Strategic Initiatives
11741 stories
·
45 followers

A Simple WhatsApp Security Flaw Exposed 3.5 Billion Phone Numbers | WIRED

1 Share
  • Contact Discovery Feature: WhatsApp's mechanism to add a phone number reveals if the user is on the service, often showing profile picture and name.
  • Mass Enumeration Method: Checking every possible phone number extracts cell numbers of nearly all WhatsApp users, plus profile photos and text in many cases.
  • Research Extraction Scale: Austrian researchers obtained 3.5 billion users' phone numbers using contact discovery on the browser-based app.
  • Additional Data Access: Profile photos were accessible for 57 percent of users, and profile text for 29 percent.
  • Rate of Queries: The process allowed checking roughly 100 million numbers per hour, despite a 2017 warning to Meta.
  • Historical Context: Meta failed to limit speed or volume of contact discovery requests until the recent study.
  • Meta's Response and Fix: Researchers warned Meta in April, deleted data, and Meta implemented stricter rate-limiting by October.
  • Meta's Statement: Company described exposed data as basic public information, found no malicious abuse, and confirmed message security via end-to-end encryption.

stems in part from how easy it is to find a new contact on the messaging platform: Add someone's phone number, and WhatsApp instantly shows whether they're on the service, and often their profile picture and name, too.

Repeat that same trick a few billion times with every possible phone number, it turns out, and the same feature can also serve as a convenient way to obtain the cell number of virtually every WhatsApp user on earth—along with, in many cases, profile photos and text that identifies each of those users. The result is a sprawling exposure of personal information for a significant fraction of the world population.

One group of Austrian researchers have now shown that they were able to use that simple method of checking every possible number in WhatsApp's contact discovery to extract 3.5 billion users’ phone numbers from the messaging service. For about 57 percent of those users, they also found that they could access their profile photos, and for another 29 percent, the text on their profiles. Despite a previous warning about WhatsApp's exposure of this data from a different researcher in 2017, they say, the service's parent company, Meta, still failed to limit the speed or number of contact discovery requests the researchers could make by interacting with WhatsApp's browser-based app, allowing them to check roughly a hundred million numbers an hour.

Featured Video

[

6 Of The Worst Data Breaches in U.S. History

](https://www.wired.com/video/watch/incognito-mode-6-of-the-worst-data-breaches-in-us-history)

The result would be “the largest data leak in history, had it not been collated as part of a responsibly conducted research study,” as the researchers describe it in a paper documenting their findings.

“To the best of our knowledge, this marks the most extensive exposure of phone numbers and related user data ever documented,” says Aljosha Judmayer, one of the researchers at the University of Vienna who worked on the study.

The researchers say they warned Meta about their findings in April and deleted their copy of the 3.5 billion phone numbers. By October, the company had fixed the enumeration problem by enacting a stricter “rate-limiting” measure that prevents the mass-scale contact discovery method the researchers used. But until then, the data exposure could have also been exploited by anyone else using the same scraping technique, adds Max Günther, another researcher from the university who cowrote the paper. “If this could be retrieved by us super easily, others could have also done the same," he says.

In a statement to WIRED, Meta thanked the researchers, who reported their discovery through Meta's “bug bounty” system, and described the exposed data as “basic publicly available information,” since profile photos and text weren't exposed for users who opted to make it private. “We had already been working on industry-leading anti-scraping systems, and this study was instrumental in stress-testing and confirming the immediate efficacy of these new defenses,” writes Nitin Gupta, vice president of engineering at WhatsApp. Gupta adds, “We have found no evidence of malicious actors abusing this vector. As a reminder, user messages remained private and secure thanks to WhatsApp’s default end-to-end encryption, and no non-public data was accessible to the researchers.”

Read the whole story
bogorad
25 minutes ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

America’s invasion of Mexico // Digital nomads are tearing neighbourhoods apart

1 Share
  • Gentrification Surge: Post-pandemic influx of Americans into Condesa has transformed the neighborhood, replacing local businesses with upscale venues and driving up property prices eightfold in areas like Polanco over two decades.
  • Local Displacement: Residents like Gabriela and Vanessa faced eviction or rent hikes, forcing moves to cheaper areas amid a housing shortage in Mexico City, which built fewer new homes than any other state despite left-wing governance.
  • Cultural Tensions: Complaints highlight American newcomers' perceived arrogance, from English-only menus to objections against street vendors, fueling protests on July 4th with chants of "Gringos Out!" and attacks on tourist spots.
  • Economic Irony: While Mexicans face U.S. deportations, Americans enjoy affordable luxury in Mexico City, with 56% more temporary permits issued last year, though foreigners remain a tiny minority of the 9.2 million population.
  • Market Benefits: Foreign businesses like Fahra Bellak's bagel shop create jobs and boost local suppliers, with farmers reporting quadrupled sales, countering claims of pure exploitation in a globalized economy.
  • Government Response: Mayor Clara Brugada's 14-point plan aims to regulate rents and short-term lets like Airbnbs, which occupy one in five Condesa homes, though enforcement of existing rules has been lax.
  • Broader Context: Experts like José Alberto Lara-Pulido argue gentrification reflects market dynamics in a competitive world, urging focus on inequality and economic growth over xenophobic backlash to sustain Mexico's opening to global opportunities.

Gabriela was born and raised in Condesa, a leafy central district of Mexico City. “It was a very nice, communal life,” the 36-year-old historian recalls, explaining how her family shared a car, walked to each other’s homes and knew all the shopkeepers. But, after the pandemic, the area changed fast. First, the empty next-door building was bought and renovated by an American. Then her local bakery was driven out, the locksmith moved away, and a café where workers had lunch was replaced by a fancy pizzeria and coffee shop. “It’s like Condesa has become just another neighbourhood of Manhattan,” Gabriela says.

