potential violations of the FTC Act and all other authorities under its jurisdiction.
Claim 1
Breach of 2011 Consent Decree
51. In 2011, Facebook, Inc.'s violation of user privacy led them to settle with the FTC and agree to the terms of the Consent Decree finalized in 2012.
52. Under the agreement, Facebook, Inc. cannot misrepresent the privacy or security of users' personal information and is required, among other things, to obtain affirmative consent to privacy changes, "establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated" with the operation and development of the site and related products.
53. The latest breach was the result of several errors in Facebook's "View As" feature's code, made when Facebook updated their video uploader in July 2017 - more than a year before the breach was discovered.
54. User data was exposed for 14 months, because Facebook, Inc. failed to "maintain a comprehensive privacy program" as promised in the consent decree and as promised by the corporation and Mark Zuckerberg as detailed in paragraphs 30-34 above.
55. Furthermore, Facebook, Inc. failed to inform users that system updates may compromise their data and implemented these flawed new features without the express consent of users.
56. The penalty, outlined in the consent decree, is $41,484 per user per day. This violation affected 50 million users for nearly 430 days, calling for trillions of dollars in potential fines.
Claim 2
Breach of Section 5 of the FTC Act
57. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act prohibits "unfair" or "deceptive" acts in interstate commerce.
58. Past FTC investigations including the Ashley Madison case and the LabMD case have made clear that lax data security practices can constitute unfair business practices under the FTC Act.
59. In this case, given the gravity of the risk of loss of control of accounts due to theft of access tokens, Facebook, Inc.'s failure to prevent the "View As" breach constitutes an unfair practice that violates Section 5(a).
60. Past FTC cases including the Uber case establish that misrepresentations or omissions regarding data security and privacy and failing to live up to promises made regarding the security of customer information constitute deceptive acts under the FTC Act.
61. In this case, in light of the severe "View As" breach, Facebook, Inc.'s many promises to take appropriate security measures regarding customer information, outlined in paragraphs 30-34 above, and its assurances regarding the safety and security of the "Facebook Login" feature constitute deceptive acts or practices that violate Section 5(a).
Claim 3
Call for Expanded Investigation and Report on Facebook's
Privacy Abuses, Monopoly Power and "Ungovernability"
under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act
62. The "View As" breach raises issues that go beyond Facebook's violation of the 2012 Consent Decree and its breaches of the FTC Act.
63. Accordingly, we call for an investigation pursuant to Section 6(b) of the FTC Act of the role of Facebook, Inc.'s market power in the internet ecosystem and the unique threats to consumers posed by its massive accumulation of data - including that supplied by users, that harvested by surveilling their activities online, and that obtained from other sources such as data brokers or corporate acquisitions.
64. This investigation should cover Facebook's use of "Facebook Login" to expand its data holdings and neuter potential competitors.
65. This investigation should review the impact of acquisitions such as WhatsApp and Instagram on the health of the social media market and the failure of meaningful alternatives to Facebook, Inc. to arise.
66. Most fundamentally, this investigation should consider the unique issues raised when corporations become as large and complex as Facebook.
67. Facebook, Inc.'s scale renders it unable to effectively manage risk within its operations. It cannot meaningfully moderate content or protect users from harassment and abuse. It is unable to keep its own promises or accurately determine whether it is adhering to commitments it has made to users, business partners, and regulators. It has become so complex and deeply intertwined with other platforms, apps, and services that no executive or engineer can responsible anticipate or evaluate the real-world consequences of policy changes or product revisions.
68. In our view, Facebook, Inc. at this scale cannot be governed in a coherent or safe fashion - one that no one could manage and that no amount of AI or clever engineering will ever successfully control.
69. The result is a corporation managed by apology. One where unfair and deceptive practices are baked into the business model - and forced upon locked-in consumers who have no alternatives in the market and no real choices but those that Facebook, Inc. gives them.
Claim 4
Request for Any Other Appropriate Enforcement
Under Any Applicable FTC Authorities
70. We ask the FTC and its professional staff to additionally conduct its own independent evaluation of the legal and marketplace implications of the "View As" breach in the context of Facebook's repeated broken promises and privacy abuses and to take any additional investigative or enforcement steps that are available to it and warranted under the circumstances to protect consumers and address the harms caused by Facebook.
VIII. Remedies
71. We urge the FTC to seek maximum civil penalties for the breach of its 2012 Final Consent Order by Facebook, Inc. as well as permanent injunctive relief, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other any other appropriate relief related to Facebook's violations of the FTC Act and any other laws or requirements within the agency's jurisdiction.
72. These remedies should include specific consideration of breaking up Facebook, Inc., and separating its advertising and social networking businesses or its discrete platforms in order to resolve the inherent conflict in running a data-based advertising businesses while being responsible for vast amounts of personal customer information and to address the poor privacy incentives created when a company holds a data-derived monopoly and has no meaningful competition.
