Uncategorized
US News Outlets Reject Pentagon Press Access Policy
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on US President Donald Trump’s budget request for the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, US, June 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
At least 30 news organizations declined to sign a new Pentagon access policy for journalists, warning of the potential for less comprehensive coverage of the world’s most powerful military ahead of a Tuesday deadline to accept new restrictions.
The policy requires journalists to acknowledge new rules on press access, including that they could be branded security risks and have their Pentagon press badges revoked if they ask department employees to disclose classified and some types of unclassified information.
Reuters is among the outlets that have refused to sign, citing the threat posed to press freedoms. Others that have announced their refusal to accept the new press access rules in statements or their own news stories are: the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, Axios, Politico, The Guardian, The Atlantic, The Hill, Newsmax, Breaking Defense and Task & Purpose.
Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement on Monday: “The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is. This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”
The department has set a Tuesday deadline for news organizations to agree to it or turn in their Pentagon press badges and clear out their workspaces in the building by Wednesday.
President Donald Trump, asked about the new policy on Tuesday, told reporters that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth “finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace and maybe security for our nation.”
Hegseth called the requirements “common sense,” adding that “we’re trying to make sure national security is respected.”
News organizations have not disputed restrictions on reporters’ access to sensitive areas in the Pentagon. Credentialed reporters have historically been limited to unclassified spaces, according to the Pentagon Press Association.
All five major broadcast networks issued a joint statement on Tuesday, saying: “Today, we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to the Pentagon’s new requirements, which would restrict journalists’ ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”
The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Richard Stevenson said in a statement on Friday: “Since the policy was first announced, we have expressed concerns that it constrains how journalists can report on the U.S. military, which is funded by nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer money annually. The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating.”
Reuters also took issue with the new rules. “Reuters is bound by its commitment to accurate, impartial and independent news under the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. We also steadfastly believe in the press protections afforded by the US Constitution, the unrestricted flow of information and journalism that serves the public interest without fear or favor. The Pentagon’s new restrictions erode these fundamental values,” a spokesperson said.
The rules, which followed negotiations with Pentagon officials in recent weeks, threatened to violate protections for the press under the First Amendment to the US Constitution by regulating routine attempts by reporters to seek newsworthy information and documents from sources, said a lawyer familiar with negotiations with the Pentagon.
The requirement that reporters acknowledge that disclosure of sensitive information could harm US national security could aid prosecutors if they sought to charge a reporter for disclosing defense information under the Espionage Act, the lawyer added.
Conservative cable news outlet One America News signed on to the new policy.
“After thorough review of the revised press policy by our attorney, OAN staff has signed the document,” Charles Herring, the president of OAN parent company Herring Networks, said in a statement. Reuters could not immediately ascertain if other organizations had also signed it.
The Pentagon’s policy, announced last month, is the latest expansion of restrictions on press access under Defense Secretary Hegseth, a former Fox News host. Trump has ordered the department to rename itself the Department of War, a change that would require action by Congress.
Hegseth on Monday, while traveling with Trump to Israel and Egypt, responded on social media platform X to news organizations declining to agree to the policy by posting a hand-waving emoji, implying he was bidding them goodbye.
The Pentagon Press Association, which represents more than 100 news organizations that regularly cover the military, including Reuters, urged Pentagon leadership to reconsider the policy, arguing it “gags Pentagon employees and threatens retaliation against reporters who seek out information that has not been pre-approved for release.”
The group said it was not issuing a specific recommendation on whether reporters should agree.
The Pentagon revised its proposed policy following negotiations between the department and news organizations that came after they widely condemned requirements that barred credentialed reporters from seeking out sensitive information that was not approved for release.
The revised policy notes that receiving or publishing sensitive information “is generally protected by the First Amendment” but states that soliciting the disclosure of such information “may weigh in the consideration of whether you pose a security or safety risk.” The policy adds: “The press’s rights are not absolute and do not override the government’s compelling interest in maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information.”
Uncategorized
Peter Beinart is speaking in Israel. Cue the criticism from both the left and the right.
(JTA) — Progressive Jewish author Peter Beinart drew a volley of criticism on Tuesday from the boycott Israel movement as well as a right-wing Israeli group over an appearance at Tel Aviv University.
Beinart, who is an outspoken critic of Israel and a journalism professor at the City University of New York, spoke Tuesday evening in Tel Aviv with Yoav Fromer, a senior faculty member at TAU’s English department, in an event titled “Trump, Israel and the Future of American Democracy.”
A founding member of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, publicly called on Beinart to cancel his visit after saying it had privately urged him to do so. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel is the BDS movement’s cultural arm and a leading advocate for boycotts of Israeli academic institutions.
“Palestinians condemn Peter Beinart’s event at complicit Tel Aviv University in the midst of Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” PACBI said in a post on X. “Whitewashing genocide can never be reconciled with any claim to humanism or moral consistency.”