Eventually, this surging tide of gentrification engulfed Gabriela. Two months ago, she had to move from Condesa to another flat, about five kilometres away across the capital’s massive urban sprawl. “They told me they would not renew my lease because the owner wanted to tear down the building. I imagine they are going to build a new building — and if they follow the other buildings on the street, they will build luxury apartments or Airbnbs to be used by foreigners.”

Gabriela, who has studied in the United States, understands why many Americans might want to flee their car-oriented and often-costly cities. But she admits to anger at seeing so many gringos — often working remotely from their new homes — take over her native district. “Mexico prides itself on being very welcoming but it’s impossible to compete with American salaries,” she says. “Of course it is fantastic when you can live a much more affordable life. But when I was a kid, the only foreigners who came to Mexico City were people interested in our culture since it was deemed the most dangerous and polluted city in the world. Now so many of them come here, but they are not interested in our country.”

Such complaints are far from unusual — and laced with cruel irony at a time when Mexicans north of the border are being hunted down, detained and deported. Visiting Mexico City early last year, I was amazed to hear so many American accents in its most prosperous enclaves. Friends told me there was growing fury over an “invasion” that exploded after the pandemic, when the nation had comparatively loose restrictions. Anti-gringo graffiti and stickers began appearing. Then came three demonstrations over the summer in Condesa, culminating with protesters attacking boutiques, cars, coffee shops and taco restaurants aimed at tourists. Some chanted “Fuera Gringo!” (Gringos Out!); others held signs saying things like “Gentrification is colonisation!” and “Learn Spanish, dog”.

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum — who is facing fresh demonstrations over corruption following the murder of a popular mayor — quickly condemned the display of xenophobia. And Mexico City is far from the only place to face protests over rapid gentrification that pitches rich against poor, local against newcomer, localism against a globalisation. There have been similar complaints in other tourist hotspots where short-term lets inflame such issues. Last month, for instance, I was investigating this issue in Lisbon, where the typical price for a home has surged to 21 times median household income — making it the least affordable European capital for local people.

The shift in Mexico City’s image can be traced to 2016, when The New York Times unexpectedly labelled it the world’s best place to visit. The first substantial wave of gringos  — a word which in Mexico refers specifically to Americans — arrived in central areas like Condesa, Polanco and Roma the following year. A pair of natural disasters inflamed the influx. First, in 2017, the city was struck by an earthquake, leaving homes damaged. Many local families moved out and house prices fell. Then numbers soared during the pandemic — and gentrification started to ripple into adjacent districts.

In Condesa, perhaps one in five homes are now an Airbnb or other tourist house. And while there is limited data on numbers of foreign residents — many use tourist visas — last year 56% more temporary-residency permits were issued to Americans in Mexico City than five years earlier (though foreigners make up a tiny minority of Mexico City’s 9.2 million people). All this in a city that saw the lowest rate of new house-building of any Mexican state over the last decade, notwithstanding its Left-wing leadership.

These are familiar concerns in many cities: an influx of foreigners seeking fun, freedom and fewer financial shackles, before becoming a focal point for generational fury over housing inadequacies and political ineptitude. Yet while the new arrivals have put pressure on costs — property prices have risen eightfold in under two decades in prosperous Polanco — the tensions are also cultural. It was no coincidence that the initial protest took place on 4 July: US Independence Day. Behind the volley of demands for rent controls, or effective regulation of short-term lets, locals are angry over the arrogance of many Americans in their city. “When I was in Condesa, the people who lived there spoke Spanish,” says Vanessa Gonzales, 49, a hairdresser driven out last year after her salon’s landlord demanded a near-tripling of rent. “Now it’s all English, English, English. We’re Mexican but you go to the restaurants and menus are in English.”

When Gonzales first opened a salon near her home in Condesa 15 years ago, almost all her clients lived in the district; now barely one in 10 remain. And, as she explains, many Mexicans “do not love American people” for economic, religious or historical reasons — a feeling intensified when strutting newcomers refuse to respect their culture. Fernando, a taco seller working with his two nieces, tells me that gringos complained about the smell of his food, the umbrellas over his stall and even how he clogs up the street. “They’re not even from here,” he says, “and they complain that this commerce should not be here.”

There are even more brazen examples too. A young American model sparked outrage last year after posting on Instagram that people should stop giving money to traditional street musicians playing automated organs since they were “polluting with their noise.” Another American in Condesa — a long-term resident married to a Mexican man and running an Airbnb in their home — tells me she was horrified to hear a group of “vile” young Americans discuss their cocaine use recently while standing in the queue at her local bakery. “This was so incredibly offensive in a country that has been ravaged by drug violence,” she says. “Although most guests at our Airbnb have been very pleasant, it sums up the arrogance of some of the people coming here.”

Fernando the taco seller and his nieces. Credit: Ian Birrell.

This seems to be the key issue — along with corrosive suspicions that rich foreigners get favourable treatment in their city. One podcast featured someone who spoke about trying to make a booking at a popular restaurant in Spanish and being told there was no room: only to get an English-speaking friend to call back and be told there was an available table. There are even scandalous claims that some restaurants have toned down the heat in their salsas.

True or false, there is a unique edge to this Mexican outrage at gentrification, since it comes at a time when the White House has dispatched controversial federal enforcement units to find and deport undocumented migrants. “Whenever I open YouTube I get this fucking Pam Bondi ad where she says don’t come to the United States illegally because we will catch you,” says Sebastian Rojas, a musician who was born in Condesa, but who moved after being “strangled” by high rents. “At the same time you see all these gringos living like kings and enjoying the beauty of the best parts of our city.”

“You see all these gringos living like kings and enjoying the beauty of the best parts of our city.”

Emilio Guerrero Alexander, a filmmaker, makes a similar point in response to claims that Americans are entitled to gentrify his city when millions of Mexicans go to the US. “This is not a two-way street,” he says. “Some people are unlucky to have been born in areas where there is lots of criminal activity and murders so they go north to escape this misery. They just want safety and a better life for their families. But the Americans coming to Mexico City are people who realised — mostly during the pandemic — they will be richer here and buy more with their dollars… They are coming to have fun and don’t even try to get into our culture. Some do — but sadly it is just a minority.”