IX. Conclusion
73. The FTC is at a landmark moment. Facebook, Inc. and the other biggest tech platform monopolies are fast breaking all traditional bounds of size and behavior. Consumers as a result look to you for meaningful protection and enforcement - especially in the case of a serial privacy violator like Facebook that already has one outstanding consent decree under your jurisdiction. A healthy internet economy requires consumers to have basic trust and confidence in the corporations they deal with - and that in turn requires strong and steady enforcement of the basic rules of the road. In these circumstance, for the benefit of consumers, fair competition, and the internet economy itself, the Freedom From Facebook Coalition urges you to take strongest possible action.
Respectfully submitted
_Freedom From Facebook_________
Citizens Against Monopoly
Communication Workers of America
Content Creators Coalition
Democracy For America
Demand Progress
Jewish Voice for Peace
Move On
MPower Change
Open Markets Institute
Public Citizen
Roots Action
Sum Of Us
Freedom From Facebook, a diverse group of organizations sharing deep concerns about Facebook's extraordinary power over our lives and democracy, is calling on the Federal Trade Commission to use its broad authority to break up Facebook's monopoly and re-establish competition in the social networking space by spinning off WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger into independent businesses. Freedom From Facebook also calls on the FTC to develop interoperability standards, so users will have the freedom to communicate between competing social networks, as well as implement strong privacy rules to give users more control over the collection and utilization of personal information. Learn more at
One expert asserted that "the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway."
The Trump administration is considering construction of at least a dozen artificial intelligence data centers on thousands of acres of public land across six Western states, reporting revealed Friday, while a separate analysis found that Big Tech is receiving tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for AI investments they were already likely to make.
The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reviewing proposals for at least 12 data centers and related infrastructure projects on 17,600 acres of public land across Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, according to an investigation published Friday by The Washington Sun's Mara Hoplamazian and Jade Lozada. Many of the proposals had not previously been publicly reported.
The Sun's report came on the heels of an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis published Thursday that found that five major technology companies—Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle—received approximately $70 billion in federal tax breaks in 2025.
The Trump administration is considering proposals for at least 12 data centers and data center-related infrastructure projects to be built on federal public lands — far more than previously known.
[image or embed]
— The Washington Sun (@washingtonsun.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 4:00 AM
Matthew Gardner, who authored the ITEP analysis, wrote that "AI leaders have acknowledged that the demand from other companies for data centers is 'insatiable,' suggesting that the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway."
According to Gardner:
Few investments in the American economy look less in need of encouragement right now than the hundreds of billions of dollars the world’s largest technology companies are already racing to spend on AI. And it’s hard to think of an investment that American taxpayers value less: Polling shows that Americans dislike data centers, distrust AI, and are concerned about the economic and environmental effects it may bring.
At the same time, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has directed BLM officials to identify federal lands "ripe for data center development," according to the Sun. State BLM officials were reportedly given only three days to compile lists, with the effort described as a "top priority."
Burgum has also been meeting with Big Tech executives about accelerating data center development, an effort stemming from an executive order President Donald Trump signed in July 2025 directing the federal government to identify lands that could be used for data centers.
Mary Jo Rugwell, president of the Public Lands Foundation—a nonprofit advocacy group—and a former BLM state director, recently accused the Trump administration of “bending [the] knee to the tech oligarchs and letting them do whatever they need to do” without adequate consideration for the impact of data centers on public lands.
Environmentalists warn that building on public land would help tech companies skirt growing public opposition to data centers, which is increasingly transcending the political divide. It would also have outsized consequences for Western states where public lands comprise a disproportionate share of total land area.
“In Oregon, this would be a really bad precedent,” Ben Brint , the senior climate program director at the Oregon Environmental Council, told the Sun. “Some very large percentage of the state is public lands, and if we’re starting to allow that, that’s large swaths of the state that really could be at risk of further development.”
The group believes Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane were targeted by police in Equatorial Guinea for speaking out about poor treatment in the hotel they were detained in following their deportation.
As Amnesty International warned that two men are now at risk of being tortured in detention in Equatorial Guinea, where the Trump administration deported them earlier this year under one of several secretive deals, US. Rep. Adelita Grijalva said that the "ultimate responsibility lies with" the White House, which sent the men "into harm's way."
The human rights group issued an urgent appeal, calling on supporters to send letters to the vice president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, saying that that Ahmed Soliman, an Egyptian national, and Samson Birhane, who is from Eritrea, were "beaten and violently taken by police officers from the Hotel Bamy in Malabo," the capital of Equatorial Guinea.
They had been "arbitrarily" held at the hotel along with dozens of other people since US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent them there on deportation flights earlier this year. Soliman and Birhane had protection from refoulement to their countries of origin from US immigration courts, but President Donald Trump's administration has arranged with five governments, through direct payments of tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, to send hundreds of migrants to countries where they have never lived—many with records of human rights abuses.
Soliman has publicly spoken out against their arbitrary detention, and international media recently published a video showing a police officer at Hotel Bamy pointing a weapon at him and another man.
Last Friday, days after the video went public, said Amnesty, Soliman and Birhane were "targeted" by police, who arrived at the hotel and took them away briefly.