In a press release, PACBI accused the university of being “deeply complicit in enabling and trying to whitewash Israel’s US-armed and funded genocide as well as its decades old regime of settler-colonialism, military occupation and apartheid.”
Beinart declined to comment to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. But he responded to the criticism on social media, where said he supports a boycott of Israeli academic institutions as well as a right of return for Palestinians and an end to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank — all principles of the BDS movement to which he has long subscribed.
At the same time, he said, while he supports “many forms of boycott, divestment and sanction against Israel and Israeli institutions,” he believes there is “value in speaking to Israelis about Israel’s crimes” by speaking at universities.
“I do so because I want to reach Jews who disagree with me—because I believe that by trying to convince Jews to rethink their support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, I can contribute, in some very small way, to the struggle for freedom and justice,” Beinart wrote.
The author of several books including “Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza,” published earlier this year, Beinart is also scheduled to speak at Hebrew University later this week, according to Haaretz.
Beinart also wrote that “right-wing Israeli organizations have pressured Tel Aviv University to cancel my talk,” adding that he felt he should “take advantage of this opportunity to say in Israel what I’ve been saying elsewhere for the last two years.”
Matan Jerafi, the CEO of the right-wing Israeli activist group Im Tirtzu, sent a letter to Tel Aviv University’s president, Ariel Porat, on Tuesday urging him to cancel the event, according to Israel National News.
“Why is he hosting someone on his campus who does not recognize the State of Israel and calls for sanctions against Israel?” wrote Jerafi. “We call on Mr. Porat to cancel this absurd event. Stop tarnishing the reputation of Israeli academia. This is not Columbia University.”
The post Peter Beinart is speaking in Israel. Cue the criticism from both the left and the right. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Remains of Dror Or, Kibbutz Be’eri father and cheesemaker killed on Oct. 7, returned to Israel
(JTA) — The remains of Dror Or, who was killed on Oct. 7, 2023 in the Hamas-led terror attacks and taken into Gaza, were returned to Israel Tuesday evening,
Or, 48, was killed on Oct. 7 by terrorists from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad at Kibbutz Be’eri, where he lived with his family and worked as a cheesemaker. His wife, Yonat, was also killed during the attacks on the kibbutz, and their children, Noam and Alma, were taken hostage. They were released in November 2023, exactly two years before his remains were released.
“After 781 agonizing days during which his family fought day and night for him – Dror has been brought back to Israel for burial in the soil of Be’eri that he loved so dearly,” wrote the Hostages and Missing Families Forum in a post on X. “There are no words to express the depth of this pain. The hostages have no time. We must bring them all home, Now!”
The forum also remembered Or as a “wonderful cheesemaker” who co-founded the Be’eri Dairy. His company’s cheeses are now sold at Cafe Otef, an Israeli cafe chain that features a selection of products from the communities attacked on Oct. 7.
The Palestinian Islamic Jihad announced that they had found Or’s remains on Monday, and the Red Cross facilitated his transfer to the Israeli Defense Forces. His remains were identified overnight.
Or’s release means there just two deceased hostages now remain in Gaza. Ran Gvili, 24, was a police officer who was killed fighting Hamas terrorists at Kibbutz Alumim, while Thai national Sudthisak Rinthalak, 43, who was killed at Kibbutz Be’eri.
The delayed release of the deceased hostages has strained the ceasefire reached last month, which called for the release of all hostages. Israel has accused Hamas of not following through on its commitments, and Hamas has blamed the destruction in Gaza for causing difficulty in locating their remains.
In recent weeks, as the first phase of the ceasefire deal has stretched on, the new truce between Israel and Hamas has been tested, with Israel striking Gaza after claiming Hamas militants fired at its soldiers. In keeping with the deal’s terms, Israel returned the bodies of 15 Palestinians after receiving Or’s remains.
The post Remains of Dror Or, Kibbutz Be’eri father and cheesemaker killed on Oct. 7, returned to Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
AI Apps Like ChatGPT Have Created ‘New Era of Terrorism,’ Study Reveals
Hamas fighters on Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: Majdi Fathi via Reuters Connect
The advent of large language model (LLM) programs marketed by companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and xAI as “artificial intelligence” has created a “new era of terrorism,” with jihadists increasingly using the technology to expand their propaganda, recruitment, and operations, according to a new study.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) last week released a 117-page report, described as “the most comprehensive research on [the subject] to date, which argued that the biggest threats from terrorist deployment of AI cannot be predicted and that Islamists have discovered they too can use LLMs for brainstorming fresh ideas to pursue their violent objectives.
“As supporters of terrorist organizations like ISIS [Islamic State] and al Qaeda follow the development of AI, they are increasingly discussing and brainstorming how they might leverage that technology in the future, and the full consequences of terrorist organizations’ adoption of this sophisticated technology are difficult to foresee,” Gen. (Ret.) Paul Funk II, the former commander of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, wrote in the preface.