Even some Americans tell me they supported the protests against them. “It makes sense that people are upset,” says Shaynn, a charity worker who has lived in the city for four years. “I do my best to be conscious about where I spend my money, the kind of housing I live in, how I pay or hire people — but my being here definitely has a negative impact, which is something I grapple with. Anyone earning in a foreign currency, especially dollars, and spending in pesos negatively impacts on people living here by increasing prices.”

Such ambiguities are also apparent among Mexicans. In one luxury spa, for instance, a therapist tells me she supported the protests despite feeling hypocritical. “We have to treat them like special guests because they come with money, so it feels like I am betraying my own culture,” she says. “And I hate seeing gringos coming to the city and paying huge amounts of rent when we can’t afford to live in these most beautiful parts because they have raised the costs so much.”

This woman also has relatives living north of the border. “It feels a bit icky,” she admits. “My family has friends who aren’t citizens in the US and they are being profiled the whole time. But our government sees all these Americans as bringing money into our country, but I do feel some resentment when I hear these people saying how much they love Mexico City, how they love having such fun here and how it’s so cheap. It feels like we are being colonised.”

This word is heavily loaded in a nation colonised by Spain for centuries, and then invaded by the US in 1846 and 1916 — and the fact that it kept cropping up in my conversations underlines the depth of disquiet about gentrification in the Mexican metropolis. “I support the protests since it feels like we have been colonised again, predominantly by Americans,” says Armando, 25, working in a Roma boutique selling $130 hoodies.

Not that everyone agrees. Eduardo Garcia, 64, a writer and podcaster, argues that though the demonstrations reflect genuine grievances over high rents and the conversion of buildings into short-term lets, they got out of hand and damaged the nation’s image. “The protests left a bad impression,” he tells me. “A lot of small businesses, a lot of the waiters such as those here, benefit from the high number of foreigners coming to the city. If foreigners think twice about coming to Mexico and feel unwanted, they could hurt these people.”

Protests against over-tourism in places such as Spain suggest they do not deter arrivals and have little long-term impact, but can lead to small behavioural changes, such as switching to hotels. Yet studies indicate the capital has seen hefty price rises in its swankier parts, with a single room in Condesa or Roma Norte now costing $1,000 or more — higher than average monthly wages. One report, published last year by the National Academy of Sciences, revealed average house prices quadrupled over two decades before 2022, while the country’s per capita income declined relative to inflation. “Gentrification in Mexico City,” the authors concluded, “is impacting housing accessibility and displacing its residents.”

Given international trends, some suspect these shifts are an inevitable consequence of our globalised economy. Garcia, who is married to an American, says his country was cut off from the rest of the planet when he was growing up, what with its low trade, poor-quality domestic consumer products and tourism limited to beach resorts. “Now Mexico is competing with the world, producing better products, and is attractive to foreigners,” he continues. “I saw these changes and like these changes. I believe in the strength of Mexican culture — and there is nothing to be afraid of foreigners coming into your country and changing it a little bit.”

His stance is supported by the economist José Alberto Lara-Pulido, head of the centre for sustainability at Ibero American University. “Gentrification is tough,” he says. “It has a relationship with xenophobia because a lot of people from the US came to the richest areas of Mexico City, prices of houses have risen and local people are being pushed away. There is fear of real-estate speculation. But for me, it is just the market working and a big city should welcome people from all over the world.” Foreign business owners defend themselves too, claiming they create jobs, pay decent wages and assist local suppliers. “The frustration is valid but misdirected,” says Fahra Bellak, a 40 year old from Edinburgh who runs a thriving bagel shop in Roma Norte. “Farmers tell me they come into the city and make four times as much as in rural areas, which helps sustain their farms. We buy our eggs from an organic farmer — when we started it was seven trays a week, now it’s more than 60, so he says I’ve helped him grow his farm. Our coffee guy says the same.”

Whatever side you come down on, the authorities are responding. Following the protests, Mayor Clara Brugada proposed a 14-point plan to regulate rent prices, protect residents, and build affordable social housing. Critics, however, point out that existing rules to limit occupancy of short-term lets to a maximum of six months a year are rarely enforced, while Sheinbaum, during her own tenure as mayor, has faced accusations of fuelling the boom — after signing a 2022 deal with Airbnb to lure digital nomads and tourists.

Fahra Bellak and her team at the bagel shop. Credit: Ian Birrell.

Lara-Pulido argues that Mexico’s real problem is not gentrification but rampant inequality in a land where about half the population work in the informal sector; where inflation has long been high; where the economy is dominated by a handful of huge corporations; and where it is hard to start or close a business. “There are much bigger issues with our economy,” he stresses. “A lot of young people cannot afford houses with these rising prices but the solution is not regulating prices or controlling Airbnbs but the creation of a more prosperous economy.”

In Mexico, as in so many places, these issues are divisive. A self-proclaimed “social warrior” since his student days 50 years ago, veteran housing activist Enrique Gonzales labels the anti-gentrification protests as a publicity stunt, used to divert attention from other important issues such as inadequate security, healthcare and infrastructure. “Mexico has a long history of hospitality and welcoming people from other societies,” he says. But, like many others, Gonzales is ambivalent about the tide of American arrivals given events north of the border. “The gringos here are happy, they feel safe, but the Mexicans in the US are all scared, hiding in the shadows.”

Earlier this year, his daughter Emma, 39, had to leave her home in Texas after two decades amid the immigration crackdown, leaving behind her 12-year-old daughter. She hopes to return soon after obtaining US citizenship. Yet to her father’s shock, Emma tells me she likes Trump for his straight-talking style — even as she supported the anti-American protests in Mexico. “These people, the gringos, are taking something that does not belong to them,” she says. “This is why there is war in the world. It’s not because they are American but because they are pushing up prices and changing the economy. It is already very hard for people like me and they are making life harder.”