Amnesty continued in its letter and call to action:
Later during the day police officers went back to the hotel, bringing Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane back with them, who had their heads covered with bags tied with a rope. Police officers beat them in their heads, backs, and ribs with their elbows, knees, and guns, asking them where they hid the phones. They pushed one of the men down the stairs of the hotel and said to others that they may never see Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane again.
The group wrote that the men were taken "the Malabo gendarmery station known as 'La Luna'" and were accused of breaking a mirror at the hotel.
"Since then, they have not been informed of the charges against them, nor allowed to speak to their lawyers, and are held in an overcrowded police cell, in inhumane conditions," reads the sample letter. "I am concerned that they are at heightened risk of torture."
The New York Times reported that a lawyer who has been able to get some information about Soliman and Birhane's condition said they have been denied food and are "covered in bruises."
"The authorities must immediately release them, inform them of any charges against them, and allow them unimpeded access to counsel," said Amnesty International.
Officials in the Trump administration, said Grijalva (D-Ariz.), "need to take responsibility and demand Ahmed’s immediate release."
One press freedom advocate said it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment."
In one of his most direct assaults on the First Amendment, President Donald Trump announced in a Friday afternoon tirade that he would ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House.
"I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" the president wrote in a rambling Truth Social post.
"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," he added, though he did not specify any particular reports he objected to. He added that bans on "Other Fake News Media Outlets" would soon follow.
Trump, who has long portrayed himself as a defender of free speech, has taken unprecedented actions to censor news outlets during his second term, including threatening networks' broadcast licenses through the Federal Communications Commission over unfavorable programming.
As of Friday afternoon, it's unclear whether Trump actually plans to follow through on his White House ban.
Reacting to the news on the air, CNN anchor Brian Stelter said that the network's reporting team "remains at the White House working just like a usual normal Friday afternoon." He added that "right now, there is no indication that the administration is taking any steps to actually follow through on his threat."
"Certainly, if there is an attempt to remove journalists from the White House, well, our cameras are rolling. I think viewers will see it happen," he said.
"CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting," the network said in a statement following news of the ban. "We have a right under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government."
Bruce D. Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Common Dreams in an email Friday that simply banning news organizations from the White House over the content of their reporting "would be flatly unconstitutional."
"The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can't ban others because it doesn't like their reporting," he said. "This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged."
Federal courts have previously struck down attempts by Trump to bar certain press outlets on First Amendment grounds. Last year, a judge ruled that Trump's removal of the Associated Press from the White House press pool for its refusal to adopt the name "Gulf of America" for the Gulf of Mexico was an unconstitutional form of viewpoint discrimination.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rule banning reporters from obtaining information not authorized by the Pentagon, which led dozens of journalists to turn over their press badges and walk out of the building in protest, was also struck down as a violation of press freedom.
In light of these previous failures, Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expressed bewilderment that Trump was once again trying to ban news outlets from the White House.
"With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now," he said in a statement.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government."
"It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move," he said. "The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him. The press keeps exposing his corruption and his failures. These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public."
He added that the press must "fight back to protect their rights, not only to access the White House but to access the public records and whistleblowers this administration so desperately wants to keep from them.
Trump's announcement was met with outrage from Democrats in Congress, who described it as an assault on a basic constitutional freedom.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.
"Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. "Trump’s administration is doing all of that."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was "straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
"We don't need Middle East dictators to control American media."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday joined a growing chorus of critics angered by the Federal Communications Commission's approval of foreign investment in the company that would be created if Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery are allowed to merge.
Led by Chair Brendan Carr, an appointee of President Donald Trump, the FCC on Thursday approved Paramount's petition to allow foreign investors to hold over 25% of ownership. The commission concluded it would be in the "public interest" to greenlight a plan for 49.5% foreign ownership, including 38.5% from investment funds based in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
"Trump's FCC just approved Trump pal David Ellison's deal to allow Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE to own nearly 50% of a merged Paramount-Warner Bros," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media Friday, referring to Paramount's chair and CEO—and the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison.
The merged company would include CBS, CNN, HBO, the Discovery Channel, BET, Fandango, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount, PlutoTV, Showtime, TBS, The CW, TNT, Warner Bros., and more, the senator noted. He added: "Outrageous: We don't need Middle East dictators to control American media."
Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic commissioner, was similarly critical: "The FCC just let some of the most repressive governments in the world indirectly control nearly all of a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. An investment this large in one of America's biggest media companies doesn't just buy equity, it secures influence over what gets said and made."
"That's why I called for this new and novel issue to go to a full commission vote given what's at stake," she noted. "Instead, the FCC snuck this ruling out as a staff-level decision, with no public vote and no accountability for a call of this magnitude."
Welcoming Gomez's comments, Michael Sozan pointed to his and Andrew Miller's June article for the Center for American Progress highlighting that "the three Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes have deep financial relationships with Trump and his family, and... long records of human rights abuses and engage in media censorship."
"These autocracies could leverage Paramount's news outlets and other media properties to advance their own interests at the expense of the United States' national security and foundational rights, including press freedoms," the pair warned. "Given these factors, these foreign ownership levels are another reason why regulators must rigorously review this merger and take all lawful actions to block it."