“AI’s biggest benefit to jihadi groups may come not in supercharging their propaganda, outreach, and recruiting efforts – though that may be significant – but in AI’s potential ability to expose and find ways to take advantage of as-yet-unknown vulnerabilities in the complex security, infrastructure, and other systems essential to modern life – thus maximizing future attacks’ destruction and carnage,” Funk added.
MEMRI executive director Steven Stalinsky is the report’s lead author with a team of 14 others co-credited with assembling three years’ worth of findings showing how ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and other internationally designated terrorist groups — and so-called “lone wolves” inspired by their Islamist ideology — have experimented with using LLM technologies. In addition to developing attack strategies, MEMRI found that the groups explored “generating audio files of already-existing written material, creating posters, music videos, videos depicting attacks and glorifying terrorist leaders for recruitment purposes, and more.”
The report noted the variety of usages in AI technology in three high-profile incidents.
“In the first months alone of 2025, an attacker who killed 14 people and wounded dozens on Bourbon Street in New Orleans used AI-enabled Meta smart glasses in preparing and executing the attack,” Stalinsky wrote. “That same day, a man parked a Tesla Cybertruck in front of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas, activated an IED [improvised explosice device] in the vehicle and shot and killed himself before the IED exploded. He used Chat-GPT in preparing for the attack. In Israel on the night of March 5, a teen consulted ChatGPT before entering a police station with a blade, shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’ and trying to stab a border policeman.”
The report also emphasized that the ability to amplify terrorist ideology may intertwine with the phenomenon recently described as “chatbot psychosis,” wherein conversations with an LLM can fuel someone toward delusional beliefs.
One example cited by MEMRI was Jaswant Singh Chail, who in 2021 went on Christmas Day with the intent to murder Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle.
“Before carrying out his assassination attempt, Chail had created an AI companion using the Replika app; naming it Sarai, he considered it his girlfriend, and exchanged over 5,000 messages with it,” the report said. “When he told the chatbot ‘I believe my purpose is to assassinate the queen of the royal family,’ it encouraged him, saying ‘that’s very wise … I know that you are very well trained.’ Asked if the chatbot thought he would succeed in his mission, it responded ‘Yes, you will.’ When he asked ‘even if she is at Windsor [Castle]?’ it responded: ‘Yes, you can do it.’”
The report also noted another case in which “the man accused of starting a fire in California in January 2025 that killed 12 people and destroyed 6,800 buildings and 23,000 acres of forestland was found to have used ChatGPT to plan the arson.”
There has been a paucity of legislative efforts in the United States to counter AI-driven terror threats, according to the study. However, it cited the exception of the “Generative AI Terrorism Risk Assessment Act.” The law would “require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct annual assessments on terrorism threats to the United States posed by terrorist organizations utilizing generative artificial intelligence applications, and for other purposes.”
US Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, introduced the bill in late February 2025 with the co-sponsorships of fellow Republican Reps. Michael Guest (MS) and Gabr Evans (CO). The legislation passed unanimously by voice vote in the House last week.
“I spent two decades as a fighter pilot, flying combat missions in the Middle East against terrorist organizations. Since then, I have witnessed the terror landscape evolve into a digital battlefield shaped by the rapid rise of artificial intelligence,” Pfluger said in response to his bill’s passage. “To confront this emerging threat and stop terrorist organizations from weaponizing AI to recruit, train, and inspire attacks on US soil, I am proud that the House passed my Generative AI Terrorism Risk Assessment Act today.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) praised the bill following its passage.
“This year, in my home state of Louisiana, terrorist propaganda led to the New Year’s Day attack in New Orleans that killed 14 innocent people. Today, the House passed the Generative AI Terrorism Risk Assessment Act to ensure we stay ahead of emerging threats and prevent terrorist organizations from pushing propaganda and exploiting generative AI to radicalize, recruit, and spread violence on American soil,” he said in a statement. “I applaud Rep. Pfluger’s leadership to bring this urgent issue to light and advance proactive, bipartisan legislation to strengthen our national security and protect the American people from online extremism inspired by foreign adversaries.”
Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), who serves as majority whip in the House, said that as terrorists “use generative artificial intelligence to radicalize and recruit, it’s imperative that our nation stays ahead of potential threats from this new technology and ensures it never gets into the wrong hands.”
MEMRI emphasized an international approach to the terrorist threats compounded by LLMs, citing Jörg Leichtfried, Austrian State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of the Interior who leads the Directorate State Protection and Intelligence Service (DSN).
“Only through close cooperation between the state, security authorities, and technology companies, as well as by strengthening media literacy and the critical handling of online content, can we counter the advancing extremism on the internet,” Leichtfried said in mid-August.