Both the Gonzales and their beguiling city ultimately show how the arguments over globalisation, housing, migration, populism and tourism that strain our own societies are being echoed across so much of the planet. “Our culture is changing, our way of life is changing,” adds Enrique. He is right, of course — but the big challenge of our era, one that even divides this family, is over the best solution.


Ian Birrell is an award-winning foreign reporter and columnist. He is also the founder, with Damon Albarn, of Africa Express.

ianbirrell

Read the whole story
bogorad
1 day ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Berlin and Paris discuss scrapping planned joint fighter and focusing on air ‘combat cloud’ // Proposed downsizing of €100bn flagship defence project follows feuding by Airbus and Dassault

1 Share
  • FCAS Project Challenges: Germany and France are negotiating to downsize the €100bn Future Combat Air System by abandoning joint fighter jet development amid disputes between Airbus and Dassault Aviation.
  • Focus Shift to Combat Cloud: Discussions center on prioritizing the "combat cloud," a command and control system integrating jets, sensors, radars, drones, and AI for data processing.
  • Collaboration Continuation: Officials suggest maintaining the cloud pillar, involving Airbus, Thales, and Indra, to preserve some partnership despite fighter jet issues.
  • Upcoming High-Level Talks: Meetings this week include French Defence Minister Catherine Vautrin with German counterparts and Chancellor Friedrich Merz with President Emmanuel Macron to address FCAS's future.
  • Industrial Disputes: Dassault seeks more control over the jet design, leading Germany to consider alternatives like the UK or Sweden, while Dassault claims it can proceed alone.
  • Strategic Implications: Abandoning the jet could impact EU defense cooperation post-Russia's Ukraine invasion, but a unified European combat cloud is seen as essential for independence from U.S. systems.
  • Timeline Pressures: A decision on a demonstrator jet, costing billions, is due by year-end, with potential acceleration of the combat cloud to 2030 from 2040.

Germany and France are discussing downsizing their €100bn flagship air defence project by dropping plans to jointly build a fighter jet and focusing on development of a command and control system dubbed the “combat cloud”.

Berlin and Paris are racing to salvage their Future Combat Air System (FCAS), Europe’s largest weapons programme that is on the brink of collapse because Airbus and Dassault Aviation disagree over how to build the programme’s next-generation fighter aircraft.

One option discussed ahead of high-level meetings this week is to narrow the collaboration to the joint “combat cloud”, officials in both countries said. The concept of creating a cloud-based interface — which would link fighter jets and their pilots to sensors, radars and drones as well as land and sea-based command systems — is already one FCAS pillar.

If the plan for a jointly built fighter jet is abandoned, focusing on the cloud would enable the countries to continue some form of collaboration, the officials said. They cautioned, however, that no decision had yet been made.

The combat cloud, which aims to enhance the capabilities of EU militaries by using artificial intelligence to rapidly process large volumes of data, is a collaboration between Airbus’s German-based defence unit, France’s Thales and Spain’s Indra.

“We can live with several jets in Europe but we need one cloud system for all of them,” one official close to the matter said.

A second person close to the situation said: “All the other elements [of FCAS] are working well. Why would we stop doing that? There is no need for FCAS to founder completely — there is a need for a combat cloud system.”

A third person close to the project said focusing on the cloud system might imply rethinking some aspects of it, such as “speeding up the timeline to 2030, from 2040”.

FCAS’s future will be discussed in meetings between French defence minister Catherine Vautrin and German counterparts in Paris on Monday, and the following day between Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Emmanuel Macron in Berlin, according to officials. Other meetings are planned with the industrial partners.

French defence minister Catherine Vautrin will discuss the future of Europe’s largest weapons programme with German ministers on Monday © Odd Andersen/Getty Images

German defence minister Boris Pistorius said on Friday that discussions were ongoing about “whether the project should continue and how it should continue”.

The German chancellery, Airbus, Dassault and the Spanish government declined to comment. The French defence ministry declined to comment on the FCAS options under discussion, but said talks were ongoing to “urgently advance” the programme.

Paris, Berlin and Madrid have to decide by the end of the year whether to begin work on a demonstrator jet, which it is estimated will cost several billions euros. But many involved in the programme believe it is already too late to resolve the long-running dispute between Airbus and Dassault, the French family-owned company that makes the Rafale fighter aircraft.

After Dassault requested taking over more of the work to build the aircraft, Berlin has been weighing replacing France with the UK or Sweden. In turn, Dassault chief executive Éric Trappier claimed the French company could go it alone since it had all the required expertise.

Dassault and Airbus each led some parts of the FCAS programme, but the companies have squabbled over the division of labour, choice of suppliers and control of the jet’s design.

Failure to deliver would undermine EU plans for more defence co-operation in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In 2017 when FCAS was announced, Macron and Germany’s then chancellor Angela Merkel hailed it as a landmark.

Merz, who took office in May, has repeatedly said he expected Dassault to respect the initial deal. But Paris has not confronted Dassault, partly because it has grown worried about delays in the project that could jeopardise its nuclear deterrence, according to officials.

In Paris, some industrial groups and officials also have sympathy with Dassault’s view that it needs control of key decisions, including supplier choice, to deliver the plane.

A French banker close to the situation said: “The only salvation for FCAS now is if Macron twists Trappier’s arm . . . Right now the deal is totally immobilised and close to dead.” He added: “There’s no more trust, each side accuses the other of breaching terms. You can’t fix that.”

Another person close to the project said Dassault “simply doesn’t want to engage in a real partnership”.

An official said: “This time the sheer political will may not help overcome the fact that the companies are very different.”

Germany, which has loosened its constitutional debt limit to upgrade its defence capabilities, does not want to be taken hostage by a French company.

“The feeling is ‘we have funds like we’ve never had before on defence’ so if we need to do it without the French let’s just do it,” said a person with knowledge of the thinking in Berlin.

But all sides agree Europe needs to develop its own cloud for air defence. The French banker said: “You need a [command cloud] that’s independent from the American system. A lot of Europeans are thinking there might be situations in which we’ll be alone without the Americans.” 