As the Los Angeles Times reported:
Several groups, including the 1st Amendment nonprofit Free Press, asked the FCC to consider additional safeguards to shield the news organizations—CNN and CBS—from foreign control. One suggestion was to spin off CBS and CNN into a subsidiary that would be wholly owned by Americans.
Paramount and the FCC were dismissive, arguing "the concerns raised in the record... are speculative and unsupported," according to the FCC ruling.
While a Paramount spokesperson welcomed the FCC's decision not to block the plan—and pointed out that "when the proposed transaction with Warner Bros. Discovery closes, the Ellison family and RedBird will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and 100% of the voting shares, with no other equity participant having any governance rights"—fresh outrage mounted over the already widely criticized $111 billion merger.
Lee Hepner, an antitrust lawyer and senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, addressed the questions: "But it's just indirect equity interests, right? What about the condition that the Saudis, UAE, and Qatar cannot interfere with or even comment on any decisions related to content?"
As he explained: "The only way that firewall is conceivably enforceable is if the FCC assigns an independent monitor to sit in on every meeting, taps every burner phone, and is invited to every Signal chat between any representative of Paramount and its new financial backers. The point is not that that should happen, but that this condition is patently unenforceable. Which is all to say, the FCC just approved the sale of a crown jewel of the entertainment and media industry to foreign interests that relish in exercising economic, political, and regional military leverage over the United States. All based on a pinky promise."
"The reality is that ownership alone, even of nonvoting, indirect equity interests, creates its own financial leverage and influence," he warned. "To the extent Paramount's new owners are prohibited from exercising influence, it's patently paradoxical. Paramount won't approve anything that risks losing half of its financial backing, including criticizing a regime that not too long ago ordered the execution of a Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi, who became an international figurehead for politically persecuted journalists."
"Does anyone think CBS' new leadership has the will, much less fortitude, to prioritize truth over financial ruin?" he added. "If this all sounds like a total mess, that's because it is. And it only becomes doubly worse if Paramount acquires Warner Bros.-Discovery."
Due to legal pushback from state attorneys general and unions, the merger—which some opponents have condemned as an "existential" threat—is on hold until the outcome of a trial scheduled to begin in March.
"If our government can close off channels of exchange and the free flow of ideas, it is no more than a dictatorship."
A coalition of 15 press freedom advocacy organizations on Friday demanded the release of Nicaraguan journalist Luis Galeano, who was arrested by federal immigration enforcement officials earlier this week.
The groups—which include Free Press, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF)—released a letter decrying Galeano's detention at the hands of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on Monday.
The organizations expressed concern about Galeano being potentially deported back to Nicaragua, where he could face imprisonment for his past work exposing that government's human rights abuses. According to a Wednesday report in The Guardian, Galeano fled his home country eight years ago shortly after police raided the news outlet where he worked.
The groups also said Galeano's detention marked "a troubling escalation of attacks on journalists and media workers, particularly immigrant journalists, who consistently provide much-needed journalism and civic information for their communities."
Galeano was taken into custody despite entering the US legally in 2018 and having a pending asylum case. The Nicaraguan journalist also has a work permit and a Social Security number.
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, called Galeano's arrest "horrifying," while noting that the Nicaraguan is "the latest in a long line of journalists who came to the United States to report on issues of the day and instead face deportation."
"These cases aren’t just about cracking down on immigration," said Benavidez. "They are about cutting off community access to vital coverage and scaring reporters from holding those in power accountable. If our government can close off channels of exchange and the free flow of ideas, it is no more than a dictatorship."
Edith Rodríguez Cachera, vice president of RSF Spain, pointed out that Galeano was also a citizen of Spain, and urged the Spanish government to secure his freedom.
"Spain cannot stand by while one of its citizens, a journalist persecuted for doing his job, is detained in the United States and faces the risk of being sent back to a country he fled because of severe repression," said Rodríguez Cachera, "where his safety could be seriously endangered if he is deported. Spain must use every diplomatic and consular instrument at its disposal to safeguard his security and prevent his return to a country where he will likely be targeted due to his journalistic work."
Galeano's wife, Deykell Santamaría, said in an interview with El País published Thursday that she has been able to contact her husband during his detention, but she still fears "for his safety, his freedom, and his integrity if he were to be sent to Nicaragua."
Javier Melendez, a longtime friend of the detained journalist, was even blunter about what would happen to Galeano were he to be deported, describing it as nothing less than a "death sentence" in an interview with The Guardian.
The El País report noted that US Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) have expressed concerns about Galeano's detention, with Salazar saying that the US government should "always know how to distinguish between a criminal and a political exile."
"A vote to let this sale proceed is a decision to help Israel commit more war crimes."
3
A human rights organization on Friday called on members of Congress to block the Trump administration's proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, warning that approving the massive weapons package could violate US law and expose lawmakers to potential liability for complicity in war crimes.
In a letter to congressional lawmakers, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) urged legislators to introduce joint resolutions of disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) once the administration formally notifies Congress of the sale.
"Forty thousand of the bombs that flattened Gaza is not a defense package, it is a down payment on the next round of atrocities," DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said in a statement. "Every member of Congress now has the law and the evidence in front of them. A vote to let this sale proceed is a decision to help Israel commit more war crimes."
1/ Members of Congress should introduce and pass joint resolutions of disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act to block the Trump administration's proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, DAWN said today in a letter to every member of the Senate and House.
[image or embed]
— DAWN (@dawnmenaorg.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 9:39 AM
The proposed package includes 20,000 MK-84 general-purpose bombs and 20,000 BLU-117s, along with 20,000 I-2000 penetrator warheads, according to reporting by The Washington Post. The weapons would be purchased largely through Foreign Military Financing, meaning US taxpayers would pay for Israel's acquisition of the munitions.
The MK-84 is among the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal. The Post reported that its blast can propel metal fragments thousands of feet, penetrate thick concrete and metal, and create large craters.
"Munitions experts [said] that US forces almost never drop bombs of this size in populated areas," DAWN wrote in its letter. "Israel has used them hundreds of times in Gaza and Lebanon. The Biden administration paused a shipment of these bombs in May 2024 precisely because of the risk of mass casualties in Rafah; President [Donald] Trump released it within days of taking office."
Loosened rules of engagement implemented by the Israel Defense Forces following the Hamas-led attack of October 2023, combined with the IDF's use of artificial intelligence technology to select targets far more rapidly than humans, resulted in a staggering loss of civilian life in Gaza when 2,000- and 1,000-pound bombs were dropped.
"Israel's assault has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including more than 21,000 children, and the killing has not stopped," DAWN said on Friday, adding that the United Nations Children's Fund "said last month that at least 300 children had reportedly been killed since the October 2025 ceasefire, an average of one child every day."
DAWN argued that the proposed transfer would violate multiple US laws, including provisions of the AECA and Foreign Assistance Act governing how American weapons may be provided and prohibiting assistance to governments engaged in consistent patterns of gross human rights violations. The organization also invoked the Leahy Laws, which prohibit certain assistance to foreign military units credibly implicated in gross human rights abuses.
The group further warned that knowingly providing weapons that are subsequently used to commit war crimes could also be "illegal" under the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although Israel and the US are not signatories to the Rome Statute, the treaty stipulates that people from nonsignatory nations who commit crimes in states that are party to the treaty—as Palestine is—can be held criminally accountable for their acts.
The ICC has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The Hague-based court also ordered the arrest of three senior Hamas leaders; all three were extrajudicially assassinated by Israel.
The proposed sale has already encountered some congressional resistance. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced Wednesday that he would not clear the transfer, citing the absence of sufficient assurances that the weapons would be used consistently with US and international law and concerns about civilian protection in Gaza and Lebanon. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has also vowed to block the sale in the upper chamber.
However, DAWN cautioned that a congressional hold is not necessarily sufficient to stop the transfer. The organization noted that the Trump administration has previously invoked emergency authorities to bypass congressional review of arms sales to Israel.
Under the AECA, Congress can attempt to block a major arms transfer through a joint resolution of disapproval. DAWN is urging lawmakers to bring such resolutions to recorded votes in both chambers and to hold public hearings examining the administration's use of emergency authorities to circumvent congressional oversight.
"The administration is betting that Congress will do what it always does: complain, then look away," DAWN advocacy director Raed Jarrar said on Friday. "Congress should show the administration that it's no longer the rubber stamp it long has been on arms to Israel and block this sale."
Despite catastrophic warnings from AI industry insiders, Congress has adjourned until after the midterms without passing any laws to regulate the technology.
Despite increasingly urgent calls to regulate artificial intelligence, including from industry insiders who warn of potentially catastrophic consequences, the US Congress has continued to drag its feet on meaningful legislation.
A report released Friday by Sludge may shed some light on one potential roadblock. It found that 1 in 5 members of Congress has household investments in AI companies or those producing the infrastructure behind the technology.
Sludge revealed that:
At least 105 members of Congress have disclosed that they, their spouse, or their dependent children hold stocks or other investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data center companies, and specialized AI firms, with a total value of between $75 million and $287 million.
Most of the money is invested in large tech companies like Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet. But lawmakers also report their households holding and trading shares in smaller publicly traded AI companies like BigBear.ai, Tempus AI, and C3 AI, as well as little-known private startups whose shares are unavailable to ordinary investors.
Of the lawmakers reporting investments, at least 44 sit on committees with jurisdiction over legislation dealing with AI safety, consumer protections, semiconductor policy, and trade with China.
The report identifies several lawmakers in positions of influence over Congress' AI policy whose households simultaneously have deep investments in the industry.
One of them is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—created to help direct the party's legislative agenda around the emerging technology.
According to Sludge, Gottheimer's household has investments in several key chipmaking and semiconductor companies, and he has regularly traded in AI stocks while in Congress.
The report draws attention to the "scores of sales" he made on April 9, 2025, when President Donald Trump announced a surprise 90-day pause on his "Liberation Day" tariffs, an announcement that led stocks for many AI companies to surge in value. Gottheimer has previously told Sludge that his investments are managed by a third party and that he does not make the decisions himself.
Gottheimer is one of the Democrats helping shape the party's approach to regulating AI. Earlier this month, amid concerns about the growing capability of "superintelligent" AI agents that can exceed human capability, he joined with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) to introduce the Stop Rogue AI Act.
This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to adopt a series of standards and best practices that AI companies could implement to track the behavior of agents. However, critics have argued that the bill's voluntary guidelines fall short of what is necessary to rein in the industry.
Gottheimer's proposal is one of several measures Democrats have proposed in recent weeks following warnings from Anthropic researchers Jacob Coxon and Evan Hubinger that AI systems could wipe out humanity if allowed to escape human control.
Others include a more muscular bill proposed earlier this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) that would permanently ban the development of superintelligent AI and pause the development of advanced AI until a federal regulatory body can be established.
Some members of Congress whose households are heavily invested in AI stocks have nonetheless supported stronger regulation. According to Sludge, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) disclosed between $3.4 million and $8.4 million worth of stock owned by his wife in AI companies, including Nvidia and chipmaker Broadcom.
Khanna has said he does not personally trade stocks and has pushed for a congressional ban on stock trading. Despite his household's millions of dollars worth of AI investments, he has also voiced support for blocking the development of superintelligent AI until stronger safeguards are in place, broadly aligning him with the Sanders-Casar proposal.
Sludge found that investments in AI stocks are not concentrated in either party. Among the lawmakers who reported AI-related investments, 62 were Republicans, and 43 were Democrats.
One of the largest portfolios is held by the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plans to retire at the end of the term.
Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, reported holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tempus AI worth between $28.4 million and $134.9 million, while also buying an estimated $1.3 million to $2.6 million in Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tempus shares in 2026 and up to $12 million in Bloom Energy, which stands to benefit from the AI data-center buildout.
On the Republican side, the report singles out Rep. Lisa McClain (Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference and the fourth highest-ranking member of House GOP leadership. Since December, her household has invested as much as $515,000 in AI companies, including private stakes in Elon Musk's company xAI, as well as Apptronik and Saronic.
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, disclosed holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. She serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, which has authority to legislate on energy issues related to the controversial buildout of data centers around the country.
The report comes as members of Congress head home for a seven-week recess that will last until after November's midterm elections.
On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats—including Gottheimer, Khanna, and Pelosi—sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to postpone the recess until Congress passes AI safety legislation.
"AI experts and leading companies agree that the United States can lead the world in artificial intelligence while establishing reasonable safeguards that protect Americans and our national security. We can—and must—do both," the lawmakers wrote. "While AI safety experts and Americans increasingly urge action to confront this conflagration of risk, Congress fiddles."
"The House should remain in session until Congress advances meaningful, bipartisan AI safeguards," the letter concluded. "To our children who will have read a post-apocalyptic history, 'Why Congress Slept'—likely written by agentic AI—our inaction will be inexplicable and unforgivable."
Johnson, who has rejected calls for AI regulation and said companies should be in charge of regulating themselves, ignored the request and adjourned the House on Wednesday.
"If a foreign government or terrorist group did the kind of hacking and IP theft being done by AI giants, America would declare a national security emergency and start a war," said one journalist.
Publicly, billionaire artificial intelligence executives have denied that their product will ultimately replace people in jobs they've spent decades working at, with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman declaring that "AI won't replace humans, but humans who use AI will replace those who don't," in one effort to convince the public to embrace the deeply unpopular expansion of the technology.
But internal documents from OpenAI and Microsoft, unsealed as part of a lawsuit The New York Times and other news outlets filed against the two companies over their scraping of news content in order to train their AI models, tell a different story—one in which executives and workers at the tech giants were fully aware that the practice was meant to result in a "substitutive" product to replace journalists, after stealing millions of articles they'd written.
As the Times reported, employees at Microsoft wrote that by scraping the news content, they were committing the “largest theft of labor in human history.”
Nick Turley, the head of OpenAI's AI chatbot, ChatGPT, wrote that the technology posed an "existential threat" to news publishers and that the goal was for AI products to get "more and more substitutive"—although other employees said the stealing of news content could ultimately negatively impact the quality of the large language models (LLM) they were creating.
“It is highly unusual that an end-product threatens the economic foundations of its essential suppliers, but that is the situation we have created for our LLM business with respect to its ‘content supply chain,’” one document says.
Executives painted a picture of the companies gathering up news content from across the internet, ultimately leaving nothing behind.
Brent Hecht, Microsoft's director of applied science, wrote in an internal memo that eventually, an LLM is "a product that destroys its supply chain."
“Millions of people around the world will soon consider large models ‘hoovering up’ all their work to be an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” Hecht wrote.
Although officials at the two companies expressed these views privately from 2020-24, in response to the lawsuit filed in late 2023 by the Times they have claimed that their use of news content is covered by "fair use" rules pertaining to copyrighted material, and that the articles were turned into new work and are therefore not substitutes for the original articles.
But the unsealed documents, said reporter Shawn Setaro of Complex, show that OpenAI and Microsoft "KNEW they were stealing, and KNEW they were destroying news outlets."
Hecht wrote in one memo that the companies' practice was making “a complete mockery of the idea of ‘fair use.’”
The internal memos were unsealed by Judge Sidney H. Stein of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, who is considering motions for a summary judgment in the lawsuit.
The Times and 11 other outlets that have joined the suit argue that OpenAI and Microsoft violated copyright laws.
One document showed that the companies even developed "a hack" to circumvent paywalls in order to collect paid content.
OpenAI President Greg Brockman replied, "Ah nice" to a note from a staffer telling him about the tool, but Microsoft DEO Satya Nadella said in a deposition that had he been aware that AI teams were scraping paywalled articles, he would have required that OpenAI retrain the models.
"If a foreign government or terrorist group did the kind of hacking and IP theft being done by AI giants, America would declare a national security emergency and start a war," said David Sirota of The Lever. "But because the crime is being done by Silicon Valley billionaires, we’re told by politicians and corporate media that it’s fine, that it should be accelerated, and that we should consider granting them new legal protections/exemptions, as well as new tax subsidies."
In 2020, then-OpenAI policy director Jack Clark wrote to Brockman and Altman that he was concerned the company's AI development practices would "increasingly lead to us creating systems that substitute for the labor of the people that define the ‘culture’ of society.”
While tech executives have spent recent years extolling the virtues of AI—and, recently, threatening that their technology has the capacity to wipe out humanity—Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project said the documents exposed AI as "an elite crime spree."
"From copyright violations to hacking to monopolization to sex trafficking, the companies behind AI violate the law," he said. "The problem isn't a lack of regulations, it's that the law doesn't apply to the powerful."
"I think a lot of people expected that maybe the war would wrap up and the prices would go down some... then it just skyrocketed," said one farmer of the cost of diesel.
Farmers across the US are speaking up about their struggles as President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran and trade war with Canada are taking a hammer to their finances.
In an interview with CBS News published Thursday, North Carolina farmer Matt Bell revealed that "I have never worried and stressed like I have the last year," thanks to the soaring costs of fuel, fertilizer, and farm equipment, all of which have gotten more expensive thanks to Trump's policies.
"The fertilizer, fuel, chemicals, seed, parts—you know, the whole nine yards," said Bell, "everything that we touch has gone up."
"We are fighting for survival."
Matt Bell, 52, has been farming for more than half his life in central North Carolina.
He grows soybeans, corn and wheat and raises beef cattle on more than 1,000 acres. But Bell, who voted for President Trump, says soaring prices for fuel,… pic.twitter.com/9ELYXkJywt
— CBS News (@CBSNews) September 18, 2026
Bell, who voted for Trump, said he feels "misled" and "strung along" when it comes to the president's rationale for attacking Iran without congressional authorization in February.
The North Carolina farmer said his costs for diesel fuel have doubled in the last year, driven in large part by Trump's war.
According to data released Friday by the American Automobile Association, the average price of diesel in the US now stands at a record-high $6.45 per gallon, a 74% increase of the average price of diesel one year ago.
"We are fighting for survival," Bell emphasized, "and we're running out of options."
Bell is far from the only farmer struggling.
Theresa Sisung, commodity and regulatory relations manager at the Michigan Farm Bureau, said in an interview with Up North Live that farmers in the state are about to "use a ton of fuel on their farms" due to the start of harvest season, making the record-high diesel prices particularly inconvenient.
"We have seen a slight increase in farm bankruptcies across the nation," said Sisung. "We are seeing those farms that are more stressed. We've had some negative margins for farms for a few years now, so there is certainly stress out in the countryside."
Michigan farmer Russell Ketchum told Up North Live that the high diesel prices have made what was already a challenging year and farming even more difficult.
"We started out the year with a lot of cold weather, a lot of freeze damage," Ketchum explained, "so we've been working on short crops all year and then the diesel fuel prices and the gas prices all on top of that, they made everything challenging to say the least."
North Dakota farmer Chris McDonald told the North Dakota Monitor in an interview published Wednesday that diesel prices have climbed so high that they "can erase your profit."
McDonald also tied the increase in diesel costs directly to Trump's war, which the president said would only last a matter of weeks but has since dragged on for more than six months.
"I think a lot of people expected that maybe the war would wrap up," said McDonald, "and the prices would go down some, and they never really did drop very much. Then it just skyrocketed.”
The Iran War isn't the only Trump policy that's hurting US agriculture and bringing pain to US farming families, as a Tuesday NPR report highlighted the impact that the president's trade war with Canada is having on farmers in Montana.
As noted by NPR, Canada is Montana's biggest trading partner, as it accounts for "$1 billion in cross-border sales." But the tariffs imposed by Trump, and the counter-tariffs imposed by Canada, have both harmed Montana farmers' sales and made the equipment they buy more expensive.
Steve Sheffels, a Montana wheat farmer, told NPR that he'd like to buy "a new drill" and some "grain bins that come out of Canada," but now fears that "I won't be able to afford them" thanks to the trade war.
Sheffels, whose wife is Canadian, also told NPR that he was not happy to see America's relationship with its largest trading partner deteriorate throughout Trump's second term.
"You don't treat your neighbors like this," he said.
"It’s time to stop making taxpayers subsidize luxury private jet travel and use our resources to green other industries," said one of the report's authors.
A handful of the world's wealthiest people are traveling aboard some of the planet's most polluting vehicles while receiving substantial public subsidies, according to a new report documenting how taxpayers and commercial airline passengers are funding billionaires' private jet lifestyles due to corporate lobbying, tax breaks, and other policies.
The Institute for Policy Studies' (IPS) "High Flyers 2026: The High Cost of Private Jet Excess," released on Friday, notes that only about 256,000 people around the world—roughly 0.003% of the global population—fly on private jets. Yet these ultrawealthy travelers account for a disproportionate share of aviation activity while paying a fraction of the taxes that fund air traffic infrastructure.
According to the report—which is co-authored by Chuck Collins, Omar Ocampo, Kalena Thomhave, and Emily Wagner—private jets and charter services account for roughly 16% of flight operations handled by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while noncommercial private jets account for about 7% of airspace activity.
NEW: Private jet travel — the most ecologically destructive form of transportation — is increasing among the wealthiest 0.003% of people. Taxpayers and commercial flyers are subsidizing it.It's time to tax this reckless consumption. REPORT:
[image or embed]
— Institute for Policy Studies (@ips-dc.org) September 18, 2026 at 6:05 AM
However, private jets contribute less than 0.6% of the taxes flowing into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which helps finance FAA operations.
"We all pay for the harms of private jet excess," the report states. "US taxpayers and commercial air travelers subsidize the luxury private jet transportation sector. Private jets fail to pay their fair share of their use of airspace and the costs of their carbon pollution, shifting the burden to everyone else."
The disparity is particularly stark when the climate consequences of private aviation are taken into account. IPS found that a passenger traveling by private jet is responsible for roughly 10 to 14 times the emissions of a passenger on a commercial airline and around 50 times those of a passenger traveling the same route by rail. On some low-carbon rail systems, the disparity can exceed 200-fold.
"Private jets are the super-polluters. On a warming planet, private jet operations are indefensible," the report's authors wrote. "Private jets account for a small sliver of aviation activity, but they are the most polluting form of transport and represent the fastest-growing segment of aviation emissions."
The report also found that at least half of private jet operations are for recreational, vacation, and personal luxury travel.
"The ultrarich and greedy corporations are private jet-setting at the expense of the rest of us," Collins told The Guardian on Friday. "The rest of us should not have to pay for the luxury excess of the private jet billionaire class."
The report comes amid increasing criticism of tax policies that have made private aircraft particularly lucrative investments for wealthy Americans. Last year, US President Donald Trump signed legislation permanently implementing 100% bonus depreciation for qualifying business assets, allowing full tax deductions for certain purchases—including private aircraft—in the year they are acquired.
In a May opinion piece published by Common Dreams, Collins and Wagner slammed what they described as "a massive tax break for billionaires and centimillionaires that use the most polluting form of transportation on the planet."
A corporation that buys a $50 million private jet could potentially deduct the entire purchase price from its taxes in the year of acquisition, meaning "ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers," according to Collins and Wagner.
The Trump administration has also recently declined to close another tax loophole benefiting wealthy private jet users. A proposal by Democratic senators would have changed the rules governing the so-called Standard Industry Fare Level method for calculating the taxable value of personal flights aboard corporate aircraft. The lawmakers argued that the system allows wealthy executives to substantially undervalue their personal use nof company jets.
"While working families struggle to afford groceries, housing, and gas," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said earlier this month, the Trump administration "focuses on tax breaks for billionaires—including tax breaks for private jets. What a disgrace."
The private jet industry has also benefited from efforts to shield aircraft owners from scrutiny. Earlier this year, House Republicans sought to restrict government use of flight tracking data that can help identify privately owned aircraft for taxation purposes.
“Oh look—Republicans helping private-jet billionaires avoid paying taxes," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) quipped in June. "If only they worked that hard for consumers.”
IPS noted the private aviation industry's substantial political influence. The National Business Aviation Association spent approximately $2 million lobbying for the sector in 2025, including on policies concerning tax breaks and private flight secrecy.
The report's authors list policy changes they say would help "decarbonize private jet users' indefensible behavior."
"A luxury tax of 10% on used jets and 5% on new jets could have raised more than $3 billion in 2025, funds that could be invested in sustainable ground transportation," they asserted.
"Congress should strip a private jet tax avoidance provision from the pending air traffic safety legislation, the ALERT Act," the authors argued.
The report also calls for:
“Since we first released our analysis on the costs of private jet travel to taxpayers and the planet in 2023, we’ve seen a shocking and irresponsible rise in the use of private jet travel,” Ocampo said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, the private jet lobby has worked hard to lower the tax obligations of the ultrawealthy," he added. "Meanwhile, the aviation industry pushes false solutions on the climate crisis. It’s time to stop making taxpayers subsidize luxury private jet travel and use our resources to green other industries.”