Recommended

Thomas Pretzl, chair of the Airbus Defence and Space works council, told staff last week he wanted to “end the strained partnership with Dassault without damaging Franco-German relations”.

It was important any decision on the project did not hurt ties between Paris and Berlin, one government official said, “because it has nothing to do with governments — it’s about the companies”.

Additional reporting by Barney Jopson in Madrid

Read the whole story
bogorad
1 day ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

A Second Chance for Jared Isaacman—and NASA // President Trump’s revived nomination of the entrepreneur to lead the agency is good news for a troubled U.S. space program.

1 Share
  • Nomination Revival: President Trump resubmitted Jared Isaacman's nomination as NASA administrator after an initial withdrawal linked to tensions with Elon Musk.
  • NASA's Challenges: The agency faces severe budget cuts of nearly 25 percent, loss of about 4,000 staff members, and disarray in the Artemis moon program amid China's advancing lunar ambitions.
  • Acting Administrator Critique: Sean Duffy's interim leadership drew backlash for prioritizing personal visibility over agency needs, including proposals to revive costly cost-plus contracts favoring legacy contractors.
  • Isaacman's Strengths: His astronaut experience, self-funded missions, bipartisan Senate support, and endorsements from figures like Tim Sheehy and Newt Gingrich position him to reform NASA toward efficient commercial partnerships.
  • Political Dynamics: White House infighting, including a Musk-Trump feud and advisor shifts, influenced the nomination's ups and downs, ultimately favoring Isaacman as a pragmatic choice.
  • Reform Expectations: Advocates anticipate Isaacman will streamline operations, bolster the Artemis program, and counter old-space resistance to promote innovative, fixed-price space initiatives.
  • Time Sensitivity: The six-month delay in leadership has shortened the timeline for NASA to achieve lunar landings this decade and adapt to fiscal constraints.

One never has to wait long for a surprise from the Trump administration. In May, the White House withdrew Jared Isaacman’s nomination as NASA administrator. The billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut had become a casualty of the spectacular spat between Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who was perceived to be Isaacman’s patron.

Then, last week, the White House announced that it was resubmitting Isaacman’s nomination. In a post on Truth Social, the president cited “Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration” as some of the qualifications that make him “ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.”

Finally, a reason to check your email.

Sign up for our free newsletter today.

First Name*
Last Name*
Email*
Sign Up
This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Thank you for signing up!

Though not a complete shock (Isaacman supporters had been lobbying the president for weeks), the turnabout was nonetheless stunning. Most NASA backers and space industry leaders greeted the news with delight. “I’m thrilled for Jared and for NASA and the country,” Andy Lapsa, CEO of the private-launch company Stoke Space, told attendees at a recent conference. Space advocates hope Isaacman’s revived nomination will be the first step in fixing the deeply troubled agency.

In contrast to Trump’s first term in office—widely regarded as a high point in U.S. space policy—the president’s second term has so far been disastrous for NASA. Agency leaders stood on the sidelines as the White House proposed cutting NASA’s budget by nearly a quarter. Major decisions about staffing levels and which programs to cut fell into the hands of the Office of Management and Budget. Some 4,000 workers, about a fifth of the space agency’s staff, have left or been squeezed out. Meantime, plans to return U.S. astronauts to the moon are in disarray, even as China races ahead with plans to put its taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030.

After yanking Isaacman’s nomination, the White House appointed Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to become NASA’s acting administrator (in addition to his DOT duties). While Duffy appears to relish the many television appearances his NASA role entails, the space agency’s drift has only worsened under his stewardship.

Given Isaacman’s bipartisan support in the Senate—and lawmakers’ frustration with the status quo—he should easily win confirmation. His backers hope the Senate will move on the matter before the 2025 session adjourns. If not, the White House will have to resubmit the nomination, leading to further delays.

Space advocates have high, perhaps unrealistic, expectations that Isaacman will quickly bring order to NASA and straighten out the troubled Artemis lunar program. But, below the surface, the messy leadership drama exposed the lingering conflicts between factions inside NASA and in the larger aerospace community. The Isaacman saga also hinted at the swirling allegiances and rivalries within President Trump’s orbit. Once confirmed, the new NASA head will need to navigate this politically complex realm.

NASA watchers attribute Isaacman’s surprising comeback to several factors. First was the gracious way he handled the abrupt termination of his original nomination. “I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey,” he wrote on X within hours of his defenestration.

Isaacman then managed to stay out of the online food fight between the president and Elon Musk. He has self-funded two ambitious missions in SpaceX spacecraft. Musk recommended him to Trump partly based on that relationship. Nonetheless, Isaacman has been careful to keep some distance between himself and the mercurial SpaceX founder, to avoid coming across as anyone’s cat’s paw.

The once and future nominee also stayed close to Republican supporters, notably Montana senator Tim Sheehy and space enthusiast Newt Gingrich, with whom he penned an op-ed advocating for research into nuclear-powered space travel. Both men reportedly encouraged Trump to reconsider his snap decision to drop Isaacman’s nomination. The president has subsequently had dinner with Isaacman several times.

Finally, people just seem to like Jared Isaacman and find his enthusiasm contagious. “It helps that he is entirely genuine when it comes to wanting to serve the country and push NASA forward,” veteran space reporter Eric Berger told me by email.

Critics say Duffy’s self-aggrandizing approach to his acting role at NASA also tipped the scales toward Isaacman. By all accounts, the White House expected Duffy to identify a suitable candidate and quickly hand off the portfolio to an administrator with more aerospace experience. Instead, he began lobbying to keep his high-profile NASA duties. “There may have been a sense that Duffy was getting too big for his britches,” aerospace analyst Rand Simberg said in an email exchange. At one point, the acting administrator suggested folding NASA into the Department of Transportation, a move Simberg called “monumentally clueless.”

As Duffy fought to make his NASA role permanent, Berger said, he began “making decisions that he thought would improve his chances of remaining administrator, as opposed to best serving NASA.” For example, Duffy injected new uncertainty into the already fraught debates over the Artemis program, which aims to land Americans on the moon within this decade. In a planned Artemis III mission, NASA wants to use the famously overbudget Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to carry astronauts into lunar orbit. There, they would transfer to another craft for the trip to the lunar surface. SpaceX is under contract to modify its experimental Starship spacecraft to serve as this “Human Landing System” (HLS), though that project is running behind schedule. Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin space company also has a contract to build its own HLS craft, which won’t be completed until the 2030s. Some experts suggest Blue Origin could use a smaller lunar cargo craft it is developing and modify it to carry astronauts. Blue Origin engineers are working on that project—which theoretically could be completed sooner—though it remains mostly notional for now.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket lifting off at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on November 13
(Photo by Austin DeSisto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

In two television appearances last month, Duffy stirred up these muddy waters. First, he criticized SpaceX for its slow progress on the Starship HLS and expressed support for Blue Origin’s fast-track project. But he also said that NASA would open up the HLS competition to other companies. In particular, he proposed a “government option”—in other words, a lunar lander designed by NASA and built by aerospace contractors under the agency’s traditional cost-plus budgeting methods. Apparently, Duffy had been in discussion with Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and other contractors about the plan.

“This is, to put it politely, an insane idea,” Berger told me. Under the traditional cost-plus model, NASA designs its own space hardware and hires huge aerospace contractors to build it. Cost overruns get passed along to taxpayers. This is the approach that led to the underperforming space shuttle program and produced today’s wildly over-budget SLS.

For two decades, NASA reformers have tried to replace cost-plus contracts with leaner “commercial” deals under which contractors, such as SpaceX, build and fly their own hardware. NASA then hires SpaceX or another vendor to fly its cargo or astronauts for a fixed price. (I examined the advantages of fixed-price contracts in my Manhattan Institute report, “U.S Space Policy: The Next Frontier.”) While space advocates and reform-minded NASA leaders push for the fixed-price approach, legacy aerospace contractors and their friends in Congress often push back.

By dangling the cost-plus HLS idea before traditional contractors, Duffy was signaling that, if he were named NASA administrator, the old, more comfortable way of doing business would be back. In short, he was aligning himself with the “old space” power base of legacy contractors, NASA traditionalists, and lawmakers from aerospace-heavy states. Isaacman, by contrast, represents the “new space” contingent of aerospace startups, NASA reformers, and space buffs who yearn for a leaner but more ambitious space program.

Not long ago, the old-space bloc might have been powerful enough to put Duffy’s nomination over the top. But times have changed.

NASA watchers also noted the strange tale of Isaacman’s “Athena” plan. While awaiting confirmation, Isaacman and some advisors put together a private blueprint for reforming NASA. After his bid was scuttled, Isaacman passed a 62-page version of the plan along to acting administrator Duffy, in hopes that it might help him set priorities. In October, as the behind-the-scenes lobbying for the two NASA candidates intensified, copies of Isaacman’s plan began circulating among certain lawmakers and aerospace-industry leaders.

Isaacman’s allies suspected Duffy or someone in his circle had leaked the plan in hopes of rallying the old-space traditionalists to Duffy’s side. In truth, however, the Athena plan mostly reflected existing White House priorities, and even NASA’s biggest supporters recognize that the agency needs streamlining. In the end, as Space News noted, “If the leak was meant to block Isaacman’s return, it failed.”

What The Hill described as a “’Game of Thrones’ struggle for control of NASA” is also a window into the whipsaw politics of the Trump White House. When Musk held power as “First Buddy,” Isaacman’s eventual nomination seemed like a lock. Then, as Musk fell from favor, White House advisor Sergio Gor—who had clashed with the brash entrepreneur—seized the opportunity to sabotage the NASA nominee by slipping the president a file outlining Isaacman’s past political contributions to Democrats. This information had been available during the prospective nominee’s vetting process, but in the new, post-Musk atmosphere, Gor’s memo convinced Trump to scuttle Isaacman’s nomination.

Few certainties endure in the Trump White House, however. By November, Gor was out, appointed to become the U.S. ambassador to India. (“Some people don’t like him so much,” Trump quipped during Gor’s Oval Office sendoff. “I’ll be honest with you, Sergio.”) By then, Trump and Musk had patched up their bromance and Isaacman was back in favor as the president’s choice to run NASA. Among other things, the saga speaks to Trump’s extraordinary willingness to change course and bury old grudges.

Space advocates are gratified that the White House came around to the best choice for NASA administrator in the end. But frustration lingers over the long, chaotic process.

“NASA lost half a year,” Berger said. “Those months are critical in the context of shoring up Artemis III to land on the moon this decade.”

Isaacman now has a shorter window in which to sort out the lunar program, adapt NASA initiatives to a more austere era, and accomplish his many other goals. But the savvy manner in which he managed his wild ride suggests he has the skills and temperament for the job.

James B. Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the former editor of Popular Mechanics.

Top Photo: Jared Isaacman at his initial confirmation hearings last April (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Read the whole story
bogorad
1 day ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Inside the Multimillion-Dollar Plan to Make Mobile Voting Happen | WIRED

1 Share
  • Initial Encounter: Security expert Joe Kiniry, at a voting technology conference, was approached by a woman representing Bradley Tusk seeking ideas for funding systems to boost voter turnout; Kiniry advised against internet voting due to its difficulties.
  • Tusk's Background: Bradley Tusk, a political consultant who profited from Uber, funds the Mobile Voting Foundation to develop online voting technology, collaborating with Kiniry on a research project.
  • VoteSecure Release: The foundation released VoteSecure, an open-source cryptography protocol for secure mobile voting on iPhones and Androids, available on GitHub, with two vendors committing to use it by 2026.
  • Motivation for Mobile Voting: Tusk argues low turnout, especially in primaries, leads to corrupt government; higher participation via mobile voting could moderate politics and address societal issues.
  • Funding and Experiments: Tusk has invested $20 million in small elections for military and disabled voters using existing tech, planning to push legislation for city-level mobile voting trials, including in Alaska.
  • Development Process: Kiniry's company Free & Fair built VoteSecure as a backend protocol enabling ballot verification and transfer to paper, not a full system but integrable with user interfaces.
  • Critics' Concerns: Experts like Ron Rivest and David Jefferson deem mobile voting insecure despite cryptography, emphasizing needs for peer review and noting vulnerabilities beyond open source code.
  • Public Trust Challenges: Even secure systems face acceptance issues amid eroded election trust post-2020, with unfounded claims like those against Dominion highlighting risks of suspicion from hacking allegations.

security expert specializing in elections, was attending an annual conference on voting technology in Washington, DC, when a woman approached him with an unusual offer. She said she represented a wealthy client interested in funding voting systems that would encourage bigger turnouts. Did he have any ideas? “I told her you should stay away from internet voting, because it’s really, really hard,” he says.

Later he learned who had sent her. It was Bradley Tusk, a New York City political consultant and fixer for companies like Uber fending off regulation. He’d made a fortune doing that (early Uber stock helped a lot), and he was eager to spend a good chunk of it pursuing online voting technology. Tusk convinced Kiniry to work with him. At the very least, Kiniry thought, it would be a valuable research project.

Today Tusk is showing off the fruits of that collaboration. His Mobile Voting Foundation is releasing VoteSecure, a cryptography-based protocol that seeks to help people securely cast their votes on iPhones and Androids. The protocol is open source and available on GitHub for anyone to test, improve upon, and build out. Two election technology vendors have already committed to using it—perhaps as early as 2026. Tusk claims that mobile voting will save our democracy. But getting it accepted by legislators and the public will be the really, really hard part.

Primary Numbers

Tusk has been obsessed with mobile voting for a while. Around 2017, he began taking serious action, funding small elections that used existing technology to allow deployed military or disabled people to vote. He estimates he’s dropped $20 million so far and plans to keep shoveling cash into the effort. When I ask why, he explains that working with the government has given him a panoramic view of its failures. Tusk believes there is a single pressure point that could fix a number of mismatches between what the public deserves and what they get: more people using the ballot box. “We get lousy, or corrupt, government because so few people vote, especially in off-year elections and primaries, where the turnout is dismal,” he says. “If primary turnout is 37 percent instead of 9 percent, the underlying political incentives for an elected official to change—it pushes them to the middle, and they’re not rewarded for screaming and pointing fingers.”

Featured Video

[

Palantir CEO Alex Karp On Government Contracts, Immigration, and the Future of Work

](https://www.wired.com/video/watch/big-interview-palantir-ceo-alex-karp-on-government-contracts-immigration-and-the-future-of-work)

To Tusk, mobile voting is a no-brainer: We already do banking, commerce, and private messages on our phones, so why not cast a ballot? “If I don’t do it, who is going to do it?” he asks. Furthermore, he says, “if it doesn’t happen, I don’t think we’re one country in 20 years, because if you are unable to solve any single problem that matters to people, eventually they decide not to keep going.”

Tusk had Kiniry evaluate existing online voting platforms—including some that Tusk himself had paid for. “Joe is considered the absolute expert on electronic voting,” says Tusk. So when Kiniry deemed those systems insufficient, Tusk decided that the best way forward was to start from scratch. He hired Kiniry’s company, Free & Fair, to develop VoteSecure. It’s not a turnkey solution but a backend part of a system that will require a user interface and other pieces to be operable. The protocol includes a means for voters to check the accuracy of their ballots and verify that their vote has been received by the election board and transferred to a paper ballot.

Tusk says his next step is to “run legislation” in a few cities to allow mobile voting. “Start small—city council, school board, maybe mayor,” he says. “Prove the thesis. The odds of Vladimir Putin hacking the Queensborough election seems pretty remote to me.” (Next spring some local election elections in Alaska will offer the option of mobile-phone voting with software developed by Tusk’s foundation.) Kiniry agrees it’s way too soon to use mobile voting in national elections, but Tusk is betting that eventually the systems become familiar, to the point where people trust them much more than traditional paper ballots. “Once the genie’s out of the bottle, they can’t put it back, right?” he says. “That’s been true for every tech I’ve worked on.” But first the genie has to get out of the bottle. That’s no cinch.

Crypto Foes

The loudest objections against mobile or internet voting come from cryptographers and security experts, who believe that the safety risks are insurmountable. Take two people who were at the 2017 conference with Kiniry. Ron Rivest is the legendary “R” in the RSA protocol that protects the internet, a winner of the coveted Turing Award, and a former professor at MIT. His view: Mobile voting is far from ready for prime time. “What you can do with mobile phones is interesting, but we’re not there yet, and I haven’t seen anything to make me think otherwise,” he says, “Tusk is driven by trying to make this stuff happen in the real world, which is not the right way to do it. They need to go through the process of writing a peer-reviewed paper. Putting up code doesn’t cut it.”

Computer scientist and voting expert David Jefferson is also unimpressed. Though he acknowledges that Kiniry is one of the country’s top voting system experts, he sees Tusk’s effort as doomed. “I’m willing to concede rock-solid cryptography, but it does not weaken the argument about how insecure online voting systems are in general. Open source and perfect cryptography do not address the most serious vulnerabilities.”

Most Popular

Kiniry, of course, disagrees. “We'll get to that,” he says of a peer-reviewed paper. “But in releasing the first version of it, we have provided the community with something like the equivalent of half a dozen papers for review.” Tusk is even more dismissive. “They’ve never seen what we’ve built,” he says of his critics. He contends that their “zero-tolerance approach” ignores the fact that the current systems aren’t perfect.

All these arguments about the safety and verifiability of mobile voting may be irrelevant. In the not-too-distant past, when Tusk first became consumed with the concept, conversations about election safety were conducted under the guise of science, math, and persnickety accounting. People generally trusted their voting systems, and had reason to—numerous studies have shown that election fraud is involved in only a minuscule fraction of votes cast. That trust no longer exists: In 2025, thanks to one sore loser, the entire issue is fraught with doubt and loathing. Inviting an unfamiliar alternative would be like introducing cordite into the process. Even if a mobile system was verified as 100 percent secure, all it would take to cast suspicion on an election would be a single ill-intended charge that some outside force had hacked the system. Does anyone remember the bogus charges against Dominion Voting Systems? Despite vindication, the company was left so tarnished that it now has different ownership and a different name. Yes, internet voting is really, really hard—but solvable. Less solvable is an electorate that won’t accept a vote count it doesn’t like.


This is an edition of Steven Levy’s Backchannel newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.

Read the whole story
bogorad
2 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Trump’s National Guard deployments show enforcement works

1 Share
  • Trump's law enforcement surge: Deployed federal officers and National Guard in Washington, D.C., and Memphis to high-crime areas, resulting in lower crime rates and safer streets.
  • Initial Democratic reaction in D.C.: Critics labeled the deployment an occupation and authoritarian move, with strong opposition from local leaders and representatives.
  • Crime reductions in D.C.: Violent crime fell by half, burglaries down 48%, car thefts down 36%, and fare evasion eliminated at Metro stations.
  • Targeted neighborhoods in D.C.: Greatest crime drops in areas like Anacostia, Brentwood, and U Street, with over 1,000 arrests, 115 firearms seized, and 50 homeless encampments cleared.
  • Memphis deployment cooperation: Republican governor and Democratic mayor collaborated with federal efforts, deploying over 2,000 officers and troops since October 10.
  • Crime reductions in Memphis: Over 2,100 arrests, robberies and vehicle thefts down 70%, aggravated assaults down 50%, murders down 43%, and increased legal vehicle registrations.
  • Local resident feedback in Memphis: A 61-year-old bartender reported lighter traffic, hoped for improvement, and viewed the presence as a wake-up call for young men.
  • Sustainability and implications: Surges are costly and temporary but highlight the need for more law enforcement officers in communities to maintain public safety.

[

Facebook

](https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3887315%2Ftrump-national-guard-deployments-show-enforcement-works%2F "Facebook")[

Twitter

](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Trump%E2%80%99s+National+Guard+deployments+show+enforcement+works&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3887315%2Ftrump-national-guard-deployments-show-enforcement-works%2F&via=dcexaminer "Twitter")[

Email

](mailto:?subject=Trump’s National Guard deployments show enforcement works&body=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/3887315/trump-national-guard-deployments-show-enforcement-works/ "Email")[

Print

](# "Print")

[

](# "More")

First in Washington, D.C., and now in Memphis, President Donald Trump has surged federal law enforcement officers and National Guard to high-crime neighborhoods, and the results have been unequivocally successful: lower crime, safer streets, and a quiet but telling rise in law-abiding behavior.

When Trump first announced his law enforcement surge for the district, Democrats lost their minds, as though crime were a good thing. At large D.C. Council member Robert White called it an “occupation” and “the opening move in a national move toward authoritarianism.” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) called Trump a “dictator” who was “pushing democracy to the brink.” There was a lot more nonsense where that came from.

Recommended Stories

Four weeks later, however, Mayor Muriel Bowser was thanking Trump. “We know that we have had fewer gun crimes, fewer homicides, and we have experienced an extreme reduction in carjackings,” Bowser said. “We greatly appreciate the surge of officers.”

According to the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department data, compared to the previous year, violent crime fell by half during Trump’s surge — burglaries were down by 48%, and car thefts were down by 36%. Fare evasion became nonexistent at the Metro as National Guard troops were visibly present at every gate.

But the biggest drops in crime, according to one analysis, happened in what had been the most crime-ridden neighborhoods. Trump’s surge of law enforcement did not hang out in Georgetown and Adams Morgan, but in Anacostia, Brentwood, and the U Street corridor. More than 1,000 arrests were made, 115 firearms were seized, and 50 homeless encampments were cleared.

The leadership of Memphis, a blue city in a deep red state, was far more welcoming to Trump’s law enforcement surge than the district. Republican Gov. Bill Lee worked with Trump to select Memphis as a targeted enforcement city, and the city’s mayor, Democrat Paul Young, while nominally opposed to the surge, has worked closely with the federal government. “My goal is to make sure that anything that’s happening in our city, that I’m at the table negotiating in good faith on behalf of the residents of our city,” Young said. “That’s my job.”

More than 2,000 federal law enforcement officers and National Guard troops have been in the city since Oct. 10, and the results have been just as dramatic as those in Washington, D.C. More than 2,100 people have been arrested. Robberies and vehicle thefts are both down 70%, aggravated assaults are down 50%, and murders are down 43%. The DMV reports that vehicle registrations are up dramatically as residents who used to drive illegally rush to get their tags to avoid being pulled over.

“It’s good they’re here,” 61-year-old bartender Ann Morris told reporters. “Traffic is a lot lighter, and hopefully things will get better.” Morris added that she hopes the law enforcement presence will serve as a “wake-up call” to young men in the city.

The costs of law enforcement surges make them unsustainable as a permanent solution. But the results demonstrate that if anything, we have too few, not too many, law officers in most of our communities. 

Trump’s surges in the district and Memphis prove that when law enforcement is visible, empowered, and present in the neighborhoods, crime falls and communities stabilize. 

NEWSOM PUSHES CALIFORNIA CLIMATE COLONIALISM IN BRAZIL

Democrats fearmonger about “authoritarianism,” but residents living with daily violence saw something different — safer streets, open businesses, and a renewed sense of order. 

These surges can’t last forever, but their success exposes a real problem, which is that too many cities simply lack the officers needed to keep the peace. If leaders truly care about public safety, they should stop attacking law enforcement and start investing in it.

Read the whole story
bogorad
2 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories