The Don Jones Index, 7/24/26

the DON JONES INDEX…
	GAINS POSTED in GREEN LOSSES POSTED in RED 7/24/26... 14,397.46 standard - 14,287.95 reconfigured 7/17/26... 14,405.26 reconfigured 7/10/26... 14,296.75 reconfigured 7/3/26... 15,029.54 reconfigured 6/27/13... 15,000.00 Original
*(THE DOW* JONES INDEX: 7/24/26...51,711.65; 7/17/26...52,552.97; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)**

LESSON for FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2026 – “TAKE a WALK on the GENO SIDE!”

DeepFake America is rolling over the landscape – evoking controversy, congratulations and criticism (with the majority of Joneses opting for the latter) and, to service the vast new data centers, ginormous AI facilities that gobble up the electric energy of a half a billion Teslas every minute.

Well, that might be an exaggeration, but not by much. Americans living in the vicinity of existing or the far more numerous proposed Data Centers are rising up angry in ways that they seldom do, even in other life-threatening situations, because the stench of a uselessness-borne genocide (or, to be more specific, plutocide) is wafting over the west like the toxic wildfire smokes from Canada.

Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys (JFK and RFK but not RFK Junior) antipated the purge in the plainly named “Kill the Poor” before the spawning of Artifical Intelligence forced many to reflect on another musical interlude, the Johnny Cash question: “What is Truth”…

“The sun beams down on a brand-new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last, we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight...”

- the Dead Kennedys

AI is in the considerations, the ‘con-o-me and the cloud and, here and there, in Americans’ backwards.

Time told the story of a Georgia woman who realized, at the start of 2025, that a “hyperscale” data center called, whimsically, “Project Sail” (spanning more than 4.9 million sq. ft.), had been proposed— “and was expected to run right through her backyard.”

And with a lot of other backyards in the kill zone, more than 8,000 people have now joined her local resistance group, “and have been organizing petition signings, installing yard signs, and mounting a legal fight against Coweta County and Atlas Development, the company behind the project.” (July 22, ATTACHMENT ONE)

“The (governing) Board values the principles of democracy and recognizes the importance of our citizens speaking up on all issues that affect our County,” Coweta County Administrator Michael Fouts said in a statement to TIME before the Board ultimately voted in favor, 3-2, of Project Sail, “with those who approved stating its long-term financial benefits it will provide to Coweta County.”

Approvers, polls say, are in a distinct majority among the public, if not the politicians.

A June Reuters poll found that just a third of Americans approve of the pace of data-center construction, and only 14% are comfortable with a data center being built nearby. On July 18, a national day of protest against data centers saw 142 protests across 42 states.

In the first three months of 2026, 75 major projects worth more than $130 billion were delayed or canceled in part due to organized local opposition. And on July 14, New York governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order to create the nation's first moratorium on new hyperscale data centers, while several other states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, and South Carolina are considering similar pauses.

The reasons are varied... and numerous... but the most cited reasons for rejection are the Centers’ consumption of water (“up to 5 million gallons of water every day—as much as a city of 50,000 people”) and also “consume massive amounts of electricity” (accounting for 4% of total U.S. electricity use in 2024; a gluttony expected to more than double by 2030).

Coweta County resident Steve Swope relies on wellwater, and was concerned that construction of the data center would damage septic tanks or leak into the groundwater. “Our wells will either run dry or they'll become polluted and caked with sediment and mud,” he told Time.

But, soon after Project Sail was approved, four more data centers were proposed in Coweta County. In May, Coweta County approved a data center moratorium on any future projects, but residents said it was: too little, too late.

“It's kind of like, well, the horses are all out of the barn, let's be sure to close the door now,” said Swope.

The lucky souls not in the path of data centers still have to face the likelihood that AI will take their jobs, their income and their homes.

Nautilus (May 21, ATTACHMENT TWO) tracked the human concern over robots back to from when the word was first coined in a Czech play published in 1920, over a century ago to a decade old New Yorker cover showing human-shaped robots dropping coins in the cup of a shaggy human begging for spare change. “The image struck a chord. Fear was in the air, then as now” – upped when Humanoid robots starred in the science-fiction movie Metropolis a bit later.

In 2013, a widely cited report out of the University of Oxford predicted that nearly half of all jobs were at risk from “mobile robotics” and, though subsequent analyses pushed back on those findings, OECD — the Organisation for Economic Cooperation — put the number as low as 9 percent, the original figure “has lingered in the zeitgeist.”

Then came ChatGPT and Tesla’s humanoid “Optimus” robot and the job-cutting began. “In recent months, a number of companies, including Amazon, have made mass cuts to their workforces, citing the efficiencies of AI. This week, Meta cut 8,000 jobs, or 10 percent of its workforce, to refocus on AI. One November 2025 study found a 16 percent decline in certain entry-level positions since ChatGPT’s release.

Recently, thousands of robotics engineers gathered at a conference in China (Attachment @, below) and one of the panels consisted of a staged debate: Would humanoid robots replace most human workers by 2050? “The vast majority of the thousands who attended voted no before the debate even started, and even more of them voted no when the arguments were complete. Take that, robots!”

American inventor, artist, writer, and professor of robotics and automation at University of California, Berkeley, Kenneth Goldberg co-authored a viewpoint about the session in the journal Science Robotics and told Nautilist Kristen French that the technology to effect massive job replacement “is just not there yet.”

There’s a lot of fear that AI would take over jobs but that hasn’t happened so much yet, French concluded. “It may take over certain jobs. But anything that involves customer service, you really want people in the loop.” Also in favor of the workforce is demographis (the aging of America), a ready, willing and able immigrant workforce that can be paid pennies on the dollar.

“People like to work, and we need more humans to care for the elderly. We have a shortage of nurses. They won’t be replaced with robots. But robots could monitor a patient while a nurse takes a nap. I’m an optimist. I hear the concern. I really do. I don’t want to lose my job, either. As a teacher, I think about that, too. But my students, in my experience, want a human teacher. They’ll watch videos, but they also want a human. Because they learn better when a human teacher is engaged.”

A less optimistic (for the workers) scenario has been a Yahoo Finance contention that robots will replace 700,000 delivery workers; “a trend Musk and Bezos support” that threatens tens of millions of jobs worldwide. (June 22, ATTACHMENT THREE)

It raises, once again, how the world handles this level of unemployment.

The ability to replace factory and delivery workers is only a part of AI job destruction. White-collar workers, particularly at the entry level, have found out that much of what they would do can already be done by AI. The same is true with software programmers. Companies that include Block (NYSE: XYZ) have already laid off thousands of workers because their jobs can be done more cheaply and efficiently by AI applications.

Yahoo cited Amazon’s plans to automate 75% of operations, avoiding 600,000 new hires, Block (XYZ) already laying off thousands replaced by cheaper AI applications and Richard Liu, founder and chair of JD.com, said that "sooner or later" robots would replace 700,000 delivery workers in China.

Maybe they’ll rise up and overthrow the ChiComs!

Even if not, Liu's comment is one more that supports the idea that AI will cause an employment apocalypse. And an AI Overview parsed the apocalypse – contending that robots are not outright replacing humans; “instead, they are taking over specific repetitive, dangerous, or high-constraint tasks.” (ATTACHMENT FOUR)

But Rob Garlick, Citi Global Insights’ former head of innovation, technology, and future of work (and author of “AI – Anarchy or Abundance? Why the Future of Work Needs Pro-Human Leaders”) told CNBC’s Sawdah Bhaimiya that, as leaders continue to prioritize profitability, “their human workers will be left in the dust.” (Feb. 24, ATTACHMENT FIVE)

“When you marry profitability up with the technology progress, we have the biggest trade in history coming, which is basically that artificial intelligence will be able to do more and more, better and better, cheaper and cheaper, and that will be able to substitute for people.”

“We’re going to go over the next couple of decades to more moving robots than the working population, and then you add on agents, little agents, and it is going to explode,” he added.

“The Citi report even measured how long it would take for a robot to pay for itself through the money saved by replacing a human worker, for example, a $15,000 robot would break even in 3.8 weeks for a $41 an hour human job, or 21.6 weeks for a $7.25 human job. Meanwhile, a robot that costs $35,000 would have a payback time of 8.9 weeks for a $41 an hour human job.

“You can already buy a humanoid today, which gives you a payback period versus human workers of less than 10 weeks,” Garlick told CNBC, citing a figure from his book. “Humans can’t compete on this basis.”

Kristalina Georgieva, managing director at the International Monetary Fund, told CNBC in January that AI is “hitting the labor market like a tsunami” and warned that “most countries and most businesses are not prepared for it.”

What of the use of humanoid robots in the military... machines to give those Iranians a good whupping without endangering American soldiers?

The problem, as noted by Human Rights Watch more than a decade ago (11/19/12, ATTACHMENT SIX) concerns fully autonomous machines, who (or which) would “inherently lack human qualities that provide legal and non-legal checks on the killing of civilians.”

At present (2012 version), military officials generally say that “humans will retain some level of supervision over decisions to use lethal force,” but leave open the possibility that robots could one day have the ability to make such choices on their own power. Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) believe that such revolutionary robots would not be consistent with international humanitarian law “and would increase the risk of death or injury to civilians during armed conflict”... as if the fleshly militaries around the world are not doing just that.

Human Rights Watch and IHRC warn that fully autonomous weapons would not only be unable to meet legal standards but would also undermine essential non-legal safeguards for civilians. “Our research and analysis strongly conclude that fully autonomous weapons should be banned and that governments should urgently pursue that end,” but one might then ask: ‘which governments” and how?

“(P)recursors to fully autonomous weapons, either deployed or in development, have antipersonnel functions and are in some cases designed to be mobile and offensive weapons. Militaries value these weapons because they require less manpower, reduce the risks to their own soldiers, and can expedite response time. The examples described in this report show that a number of countries, most notably the United States, are coming close to producing the technology to make complete autonomy for robots a reality and have a strong interest in achieving this goal.”

First, HRW added, robots would not be restrained by human emotions and the capacity for compassion, which can provide an important check on the killing of civilians as proscribed by the Martens Clause (which prohibits weapons that run counter to the “dictates of public conscience.”)

Emotionless robots could, therefore, “serve as tools of repressive dictators seeking to crack down on their own people without fear their troops would turn on them;” (think ICE!).

Second, although relying on machines to fight war would reduce military casualties—“a laudable goal” according to HRW—it would also make it easier for political leaders to resort to force “since their own troops would not face death or injury. The likelihood of armed conflict could thus increase, while the burden of war would shift from combatants to civilians caught in the crossfire.”

As in... well...

Finally, the use of fully autonomous weapons raises serious questions of accountability... “(g)iven that such a robot could identify a target and launch an attack on its own power, it is unclear who should be held responsible for any unlawful actions it commits.”

The military commander that deployed R2Death To? The programmer, the manufacturer? Or should the robot be locked up in a robot prison?

HRW and IHRC also recommended prohibition of the killer robots “through an international legally binding instrument” against drones then active in Afghanistan which have now spread to Ukraine, Palestine, Iran and other war zones.

HRW and IHRC also listed allegations regarding the rogue robots, drones or other mechanalia; similar concerns have been raised in the U.K., Israel, Germany and South Korea – all of which are accused of violating the Protocols of the Geneva Conventions, Red Cross, World Court, JAG... all the way back to the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions.

Regulators... from the UK Ministry of Defence to American academics, think tanks, computer scientists and even “philosophers” run up against Ronald Arkin, “who supports the development of fully autonomous weapons” but recognizes that “there is clear concern for collateral damage, in particular civilian loss of life.”

The agencies conclude that humans “should therefore retain control over the choice to use deadly force. Eliminating human intervention in the choice to use deadly force could increase civilian casualties in armed conflict.”

Short of killer robots, spooky robots garthering data on Americans and sifting through the files to merch stuff (at best) or steal identities, bank accounts and run up credit card bills.

USA Today’s Olivier Knox addressed the consumer surveillance state (July 21, ATTACHMENT SEVEN) as a “friendly 21^st-Century Panopticon” and says that people have given up on resisting being recorded and just want transparency.

Surveillance isn’t creepy if it’s done in the name of productivity, Katherine Bindley wrote in the Wall Street Journal, defending employers and even users of online dating services.

Knox added that “smart” doorbell cameras raised concerns among the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) spookbusters opposing Amazon’s Ring and its Search Party feature, which uses AI to scan footage from nearby smart doorbells. Amazon sells this tech as a way to reunite lost pets and their distraught owners.

But the technology, EFF wrote, could usher in “a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track and locate anything – human, pet and otherwise.”

The Observer (May 12, ATTACHMENT EIGHT) took a short journey into the future – postulating how surveillance pricing may morph into surveillance wages as employers raise or lower their payscale... usually lower... based on “idiosyncratic biases, attribution errors and halo effects as much as actual job performance.”

Employers will be able to use A.I. to monitor and evaluate employee behavior in ways that go far beyond what any manager could observe directly. “Modern workplace monitoring tools can log keystrokes, track mouse movements and active screen time, analyze email and messaging patterns for sentiment and engagement signals, flag extended periods of inactivity, transcribe and interpret video calls and track an employee’s physical location through mobile phones or badge swipe data.”

If an algorithm flags an employee as “low potential” or “high flight risk,” that categorization may subtly recalibrate every subsequent interaction she has with the organization, reducing the developmental investment she receives, limiting her access to stretch assignments and potentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of disengagement and exit. The A.I. doesn’t terminate the employee directly, but it reorganizes the environment around her until she leaves of her own accord.

Employers can obtain or purchase If an algorithm flags an employee as “low potential” or “high flight risk,” that categorization may subtly recalibrate every subsequent interaction she has with the organization, reducing the developmental investment she receives, limiting her access to stretch assignments and potentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of disengagement and exit. The A.I. doesn’t terminate the employee directly, but it reorganizes the environment around her until she leaves of her own accord.

Apps on gig nurses at the Roosevelt Institute can identify and exclude employees with a propensity for pregnancy; Uber has a “desperation rate” to monitor drivers while Verint, an A.I. software deployed by major insurance and financial services companies in their contact centers, uses A.I. to analyze employees’ voice tone and speech patterns in real time during calls, inferring emotional state and alerting supervisors when an employee appears disengaged, stressed or emotionally flat.

“The legal frameworks designed to protect employees are straining to adapt to a technological environment that moves far faster than legislation, case law, organizational policies or employee handbooks. The possible harm that may result from surveillance wages and algorithmic psychological manipulation needs to be discussed, debated and mitigated.”

Electronic repression of workers has angered the United Auto Workers after over 1,000 at the GM Factory Zero electric vehicle plant “are being pushed out to make room for dozens of new robots.” (Futurism, July 4, ATTACHMENT NINE) and said they were only “laid off” and replaced by “cobots,” a style of robot designed to work alongside humans.

UAW local 22 president James Cotton told Crain’s Detroit Business that the layoffs were designed to weaken the union’s bargaining power in advance of the 2028 contract negotiations.

The FutureCOO editors (July 15, ATTACHMENT TEN) wrote that AI is forging ahead into “a new phase of transformation driven by increasingly autonomous and interconnected technologies, with artificial intelligence at the core.”

“This year’s trends highlight the growing role of AI as the foundation for more autonomous, intelligent and adaptive supply chains,” said Christian Titze, VP analyst and chief of research in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice. “Leaders must focus not only on deploying advanced technologies, but also on ensuring they work together to deliver measurable value and long-term resilience”... moving towards “hyperconnected environments where digital and physical systems (aka people) operate in tandem” using “tailored AI models and advanced simulation tools.”

But the College Fix (July 19, ATTACHMENT ELEVEN) reported that AI models still “scored below 25% on job tasks” according to a U.C. Berkeley study.

“Today’s agents can solve a meaningful fraction of professional tasks. However, when we look at the hardest tasks that require sustained reasoning, deep domain expertise, and reliable execution over long horizons, they are still far from human-level performance,” the Berkeley boys stated.

Fable 5, GPT-5.5, and Composer 2.5, among others, failed to complete more than one-fourth of the test correctly. Out of all of the models that were tested, OpenAI’s ChatGPT-5.5 model had the highest scores with a 24% passage rate, according to the study.

Despite the low passage rates of current AI models, Yiyou Sun, a postdoctoral researcher who led the study with Berkeley Professor Dawn Song, believes repetitive human tasks will be replaced by AI.

“Even if current pass rates remain relatively low, occupations dominated by routine and well-defined procedures are likely to experience disruption first, while decision-intensive roles will remain more resilient for longer,” Sun said.

(In English, that means more unemployment and less efficiency.)

And abroad, the race to replace is gaining momentum despite analytics such as a pair of June 2026 researches at ADP and Planera, also according to the editors at Hong Kong’s FutureCOO (Thursday, July 16, ATTACHMENT TWELVE and Friday, July 17, ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN) and found that, “lingering questions over productivity gains signal a more complex transition for business leaders.”

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) is an American multinational provider of cloud-based human resources management, payroll processing, and professional employer organization (PEO) services, headquartered in Roseland, New Jersey. Thursday’s dispatches from Singapore found, according to ADP’s People at Work Report 2026, that “only 10% of workers in Singapore now feel uncertain about AI’s impact on their roles, down from 19% a year ago. The shift reflects growing familiarity with the technology as usage becomes embedded in day-to-day work.

“More than half (56%) of employees report using AI multiple times a week, while nearly a quarter (23%) use it daily — placing Singapore ahead of global averages in adoption frequency.”

Tackling the demographics, the report reported that mid-sized firms were emerging as frontrunners, “with 34% of employees using AI daily — significantly higher than both small businesses and large enterprises, where usage stands at 19%.”

The disparity suggests structural challenges at both ends of the spectrum. “Smaller firms may lack access to cost-effective tools and implementation expertise, while larger organisations face complexity in integrating AI across established processes and systems.”

PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX EMERGES

While usage is increasing, ADP found that perceived value remains less certain. “Only 15% of Singapore workers strongly believe AI will positively impact their job responsibilities in the near term, pointing to a gap between adoption and tangible outcomes,” and, while Jessica Zhang, a senior vice president at ADP said that workers need to understand “how these technologies fit into their day-to-day workflows to unlock real productivity gains” neither she nor others speculated on how they would impact themselves.

Singaporeans are famously law-abiding and authority respecting, but if efficiency leads to layoffs, will they remain so?

On Friday, the FutureCOOs assessed AI capacity for replacing people and concluded that, while AI is capable of displacing human coders now, at least ten other professions (out of thirty) still would cost more to automate. The three worst... for the robots... are...

NURSING ASSISTANTS:

With a median wage of US$42,200, the platform estimates the annual cost to replace one nursing assistant at around US$375,100 — nearly nine times the worker’s salary.

HOME HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE AIDES:

Automation would cost an estimated US$282,000 a year against a median wage of US$35,800, an eightfold multiple.

CONSTRUCTION LABOURERS

The report estimates automation would cost roughly US$285,000 per worker annually, about six times the median pay of US$47,000. Planera highlights that no commercial robot yet handles the full physical and variable demands of a building site, making full replacement uneconomical for now.

Planera also noted maintenance and repair workers and teachers as unlikely to be automated soon. Some low-wage, low-skilled jobs could be... and are already being... replaced as, for example the retail self‑checkout systems estimated at roughly US$24,000 per year — cheaper than employing a cashier. “That disparity reflects the maturity of certain automation technologies and the relative simplicity of the tasks involved,” but Planera did not factor in the obvious negatives of thrifty, shifty shoppers choosing not to scan some of their purchases or boycotts (or girlcotts) by angry consumers seeing the bloody writings on the wall.

In China proper, the 36KR Journal reported on the gathering of Turing Award winners and AI leaders at the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the Global Governance High-Level Meeting on Artificial Intelligence (WAIC 2026) - officially held in Shanghai. (ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN)

AI evolution has been spotty, the participants said... Turing Award winner Richard Sutton “stated bluntly” that current AI is still "relatively weak and unreliable," but Omar M. Yaghi, the Nobel laureate in Chemistry, said that AI has greatly accelerated some chemical research that used to take weeks or months, while also worrying that if scientists do not take the initiative to try and verify, eventually agents might end up telling humans "how science should be done."

Human resourcers at the HR Agenda... often portrayed as job killing villains... contends that “America’s layoff safety net was built for a different economy, and AI is about to break it.”

“When an employee loses their job today, they are handed a map to a city that no longer exists,” wrote Bijal Shah, CEO of Guild, America’s leading talent development. (ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE)

“The systems that were meant to catch them—from unemployment insurance and corporate outplacement to federal reemployment programs—were designed for a workforce that cycled through downturns and recovered,” Shah contends. “Historically, this has looked like cyclical layoffs, concentrated in blue-collar fields, with predictably short unemployment spells. That world is not the one AI-driven displacement is creating. And the gap between what workers need and what the safety net delivers is about to become a chasm.”

As of January 2025, only 18 states had unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund reserves meeting the minimum federal solvency standard—down from 31 states before the pandemic. What Shah calls a “wave of white-collar displacement” resulting from AI implementation “could exhaust trust funds in states that believe they are solvent.”

Citing other structural failures, Shah maintains that the architecture for something better already exists. “What is missing is the coordination and the political will to build it before the wave hits.”

Fortune (ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR) lodged its dissent, saying that recent graduates who kicked off their summer of potential unemployment by booing commencement speakers extolling the benefits of AI, “may have to look elsewhere to blame for those low hire rates.”

Specifically – themselves! – those little cockroaches!

The unemployment rate for recent college graduates has held stubbornly at 5.6%, about the same as it was a year ago. Recent graduate unemployment is considerably higher than the 4.2% unemployment rate for all workers, which is already its highest in four years, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York data.

Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok blogged upon the disconnect Gen Z is facing as it enters the workforce: “AI is stirring anxiety and resentment, despite young people facing a slew of economic challenges that is actually making their job search an uphill battle.”

According to an iCIMS Workforce Report from January, more than half (51%) of Gen Z feel AI poses the greatest threat to their job security. Glassdoor’s 2026 Worklife Trends Midyear Check-In found this rhetoric is taking a toll on workers, “with 53% of discussions about AI on the platform being negative and 43% positive, compared with last year, when 41% were negative and 55% positive.”

“The hype around AI and rapidly-changing capabilities may be stoking anxiety for workers across many different occupations and industries, who fear that their jobs may be safe from AI automation right now but may not be in a few years,” the report said.

In a New York Times op-ed published last week, Cal Newport, a computer scientist and author of the book Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World posited that tech companies are engaging in doom trolling “perhaps to amplify the power of their technologies ahead of key IPOs or to recruit talent. However, he warned, it’s coming at the expense of the mental wellness of the population trying to make sense of how this technology will affect them.

“This could have been a period of hopeful innovation, but instead our emotions are being manipulated by Silicon Valley’s self-serving and morally untenable addiction to doom trolling,” he said. “This communication strategy has to stop. The harm it’s causing to the public’s mental health has arguably outweighed the benefits that AI has so far delivered.”

In addition to the inadequately educated and negative thinking graduates, Slok blames Fed interest rate hikes, trade and tariff uncertainty and... paradoxically, the ICE war on migrant labor.

A National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) policy brief published earlier this year found falling labor force participation among U.S.-born workers age 16 and older, leading economists to conclude that not only is the immigrant workforce shrinking, but the absence of immigrant workers is also leaving U.S. companies with fewer resources to grow business and increase hiring of domestic-born workers.

“Most economic research shows that immigration increases employment opportunities for the U.S.-born, so it would not be surprising if reducing immigration harms American workers,” labor economist and NFAP senior fellow Mark Regets said in the report.

Perhaps the swelling belief that college educations are not worth the cost may lead to more young Americans turning, instead, to the tried-and-true recession-proof occupations like truck driving, plumbing or farming! Or keeping that high school summer job at the fry pit and maybe... in a decade or two, even rising up to at least Assistant Managerial status – with an even cooler hat!

One of the increasingly visible options may be going away – if President Trump’s recent EO 14321 against the surplus Americans begging spare change on the streets succeeds in its genocidal (or perhaps to be more accurate, plutocidal) ambitions.

On Wednesday, the President declared that “(e)ndemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded.”

As opposed to a shortage of jobs or housing, Trump maintains the “overwhelming majority” of homeless Americans “are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.”

His solution? (ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE)

“Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order.”

14321 orders the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation to fight urban campers and loiterers and prohibit wishy washy liberal programs of “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use, “ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability”.

The war on homelessness... which liberals call a war on homeless people... has been backed up by the Supreme Court which, by a 6-3 decision overturned lower court rulings “that deemed it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to punish people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go.” (NPR, yesterday, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX)

The court's decision is a win not only for the small Oregon city of Grants Pass, which brought the case, but also for dozens of Western localities that had urged the high court to grant them more enforcement powers as they grapple with record high rates of homelessness.

"We are trying to show there's respect for the public areas that we all need to have," Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison told NPR earlier this year. She wrote a legal brief on behalf of more than a dozen other cities. "We care for people, and we're engaging and being involved in the long-term solution for them."

In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the decision focused only on the needs of cities but not the most vulnerable. She said sleep is a biological necessity, but this decision leaves a homeless person with “an impossible choice — either stay awake or be arrested.”

Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center, which represents those who sued the city said saddling people with fines and a criminal record makes it even harder for them to eventually get into housing.

Johnson and other advocates say today’s decision won’t change the core problem behind rising homelessness: a severe housing shortage, and rents that have become unaffordable for a record half of all tenants. The only real solution, they say, is to create lots more housing people can afford – and that will take years.

“Where do people experiencing homelessness go if every community decides to punish them for their homelessness?” says Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The answer, of course, is prisons.

The Grants Pass ordinance allowed the city to issue $295 (£230) fines - or 20-day jail sentences for repeat offenses - to unhoused people sleeping or camping in public. Three homeless people sued the city in 2018 after they received multiple citations they were unable to pay. (BBC July 4, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN)

“An appeals court found such laws virtually banned homelessness and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

“The Supreme Court finally ruled that cities were clear to prohibit homeless people sleeping outside in public places.

Theane Evangelis, who argued this case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Grants Pass said: “Living in tents is not a compassionate solution, and it's not treating people with dignity. And so the Supreme Court's decision was remarkable in the degree to which it listened to those cities,” she said.

Last year, the US tracked the highest numbers of homeless people since 2007 - when the US Department of Housing and Urban Development started tracking such data.

There were 653,104 homeless people counted as part of the agency's yearly homeless assessment in 2023. That's a nearly 11% increase from the year prior.

“There is mounds and volumes of evidence showing that having an unpaid citation and a warrant out for arrest, let alone in incarceration, prevents people from accessing housing, jobs in other places," Chris Herring, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California in Los Angeles told the BBC.

"It actually prevents people from accessing shelter.”

"Politicians want to be able to say they’re doing something,” Scout Katovich, an attorney who focuses on these issues for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the BBC, calling the jailings “political theater”.

And partisans in liberal cities like Los Angeles called the ruling “disappointing” and vowed to continue investing in affordable housing, voluntary treatment and eviction protections.

Topher Williams, who told the BBC he was an Army veteran, has been living on the streets for four years. An unlucky combination of medical expenses and the pandemic's economic struggles left him without a job or shelter.

“I served eight years in the military. I did two tours of duty. I gave the ultimate sacrifice fighting for this country, and to be treated like I’m a second-class citizen is wild.”

But, he added, “(a)t least I’ll have a bed and maybe I’ll be in the system and get the right kind of help.”

But simply arresting and locking up the homeless isn’t enough, according to many homed Americans who proposed stronger solutions on Reddit.

CMV (perhaps sarcastically) proposed: “I think we could genocide the homeless and not enough people would care to stop it.

“I'm basing this off of my understanding of how the Holocaust was carried out, which had very little criticism from within the Third Reich while it was going on even though tons of people knew about it.”

NH, who toured Germany a few years back, compared the Sachsenhausen camp to a new factory selecting a small town for its location. “(I)t represented a boon to the local economy.”

For an American genocide (or, as critic VF pointed out "massacred" or "exterminated" because “only racial, ethnical, religious or national groups can, per the Genocide Convention, have genocide committed against them.”

So there!

For a government-led extermination, he added, “the government would either have to create camps (such as the one that China uses for the Uyghurs) or have the military join forces with the general population and pretty much just shoot homeless people on sight (kind of like what the Burmese are doing to the Rohingya in Myanmar” – no ICE comparisons added).

For your scenario to be possible you would need the US to be under a dictatorship, which is so far from possible at this point that it's hard to even consider what would happen, especially because we would need to know more about this "dictatorship" to begin to guess the likelihood of your point being correct.”

Like India (Attachment 15.a Above)?

The WIKI description of “social cleansing” as opposed to “ethnic cleansing” consists of the elimination of members of society who are considered undesirable, “including, but not limited to, the homeless, criminals, street children, the elderly, the poor, the weak, the sick, the needy and disabled people.^[1][2][3]

Perpetrators are usually of the same community (geographic and ethnic, if not economic) as the victims and they are often motivated by the idea that the victims are a drain on the resources of society.^[1][5]

Wiki specifically took note of social cleansing in nations and regions such as...

AFRICA

In African countries, social cleansing almost always takes the form of witch hunting which is most common in areas with poor economic circumstances.^[4]

IN TANZANIA

The most common victims of social cleansing efforts in Tanzania are elderly women, the majority of whom are of low socioeconomic status, but several groups of people who are considered burdens to the community, such as children, the sick, infants, and the handicapped, are also victims.^[68] These people are usually accused of witchcraft following deaths or other misfortunes in society and tend to flee, choosing homelessness over death. Those who do not flee successfully are killed violently in their homes.^[68]

LATIN AMERICA

IN COLONIAL LATIN AMERICA

IN BRAZIL

The most common murder victim in Brazil is a young, black male living in a favela, or a Brazilian slum.^[34] These young men typically are, or are assumed to be, gang members and criminals.^[35] Women are often targets by association, though the effects of social cleansing and violence against women are largely absent in existing research.^[37]

IN COLOMBIA

In the 1980s, "social cleansing" groups started to be created. Their main mission was "to make justice" by killing all non-appropriate people in social terms, like prostitutes, street-living people (including children), trans people, and drug addicts ^[43]who are considered "undesirable" and "disposable".^[2][44] They are economically disadvantaged, usually live on the streets, and are considered to be a burden on society, "the cause of the country's problems, rather than a consequence of them".^[45]

IN GUATEMALA

Victims and methods

IN PERU

The San Miguel del Ene attack was perpetrated in 2021. Leaflets left in the area described the action as a social cleansing operation.^[64]

IN SOUTH KOREA

In South Korea, during the military dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s, the government pursued a program that forced thousands of people off the streets into government funded privately run welfare centers.^[65][66] This was exacerbated by preparation for the 1988 Seoul Olympics with ordinance No. 410 from President Chun Doo-Hwan.

EUROPE...

In SPAIN

The discriminatory practice of Spanish legislation (dating back to 1414 and before) led to a certain caste system pertaining to those with or without honor. Moreover, one's reputation and the way one was treated was based on aspects such as honor, legitimacy, and the limpieza de sangre, a prejudicial marker that indicates one's purity of blood, relating to their family timeline and deciding how society was to treat them.^[33]

IN the NEWS: JULY 17, 2026 TO JULY 23, 2026

Friday, July 17, 2026

Dow: 52,562.97

Partisans argue Trump’s latest speech. ABC calls it “misleading”. Republicans who hoped for economic and immigration policy instead of recycling old 2020 grievances are disappointed; some, up for re-election, are worried.

TV weatherpeople say that more than 800 Canadian wildfires are making the air in Chicago and Detroit among the worst in the world for more hazy, crazy days as baseball games, parades and outdoor events are cancelled and FIFA fans fret about finals. Further south, flooding in the same parts of Texas as drowned the children at Camp Mystic is escalating – washing away three bridges in and around Kerrville and Uvalde – and will continue “for a few days.”

The wars drag on; new US and Iranian strikes plus the Ukrainian drones blowing up Russian refineries send oil prices upwards with gas at the pump now passing $4/gal. Mortgage rates hit record 6.55% home sales tumble and rents are so high that elderly women in the “golden girls’ syndrome” are taking in roommates.

DefSec/WarSec Hegseth issues a directive ordering the troops to either make or take more testosterone to make them more kill-crazy; denouncing the “Communists” who say “make love, not war.” But masturbation (and, one presumes, rape) is OK.

Saturday, July 18, 2026

Dow: Closed

Macho Maine ICE Agent kills migrant Johan Sebastián Durán Guerreroin front of his daughter on her third birthday as DHS Homan and Acting ICEman David Venturella say his attempt to escape constituted endangering the police. ICEberg lettuce from Mexico is also in trouble; blamed for the new Cyclo disease – the bug is traced to one farm that reportedly irrigate their crops with contaminated water. Taco Bell is closing outlets in anticipation of litigation, but Chipotle is opening more... in Mexico! And Coca Cola recalls Fairlife Milk after contamination by hackers.

Two soldiers are killed, one is missing and four wounded as Iran strikes an Amerrican base in Jordan while the RevGuards accuse the USA of war crimes. Despite Trump’s claim to have destroyed Iranian military power, the drones and mines and missiles effectively shut the Straits of Hormuz again, only eight tankers make it through all week as opposed to 70 during the cease fire. Added to Uke attacks on Russian oil, prices rise another 5% as military experts say America’s policy of firing off two plus million dollar missiles while Iran uses cheap $50K drones will be leading to an armaments shortfall.

TV docs warn that “texting thumb” disease is spreading because human hands were not made for phones, but for “touching things”. 200,000 sandals that childen and idiots attempt to eat and choke on are recalled, as are 100,000 toddler step ladders.

In an offensive shootout, England defeats France 6-4 to take third place at FIFA while anxious noses wonder if the smoke will blanket tomorrow’s finals between the old (Argentina, with 39 year old Lionel Messi) versus the new (Spain, with talented teenages Lamine Yamal).

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Dow: Closed

... and, in a defensive struggle, Spain wins 1-0 in double overtime on a goal by Yamal as the smoke briefly lifts, only to return next week.

On Talkshow Sunday “The Week” liberal host Jonathan Karl calls Trump’s speech “reckless” in that most responsible sources say election fraud was minimal in 2020 and would not have affected the outcome.

After another soldier is killed, this time in Iraq, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va) says that sending in “boots on the ground” to win Trump’s “war of choice” by seizing Iran’s uranium would require 15,000 men and a whole lotta money. Instead, he proposes “diplomacy... initiated by diplomats!”

Amidst war, wildfires and weather, the RoundTablers tackle the serious issues... Donna Brazile calling out the Blue Angels for dangerous stunt flights, former WashPoster Dana Milbank saying Pete’s proposal to test for testosterone will find that there’s already too much being spewed about. ABC’s Sara Isgur and SecPress Karoline Leavitt call Trump’s teleprompter toady “disgraceful” for taking confidential data for his gambling ventures while conservative Ramesh Ponneru admits that it’s “hard to tell Americans not to make money.”

Bill Maher says the “sore loser syndrome” has to stop, but also denounces the “crazy left” for celebrating the Intifada; recalling a pleasant dinner with Donald (no menu noted) but is now disappointed over Trump’s outrage that His Kennedy/Deleted center offered the comedian a Mark Twain prize. (Shania Twain, turning 60, releases her first new album in three years.)

Warner, doing double duty, tells Nation Facers that he’ll vote against confirming Jay Clayton, despite calling the acting DNI Director Bill Pulte a putz. Fired cybersecurity czar Chris Pratt contends that what China is really doing is working to weaken America’s confidence in its elections; Homan expresses anger at “leftist” sanctuary citizens and declaims that, no matter what you think of the law, “you must comply!”

Monday, July 20, 2026

Dow: 51,839.26

It’s International Moon Day. Musk and Bezos still rasslin’ over whose rocket will get back first.

Summer is scorchin’ in – but upcoming are the World Series, NFL preseason and Back to School – with some sales beginning early. Some parents happy to take advantage of sales tax suspensions. Others just want the heat to end.

Smoke will dissipate over New York for a day or two, but is still covering the Great Lakes, with more tornadoes ahead. Flooding rises north from Texas and five drown in Columbus, Ohio.

TVdocs say Americans should be permitted four cups of coffee daily, but adding cream and sugar WILL KILL YOU! They also say that the heat dome is making people crazy and medications toxic. Merchers tout “red light therapy” masks that will help your facial skin... and also help you to rob banks and pharmacies.

“Odyssey” raises Oscar hopes (despite mixed reviews), sails off with $264M box office, even as American tourists in Greece stabbed by Trojan partisan. Next week, however, the sailors will battle Spiderman as AMC stock, already surging after sequellismoes Toy Story 5 Prada 2, rises anew – and after that will come Camp Rock 3 and a Julie Andrews biopic for 2027.

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Dow: 52,224.84

While Iran keeps Hormuz closed, allied Houthis, send the price of gas and oil rising anew by attacking Saudi ships in the Red Sea’s Bab el-Mandebi. Mamdani assenter (if not endorser) POTUS clucks at Israel, meets with President Joseph Aoun of “badly treated” Lebanon.

But Trump reserves his hate for evil Candada, responding to their tarrifs with proposed levies of his own of from 50% to as high as 300% on Canadian Club and hockey sticks and proposes elimination of green cards for migrants who use SNAP or Medicaid – including children and the elderly – arguing that they should not be living at the expense of American taxpayers. (See above) His HealthSec RFK Junior freezes Federal funds for California and Minnesota, citing fraud (others call it politics) and say that Cyclo is “under control” despite 11K cases now in 41 states.

ICEman in Aurora. Colorado called “explosive” shoots female protester. Former soldier turned ICE-hater sets fire to New York’s Federal Building. In smoky New York, Mayor Mandabi mulls arresting Israeli PM Netanyahu when he comes to the U.N.

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

Dow: 52,218.58

Not-so-big Bertha does Bourbon Street; storms and tornadoes stiking here and there across the Northeast and Midwest, floods in West Virginia and Kentucky, wildfires in Oregon.

President Trump declares that Iran’s military is non-functional but wants $83B more for Pete DefSec (Congress now officially ready to vote on the Department of War). The new problem is in Yemen where the ragged Houthi rebels have managed to close the Red Sea gateway of Bab el-Mandeb, cutting off another 15% of the world’s oil supply atop the 25% frozen in Hormuz. His response is to share more nuclear technology with the Saudis, emphasizing it will only be for “peaceful” purposes. Families of Nine Eleven victims are understandably outraged.

And get ready for another war, at least a tariff war with... Canada (above)... as America, contending their fires were deliberate attacks on the respitory health of Joneses, shears them off of NAFTA leaving just a USA/Mexico alliance still shaky over the border policy. Crossings are down but ICE “deportationmaxxing” is still rampaging in cities – Aurora (above) and Florida and at 25 field offices, each ordered to take down 75 migrants daily.

Thursday, July 23, 2026

Dow: 51,711.65

Real and TV doctors take aim at health “supplements” featuring glowing testimonials from AI ghost doctors and influencer. There’s a healthy growing distrust of unhealthy miracle cures as more medical Advisory Committees are exposed as corrupt; there’s concern over peptides (weight loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy) that may not only be ineffective, but dangerous while the Washington Post says their advertisements promote discrimination and hate against fat women. Shocking!

The pill wars extend to courts, where Novo Nordisk (Wegovy) sues Eli Lilly (Zepbound) for false advertising – alleging they use outdated clinical trials. More litigation follows a sick pastor/priest suing AI’s chatbot for a bad medical diagnosis (as above), former Venezuelan President Maduro to face American justice on or about August 2027 (postponed from June). And also back after suspension due to gunfire is the National Correspondents’ Dinner which President Trump says he will attend (despite the likelihood of verbal, if not actual slings and arrows). Other legal eagles close out the week representing family members of deceased Cosby star Malcolm Jamal Warner fighting over his estate.

There’s real eagle fighting too as celebrity baldie Jackie takes a beating from two other jealous birds at Big Bear Lake, CA but survives as does a boy chased by a real big bear through a Dollar General in Pennsylvania. But there’s also good news in the animal kingdom as tailless raccoon Jimothy goes viral on social media and merchers cash in.

WHY IS DOW JONES FALLING? (AI Overview)

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been pulling back from recent record highs due to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, surging crude oil prices, and lingering concerns over higher interest rates. (Yahoo Finance)

The index has faced downward pressure driven by the following factors:

· Rising Geopolitical Tensions: Markets were spooked after President Donald Trump declared the US-Iran ceasefire "over" following renewed clashes and strikes in the Strait of Hormuz. (Yahoo Finance)

· Surging Oil Prices: Escalating hostilities in the Middle East have sent crude oil prices spiking, which threatens to increase corporate operational costs and drive inflation higher. (CNBC)

· Interest Rate Jitters: Federal Reserve policy remains a focal point, with ongoing concerns that persistent inflation and a resilient economy could warrant maintaining or even increasing interest rates. (Guardian U.K.)

ECONOMIC INDICES (60%)

CATEGORY

VALUE

BASE

RESULTS by PERCENTAGE

OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS

INCOME

(24%)

6/17/13 revised 1/1/22

LAST

CHANGE

NEXT

LAST WEEK in June (6/26)

Original Reconfig.

JULY 10th

Original Reconfig.

JULY 17th

Original Reconfig.

LAST WEEK

Original Reconfig.

THIS WEEK

Original Reconfig.

THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS...

Wages (hrly. Per cap)

1350

7/17/26

+0.29%

7/26

1,904.26

1,909.78

1,353.92

1,909.78

1,353.92

1,909.78

1,353.92

1,909.78

1,353.92

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/average-hourly-earnings 37.64

Median Inc. (yearly)

600

7/17/26

+0.047%

7/31/26

1,472.81

1,473.51

1,474.31

600.80

1,475.24

601.18

1,475.24

601.18

1,475.93

601.46

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 67,937 974 8.017 8,049

Unempl. (BLS – in mi)

600

7/17/26

+2.38%

7/26

542.60

555.52

614.28

555.52

614.28

555.52

614.28

555.52

614.28

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/ 4.2

Official (DC – in mi)

300

7/17/26

-0.014%

7/31/26

216.79

216.76

216.73

299.92

223.51

309.31

223.51

309.31

223.48

309.27

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,317 318 096 097

Unofficl. (DC – in mi)

300

7/17/26

-0.007%

7/31/26

260.14

259.98

259.80

299.62

246.50

284.28

246.50

284.28

246.48

284.26

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 13,180 189 891 892

Workforce Participation

Number

Percent

300

7/17/26

-0.0005%

-0.0105%

7/31/26

295.83

295.82

295.81

299.98

294.60

298.75

294.60

298.75

294.60

298.74

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ In 162,727 718 212 195 Out 105,169 209 5,984 5,977 Total: 267,869 927 8,196 172

60.748 .732 .483 .482

WP % (ycharts)*

150

7/17/26

-0.485%

7/26

149.98

149.25

149.27

149.25

149.27

149.25

149.27

149.25

149.27

https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 61.50

OUTGO

(15%)

Total Inflation

1050

7/17/26

-0.4%

7/26

901.77

1050

905.38

1052.10

905.38

1052.10

905.38

1052.10

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.5 -0.4

Food

300

7/17/26

+0.2%

7/26

257.37

300

256.86

299.40

256.86

299.40

256.86

299.40

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.2 .2

Gasoline

300

7/17/26

-9.7%

7/26

181.96

300

199.61

320.10

199.61

320.10

199.61

320.10

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +7.0 -9.7

Medical Costs

300

7/17/26

-0.1%

7/26

267.14

300

267.41

300.30

267.41

300.30

267.41

300.30

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.5 -0.1

Shelter

300

7/17/26

+0.1%

7/26

238.38

300

238.14

299.70

238.14

299.70

238.14

299.70

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.3 .1

WEALTH

(6%)

Dow Jones Index

300

7/17/26

-1.60%

7/31/26

400.43

410.82

400.18

299.80

400.68

300.17

400.68

300.17

394.27

295.37

https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/ 52,900.07 52,487.41 52,552.97 51,711.65

Home (Sales)

(Valuation)

150

7/17/26

-1.92%

+2.63%

7/31/26

137.08

155.60

154.17

134.49

140.69

152.61

158.23

134.49

140.69

152.61

158.23

134.49

140.69

152.61

158.23

https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics

Sales (M): 4.17 4.09 Valuations (K): 429.3 440.6

Millionaires (New Cat,)

150

7/17/26

+0.049%

7/31/26

137.58

137.65

137.72

150.15

137.81

150.25

137.81

150.25

137.88

150.32

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 24,315 328 344 356

Paupers (New Category)

150

7/17/26

+0.024%

7/31/26

134.77

134.73

134.69

149.92

134.64

149.86

134.64

149.86

134.61

149.82

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 36,955 966 980 989

GOVERNMENT

(10%)

Revenue (trilns.)

300

7/17/26

-0.054%

7/31/26

484.29

484.99

485.69

300.85

486.56

301.39

487.43

301.93

487.17

301.77

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 5,572 580 590 587

Expenditures (tr.)

300

7/17/26

+0.083%

7/31/26

287.56

287.40

287.16

299.59

286.92

299.34

286.68

299.09

286.44

298.86

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,225 231 237 242

National Debt (tr.)

450

7/17/26

+0.394%

7/31/26

345.28

345.05

344.44

448.90

344.15

488.49

343.52

488.18

343.17

486.23

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 39,357 427 460 616

Aggregate Debt (tr.)

450

7/17/26

+0.182%

7/31/26

354.13

353.42

352.67

448.15

351.82

447.07

350.97

446.00

350.33

445.20

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 112,648 887 3,159 3,365

TRADE

(5%)

Foreign Debt (tr.)

300

7/17/26

+0.063%

7/31/26

253.65

253.52

252.18

295.57

251.07

294.27

248.97

294.09

248.81

293.90

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 9,497 502 544 550

Exports (in billions)

150

7/17/26

-2.87%

7/7/26

203.57

150

197.73

145.70

197.73

145.70

197.73

145.70

197.73

145.70

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 327.1 317.7

Imports (in billions))

150

7/17/26

+3.12%

7/7/26

134.69

150

130.49

145.32

130.49

145.32

130.49

145.32

130.49

145.32

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 383.0 395.3

Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.)

150

7/17/26

+27.96%

7/7/26

253.48

150

182.61

108.06

182.61

108.06

182.61

108.06

182.61

108.06

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 55.9 77.6

SOCIAL INDICES

(40%)

ACTS of MAN

(12%)

World Affairs

450

7/17/26

+0.1%

7/31/26

468.20

467.27

449.10

466.24

448.20

466.24

448.20

466.71

-738

448.65

-789

King Felipe welcomes FIFA champs back to celebration in Madrid,. In the U.K. new socialist PM Andy Burnham promises mass nationalizations, but will also send fighter jets to America. Josh Kerr breaks 27 year old record with 3:42 mile while Manospheric Tate brothers are arrested as child molesters (their last arrests in Romania for raping Dracula’s daughter). Australian couple has identical quadruplets,

War and terrorism

300

7/17/26

-0.2%

7/31/26

281.19

280.63

280.35

299.10

280.07

298.80

280.07

298.80

279.45

298.22

Yemen’s Houthi terrorists close straits of Bab el-Mandebi to Saudi shipping and raise oil prices.NYC Mayor Zorro floats arresting Netanyahu for war crimes when he comes to the U.N.

Politics

450

7/17/26

-0.1%

7/31/26

451.95

451.05

449.10

450.15

448.20

450.15

448.20

449.70

447.75

Veep Vance celebrates birth of fourth child. Trump promising to put paywall on Truth Social and his new regs cut sick seniors off home care... “they just want us to give up,” one says. Mavis buys Manny, Moe and Jack (the Pep boys) for $700M

Economics

450

7/17/26

-0.1%

7/31/26

426.64

427.49

427.07

450.45

426.64

450.00

426.64

450.00

426.21

449.55

President Trump uses his tariff whip on a new target... Canada! He’ll pay for his purchases by cutting off SNAP to $4M low and no income families. NetFlix follows up the Tillie Norwood dramas by replacing human actors with AI (above) .

Crime

150

7/17/26

+0.1%

7/31/26

201.94

201.74

201.54

149.70

201.34

149.55

201.34

149.55

201.14

149.40

Tucson cowboy shoots ten, all survive; edges out Minneapolis nightclub gunman with only nine. Colorado ICEman with history of being “explosive” shoots female protester. Tyler Perry and AL Sharpton offer $100K for the (right) answers in Nolan Wells drowning. Pervy priest/pastor in S. Carolina arrested while civil libertarians accuse camera cops of blackmail and all the cops hunt killer Isabel Johnson – calling her a “master of disguise” and offering a reward of... $16,000!

ACTS of GOD

(6%)

Environment/Weather

450

7/17/26

-0.1%

7/31/26

277.49

276.96

276.41

448.20

275.85

447.30

275.85

447.30

275.57

446.85

Not-so-big Bertha becomes tropical storm as America’s summer of smoke and sweltering continues with temps of 115°in Little Rock, 114° in Tulsa, 108° in Minneapolis and the inevitable floods and tornadoes.

Disasters

450

7/17/26

-0.1%

7/31/26

463.09

462.16

462.62

449.55

463.08

450.00

463.08

450.00

462.62

449.55

Chinese landslide kills 8, dozens missing. NYC copter crash blamed on geese. Qatari Air Force One grounded for “insecurity” after millions in US taxpayer renovations. Five year old drowns at campground in Missouri. California warns of a “summer of sharks”.

LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX

Science, Tech, Education

600

7/17/26

+0.1%

7/31/26

617.97

617.35

599.40

617.35

599.40

617.35

599.40

617.97

600.00

Farmers using spray drones to irrigated droughted crops. META promises to inform parents if students are considering suicide. France goes one step beyond; banning social media for kids, while US states and cities ponder the same.

Equality (econ/social)

600

7/17/26

+0.2%

7/31/26

671.70

672.37

673.04

601.20

673.71

601.80

673.71

601.80

675.06

603.00

Tyler Perry pays for and Al Sharpton officiates at drowned Nolan Wells funeral – says it’s not a white racist killing, but not not a white racist killing. Spanish soccer star Nico Williams paid tribute to his mother, María, after winning the World Cup on Sunday. Immediately after collecting his medal, he ran to give it to her in the stands.

Health

600

7/17/26

-0.1%

7/31/26

412.58

411.75

411.34

598.20

440.90

595.69

440.90

595.69

440.46

595.06

Delinquent taco toyboys eat at the Bell and say Cyclo will help them to lose weight. FDA approves anti-cholesterol pill. TV docs recommend only four cups of coffee daily; cream and sugar will KILL YOU! but RFK Junior maintains Cyclo is “under control.” William Shatner and daughter Melanie both beat cancer.

Freedom and Justice

450

7/17/26

-0.1%

7/31/26

478.24

450

478.24

450

478.24

450

477.76

449.55

Napa, CA plans ban on drive-thru diners as promote gas guzzling, gate crasher invades Hamptons home of Jay Z and Beyonce – accused of “mischief”. Tricky teacher takes student home for “tutoring”; bad bandleader arrested for his private lessons in Miami.

CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS

Cultural incidents

450

7/17/26

7/31/26

595.25

595.85

450.45

595.85

450.45

595.85

450.45

595.85

450.45

Spain defeats Argentina to win FIFA crown. Ryan Fox wins British Open. “Odyssey” opens with record $264M box office as Luke Skywalker’s light sber sells for $3+ M. Emmy nomination leaders are The Pitt, Hacks and Widow’s Bay; see list here.

RIP: “My Left Foot” actress Brenda Fricker, “Pink Panther Theme” saxophonist Plas Johnson and “Pumping Iron” host Gharles Gaines. Epstein procurer David Siad killed in France. Police K-9 dies in Winston-Salem hot car; 18 year old human Kaylee Hottle (“Godzilla v. Kong”) dies in car crash. President Trump will give the oratory at Lindsey Graham funeral next week.

Miscellaneous incidents

4%/3%

450

7/17/26

+0.1%

7/31/26

553.95

554.50

450.45

554.50

450.45

554.50

450.45

555.05

450.90

Human remains from 850 BC found under Salvadoran volcano. Powerball licensed to sell gambling tickets in the U.K. where Prince George celebrates becoming a teenager and Andy Burnham steps into his new digs at 10 Downing Street. Fancy restaurant in SoKo finds a new treat: ants!

The Don Jones Index for the week of July 17th through July 23rd, 2026 was DOWN 7.30 points by standard configuration; 8.80 by the reconfigured.

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator. The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action againth parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com.

ATTACHMENT ONE – FROM TIME

COMMUNITY BACKLASH TO AI DATA CENTERS IS GROWING ACROSS THE U.S.

By Simmone Shah Jul 22, 2026 7:00 AM ET

When Laura Beth moved to Coweta County, Ga., in 2023, she was drawn to her new home’s rural location––it was far from any major roads or highways and had sprawling open land behind it.

“Our last home, the surrounding area was becoming very overdeveloped. We had a distribution center less than a mile from our house, and it was just kind of this urban encroachment,” she says. “We knew about the land behind us, and [thought] the worst thing it could be was a subdivision, because who in their right mind would want to build anything out here?”

Then, at the start of 2025, she saw an article announcing that a new data center would be coming to her hometown. As she read it, a realization dawned on her. A hyperscale data center, spanning more than 4.9 million sq. ft., had been proposed—and was expected to run right through her backyard.

“I didn't know who to reach out to, who to talk to, who could give me some more information,” she says. So she decided to start a Facebook group called “Stop Project Sail” to connect with her neighbors and discuss the proposed plan. More than 8,000 people have now joined the group, and have been organizing petition signings, installing yard signs, and mounting a legal fight against Coweta County and Atlas Development, the company behind the project.

“The Board’s responsibility is to serve the entire community, thoughtfully considering all feedback as decisions are weighed that affect Coweta County's more than 160,000 residents and its long-term future. The Board values the principles of democracy and recognizes the importance of our citizens speaking up on all issues that affect our County,” Coweta County Administrator Michael Fouts said in a statement to TIME. “The Board ultimately voted in favor, 3-2, of Project Sail, with those who approved stating its long-term financial benefits it will provide to Coweta County.” Atlas Development did not respond to TIME’s request for comment ahead of publication.

How communities are fighting back against data center construction

The Georgia town is not alone. If there’s one thing most Americans across the country agree on, it’s that they hate data centers. A June Reuters poll found that just a third of Americans approve of the pace of data-center construction, and only 14% are comfortable with a data center being built nearby. On July 18, a national day of protest against data centers saw 142 protests across 42 states.

According to one count by The Information, more than 300 cities, towns, and counties—including Monterey Park, Calif., Dekalb County, Ga., and Jefferson County, Pa.—have placed bans or moratoriums on the construction of hyperscale data centers. In the first three months of 2026, 75 major projects worth more than $130 billion were delayed or canceled in part due to organized local opposition. And on July 14, New York governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order to create the nation's first moratorium on new hyperscale data centers, while several other states, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, and South Carolina are considering similar pauses.

WHY DATA CENTERS ARE STRAINING LOCAL WATER AND POWER SUPPLIES

Data centers have long been used to store and process our digital information—whether that be photos in the cloud or the videos we stream online. But the rise of hyperscale data centers in recent years—which are higher performing and often used to power AI—began to change things.

“We've been aware of data center development as early as 2010, but they were much smaller in scale,” says John Farner, executive director of land and water at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a non-profit which has been researching the land and water use of data centers over the last few years. “What we're seeing now, especially with the advent of hyperscale data centers, is that they're much larger, much more powerful. They're much more resource intensive.”

More than 160 new AI data centers have popped up across the U.S. in the past three years—a 70% increase from the last three year period, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. In many instances, they’ve landed in communities with high competition for scarce water resources. A mid-sized data center consumes as much water as a small town, while larger ones require up to 5 million gallons of water every day—as much as a city of 50,000 people. They also consume massive amounts of electricity. Data centers accounted for 4% of total U.S. electricity use in 2024, and their energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030. In many cases, the additional electricity costs are passed on to nearby residents; in states with a high concentration of data centers electricity prices have increased by up to 267% over the last five years.

Steve Swope, another Coweta County resident, relies on wellwater, and is concerned that the construction of the data center could damage septic tanks or leak into the groundwater. “Our wells will either run dry or they'll become polluted and caked with sediment and mud,” he says.

Residents in other rural areas around the country have already reported that nearby data centers are making well water undrinkable. When Meta began construction on a $750 million data center in nearby Newton County, Ga. in 2018, the construction damaged local wells, caused municipal water prices to soar, and could cause the county to face a water deficit by 2030, according to reporting from the New York Times. Meta said that according to a study it commissioned, its data center project was unlikely to have impacted the water supply.

Soon after Project Sail was approved, four more data centers were proposed in Coweta County. In May, Coweta County approved a data center moratorium on any future projects, but residents say it’s too little, too late.

“It's kind of like, well, the horses are all out of the barn, let's be sure to close the door now,” says Swope.

The fight has left Beth and her family in limbo. They bought their home intending it to be a fixer-upper—the house is drafty, the windows need replacing. But they're hesitant to invest in a home they’re not sure they’ll stay in. “The unknown drives this cycle of [asking] do we move? I don't really want to move. Where do we move to?” she says. “They're everywhere. We'd want to move somewhere that also has a little bit of land, but all of that is that threat. We feel like there's no safe place to move.”

But, as of now, remaining put comes with its own set of problems. “If we stay here, this is going to be in our backyard.”

ATTACHMENT TWO – FROM NAUTILUS

ARE HUMANOID ROBOTS THE END OF HUMAN WORK?

Here’s what the people making the robots think

By Kristen French 2:00 PM CDT on May 21, 2026

Almost a decade ago, The New Yorker ran a cover showing a busy city street crowded by human-shaped robots and other whirring creatures. The drab machines amble down a sidewalk drinking coffee, checking cell phones, walking tiny robot dogs—and dropping coins in the cup of a shaggy human who sits begging for spare change. The image struck a chord. Fear was in the air, then as now.

The worry that our robot progeny will make us obsolete has lurked in the cultural imagination since the word robot was first coined in a Czech play published in 1920, over a century ago. But as advances in artificial intelligence and robotics accelerate at a bewildering pace, it has increasingly seemed like our moment of reckoning might be upon us. In 2013, a widely cited report out of the University of Oxford predicted that nearly half of all jobs were at risk due to machine learning and so-called “mobile robotics.” And though subsequent analyses pushed back on those findings—the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, put the number as low as 9 percent—the original figure has lingered in the zeitgeist.

Then came ChatGPT and Tesla’s humanoid “Optimus” robot, which was wildly hyped by Tesla CEO Elon Musk—though he’s well-known for his over-promising, among other things. Footage of an army of humanoid robots marching in sync through a Chinese warehouse began making the rounds on the Internet, shared widely on social media and in the headlines. Soon the job-cutting began. In recent months, a number of companies, including Amazon, have made mass cuts to their workforces, citing the efficiencies of AI. This week, Meta cut 8,000 jobs, or 10 percent of its workforce, to refocus on AI. One November 2025 study found a 16 percent decline in certain entry-level positions since ChatGPT’s release. In recent commencement speeches, some speakers have hailed the AI revolution, only to be met with choruses of boos.

This may be the beginning of a total transformation of the workforce—but for better or for worse? New technologies have historically created as many jobs as they destroy once the dust settles. But some have argued that this is the first time automation is tackling both physical work and cognitive, creative work at once. Previous transitions also played out over generations, giving displaced workers time to land on their feet.

Recently, thousands of robotics engineers gathered at a conference in China, and one of the panels consisted of a staged debate: Would humanoid robots replace most human workers by 2050? The vast majority of the thousands who attended voted no before the debate even started, and even more of them voted no when the arguments were complete. Take that, robots.

American inventor, artist, writer, and professor of robotics and automation at University of California, Berkeley, Kenneth Goldberg co-authored a viewpoint about the session in the journal Science Robotics. I spoke with Goldberg about what robots are bad at, why he and his colleagues voted no, and the future of work.

There were humanoid robots everywhere you looked. Also, many new robot hands that were impressive. But the thing to keep in mind is that while robots are very good at locomotion and acrobatics ...

Why is dexterity so important for the kind of labor that would replace a human?

This ability to reliably manipulate objects with hands is important for many jobs, from agriculture to zookeeping.

I was personally kind of shocked to read that 80 percent of the 3,000 attendees, people who work in robotics, at this debate session said that robots wouldn’t replace human workers soon. Did that number surprise you?

No, it didn’t. Experts who study humanoid robots understand that they currently have many limitations. But there’s a huge disconnect between the popular impression and the reality of where robots are today. It’s important to convey to the public that although they see humanoids doing certain things, like running and doing backflips, these robots still can’t tie a sneaker or chop vegetables.

Is there any chance that there’s a shared blind spot among the people who were in that room? The 3,000 robotics researchers are people whose careers depend on the field being taken seriously but not overhyped to the point of backlash.

I see your point, but I don’t think it’s a shared blind spot. The technology is just not there yet. And these are all people who actually work with robots, so they’re very familiar with the limitations. It’s very unclear when humanoid robots will be able to do work that humans can do. Maybe a humanoid can do something like a night watchman where it’s just walking around. But when you think about a humanoid robot, let’s say in your home, or a factory or a coffee shop, you want it to do all kinds of things on its own.

What is the actual definition of a humanoid robot?

Essentially a robot that looks like a human, with a head, body, legs, two arms, and hands with fingers. Over 100 companies are now making different humanlike robots, and they all have a kind of similar look.

I was thinking a humanoid robot might be something that also relied on AI for human-like intelligence.

Humanoid is just the shape. Then how do we get it to work or do something? That’s a whole different question. There are many different ways a humanoid could be programmed. We’ve had humanoid robots, by the way, since the science-fiction movie Metropolis. The word robot was coined in 1920 in a science-fiction play, so people have been talking about humanoid robots for a very long time—long before AI. AI is clearly needed to control humanoid robots. But there are different types of AI, including agentic coding, which is now being explored as an alternative to large vision-language-action models.

Read more: “How Human Is Human?”

One of the panelists mentioned that the costs of using a humanoid robot to do work would exceed human wages, especially in places like China. But then China is also where almost 80 percent of these humanized robots are being built. How do we square those two things?

They’re being built, but they’re not being deployed to do useful work. That’s not really happening today. So the question is, when will that happen? It depends. People will buy some humanoid robots as novelty items in their homes. That certainly will happen. And we already have digital companions for elderly people, things like Paro the seal or a box that sits on your counter. But these aren’t humanoid robots. And for something like physical therapy, it would be a while before it would be safe enough to have a robot helping someone with a disability because they’re very vulnerable.

One of the panelists, Andra Keay, argued that in countries such as the United States, overall employment levels weren’t that affected by earlier revolutionary technologies, such as the car or the cell phone. But are humanoid robots really comparable to those earlier technologies?

That was a really good insight Andra had. She was looking at the history of the automobile. When automobiles first came out, people thought that it was basically going to wipe out a lot of human workers—all the blacksmiths,buggy drivers, and horse trainers. But what happened instead was that cars created many, many new jobs: People had to build the roads, make the cars, the gas industry, all the motels. It was a net plus for jobs. Andra’s beautiful insight is that if you look at the unemployment rate in the U.S. over the past hundred years, it’s pretty much stayed constant even with the development of all these inventions and radical technologies—the car, the airplane, radio, television, the computer, the Internet, the cell phone. None of them wiped out jobs. We have a lot more people in the U.S. than we ever did, and the unemployment rate is still about 4 percent.

There are a lot of misperceptions. People look at all these robots and think, “This is going to wipe out jobs.” But if you look deeper, and the economists agree with this, it's not so clear at all. And from a technology perspective, I’m arguing that the robots aren’t capable of doing human-level work. In almost all cases right now, there’s going to be a lot of challenges. If they ever do get to that point, there may be lots of other jobs created.

Subscribe to skip adsAdvertisement

The other thing is there’s a big change in demographics. Thirty years ago, there were six people working for every retired person. Today, only three people are working for every retired person in the U.S., and this is going to get worse. We have an aging population. Who’s going to take care of all the senior citizens like me? We have a shortage of human workers. It’s important to push against the conventional wisdom that you hear over and over again. And by the way, I understand why you’re surprised because The New York Times, The New Yorker, and everywhere else is publishing this mantra that robots are going to take over all the jobs.

Well, part of it is the fear of AI, right?

Yes. There’s a lot of fear that AI would take over jobs but that hasn’t happened so much yet. It may take over certain jobs. But anything that involves customer service, you really want people in the loop. When I have to go over and order my coffee on my own, I don’t like it. I prefer to have a human take my order. I also think for anything that involves dexterity—the trades, such as being a carpenter, plumber, electrician, car mechanic, even building or remodeling a home—we will need human workers for a very long time.

Some of the people on the panel argued that robots will eventually be able to take over most labor-related tasks and then free humans to pursue more meaningful activities. I know you’re predicting that’s a long way off, if it arrives at all. But what more meaningful activities might those be?

Robots can make certain tasks easier. For example, you’re a journalist. And I don’t think your job is going away at all. But, for example, you may want to transcribe this conversation, right? In the past you had to sit down and do it manually, word by word, and it wasn’t very fun. It was a tedious task. It took a lot of time that you could better spend on doing other things, like thinking about things, doing research, and talking to people. But now you actually have that pretty much automated, so it didn’t replace you, but it made you better at what you do.

So no one is arguing that robots would eventually replace labor entirely, leaving humans to focus on leisure time? I think labor is pretty meaningful for a lot of people.

No, I don’t think anyone wants that. People like to work, and we need more humans to care for the elderly. We have a shortage of nurses. They won’t be replaced with robots. But robots could monitor a patient while a nurse takes a nap. I’m an optimist. I hear the concern. I really do. I don’t want to lose my job, either. As a teacher, I think about that, too. But my students, in my experience, want a human teacher. They’ll watch videos, but they also want a human. Because they learn better when a human teacher is engaged.

Why do you think the numbers shifted to 90 percent from 80 percent by the end of the debate? What happened?

“People responded to the argument that Andra made, in particular, about how the unemployment rate has stayed constant through all this innovation, historically. Of course, some things may change. There will be some disruption in the middle—and certainly computer-science students coming out right now are having a harder time getting jobs than they did five years ago because of AI. That’s true. But they’re adapting, and there’s gonna be new jobs and opportunities. It’s not this job apocalypse that people talk about as if it’s imminent.”

ATTACHMENT THREE – FROM YAHOO FINANCE

ROBOTS WILL REPLACE 700,000 WORKERS

By Douglas A. McIntyre June 22, 2026

· Richard Liu predicts robots will replace 700,000 delivery workers, a trend Musk and Bezos support that threatens tens of millions of jobs worldwide.

· Amazon (AMZN) plans to automate 75% of operations, avoiding 600,000 new hires, as NVIDIA's (NVDA) Jensen Huang declares physical AI has arrived.

· AI job destruction extends beyond factories to white-collar and software roles, with Block (XYZ) already laying off thousands replaced by cheaper AI applications.

It really doesn't matter who made the statement if he or she really, really knows what they are talking about. Richard Liu, founder and chair of JD.com, said that "sooner or later" robots would replace 700,000 delivery workers in China. Early experimental versions of this business model are already in place in China, the FT reported.

Who supports this point of view? To a large extent, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Job destruction by the next generation of tech will not be limited to AI software. It will be advanced robots powered by AI.

Just nine months ago, The New York Times ran an extensive exposé on Amazon's plans to avoid increasing its workforce by automating about 75% of its operations. Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) expects to sell about twice as many products as it does now by 2033. Robotic automation would allow for much of the growth. "That would translate to more than 600,000 people whom Amazon didn't need to hire, the Times reported. Another conclusion of the analysis is that Walmart (NYSE: WMT) and UPS (NYSE: UPS) will be able to do the same. If the process works, add countless numbers of smaller companies that can make similar business decisions,

Elon Musk says he can build billions of his Optimus robots, which will handle most human tasks. He has even stopped producing his Model S and Model X vehicles so he can use the factory that builds them to manufacture the first generation of Optimus. NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) CEO Jensen Huang recently added, "Physical AI has arrived — every industrial company will become a robotics company."

What is at stake? Around the world, certainly tens of millions of jobs, if these three CEOs (or chairman) are close to correct. It raises, once again, how the world handles this level of unemployment.

Liu's comment is one more that supports the idea that AI will cause an employment apocalypse.

Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.

View Comments (15)

ATTACHMENT FOUR – FROM AI OVERVIEW

AI OVERVIEW

Robots are not outright replacing humans; instead, they are taking over specific repetitive, dangerous, or high-constraint tasks. The shift is focused on task-level automation rather than entire job roles, with intelligent systems augmenting human work to boost productivity and handle physical AI and logistic demands. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Targeted Industries and Roles

· Logistics & Warehousing: Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) and robotic sorting systems are heavily deployed in fulfillment centers to transport and load goods. Companies are already retrofitting plants with these systems. [1, 2, 3]

· Manufacturing & Automotive: Humanoid robots are being integrated into active production lines for material handling and component sorting. [1]

· Software Development: Generative AI and automated reasoning tools are automating structured, straightforward programming, reducing entry-level coding tasks. [1]

· Specialized Healthcare: Robots assist highly skilled professionals, such as performing intricate microsurgery with greater precision. [1]

For insight into how companies are actively integrating humanoid robots into active factory settings to work alongside employees see below,

ATTACHMENT FIVE – FROM CNBC

AI ROBOTS MAY OUTNUMBER WORKERS IN A FEW DECADES AS FIRMS RAMP UP INVESTMENT

By Sawdah Bhaimiya Published Mon, Feb 23 20269:26 AM ESTUpdated Tue, Feb 24 20263:21 AM EST

· A former Citi executive predicted that there will be more AI robots than human workers in just a few decades.

· “You can already buy a humanoid today, which gives you a payback period versus human workers of less than 10 weeks,” the executive told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Monday.

· McKinsey & Company predicts that its company will have an equal number of human workers and AI agents within 18 months.

AI robots will exceed the working population within a few decades as more firms adopt AI agents and continue to squeeze costs, a former Citi executive warned on Monday.

Rob Garlick, Citi Global Insights’ former head of innovation, technology, and future of work, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” that as leaders continue to prioritize profitability, their human workers will be left in the dust.

“We have a leadership system in the economic terms and business terms that celebrates profitability,” Garlick said in a conversation with CNBC’s Steve Sedgwick and Ben Boulos.

Garlick, who recently authored “AI – Anarchy or Abundance? Why the Future of Work Needs Pro-Human Leaders,” explained that his previous research at Citi showed that the number of AI robots is going to skyrocket as a result of these business decisions.

“We’re going to go over the next couple of decades to more moving robots than the working population, and then you add on agents, little agents, and it is going to explode,” he added.

AI robots ranging from humanoids to domestic cleaning robots and autonomous vehicles are forecasted to increase to 1.3 billion by 2035, according to a 2024 Citi report led by Garlick. The number of AI robots would quickly increase to over 4 billion by 2050, per the insights.

The Citi report even measured how long it would take for a robot to pay for itself through the money saved by replacing a human worker, for example, a $15,000 robot would break even in 3.8 weeks for a $41 an hour human job, or 21.6 weeks for a $7.25 human job. Meanwhile, a robot that costs $35,000 would have a payback time of 8.9 weeks for a $41 an hour human job.

THE RISE OF AI AGENTS

Microsoft’s Work Trend Index report showed that 80% of leaders expect AI agents to be largely integrated into their AI strategy within the next 12 to 18 months. AI agents are a type of software program that can make decisions and complete tasks without much human direction.

Meanwhile, McKinsey & Company’s global managing partner, Bob Sternfels, noted that the company currently employs 20,000 agents alongside 40,000 humans, in an interview with Harvard Business Review. A year prior, the company only had 3,000 agents, and Sternfels predicts that in 18 months from now, there will be an equal number of employees and agents.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk also shared similar views at the World Economic Forum’s flagship conference in Davos last month, saying that AI will likely surpass human intelligence by the end of this year.

“My prediction is, in the benign scenario of the future, that we will actually make so many robots in AI that they will actually saturate all human... there will be such an abundance of goods and services because my prediction is that there’ll be more robots than people,” Musk said.

Fears around AI replacing workers have mounted in the past year as major firms, including Amazon, Salesforce, Accenture, Heineken, and Lufthansa, have cited the technology as part of the reason for eliminating thousands of roles.

In the U.S., AI played a role in almost 55,000 layoffs in the U.S. in 2025, according to December data from consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

However, some leaders are striking a more positive tone. Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang predicts that the “AI boom” will create six-figure salaries for the workers building AI and chip factories. Huang said the technology will boost skilled trade work, such as for plumbers, electricians, construction, and steel workers.

ATTACHMENT SIX – FROM HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

LOSING HUMANITY

The Case against Killer Robots

November 19, 2012

This 50-page report outlines concerns about these fully autonomous weapons, which would inherently lack human qualities that provide legal and non-legal checks on the killing of civilians. In addition, the obstacles to holding anyone accountable for harm caused by the weapons would weaken the law’s power to deter future violations.

Summary

Ban ‘Killer Robots’ Before It’s Too Late

With the rapid development and proliferation of robotic weapons, machines are starting to take the place of humans on the battlefield. Some military and robotics experts have predicted that “killer robots”—fully autonomous weapons that could select and engage targets without human intervention—could be developed within 20 to 30 years. At present, military officials generally say that humans will retain some level of supervision over decisions to use lethal force, but their statements often leave open the possibility that robots could one day have the ability to make such choices on their own power. Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) believe that such revolutionary weapons would not be consistent with international humanitarian law and would increase the risk of death or injury to civilians during armed conflict. A preemptive prohibition on their development and use is needed.

A relatively small community of specialists has hotly debated the benefits and dangers of fully autonomous weapons. Military personnel, scientists, ethicists, philosophers, and lawyers have contributed to the discussion. They have evaluated autonomous weapons from a range of perspectives, including military utility, cost, politics, and the ethics of delegating life-and-death decisions to a machine. According to Philip Alston, then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, however, “the rapid growth of these technologies, especially those with lethal capacities and those with decreased levels of human control, raise serious concerns that have been almost entirely unexamined by human rights or humanitarian actors.”[1] It is time for the broader public to consider the potential advantages and threats of fully autonomous weapons.

The primary concern of Human Rights Watch and IHRC is the impact fully autonomous weapons would have on the protection of civilians during times of war. This report analyzes whether the technology would comply with international humanitarian law and preserve other checks on the killing of civilians. It finds that fully autonomous weapons would not only be unable to meet legal standards but would also undermine essential non-legal safeguards for civilians. Our research and analysis strongly conclude that fully autonomous weapons should be banned and that governments should urgently pursue that end.

Definitions and Technology

Although experts debate the precise definition, robots are essentially machines that have the power to sense and act based on how they are programmed.[2] They all possess some degree of autonomy, which means the ability of a machine to operate without human supervision. The exact level of autonomy can vary greatly. Robotic weapons, which are unmanned, are often divided into three categories based on the amount of human involvement in their actions:

· Human-in-the-Loop Weapons: Robots that can select targets and deliver force only with a human command;

· Human-on-the-Loop Weapons: Robots that can select targets and deliver force under the oversight of a human operator who can override the robots’ actions; and

· Human-out-of-the-Loop Weapons: Robots that are capable of selecting targets and delivering force without any human input or interaction.

In this report, the terms “robot” and “robotic weapons” encompass all three types of unmanned weapons, in other words everything from remote-controlled drones to weapons with complete autonomy. The term “fully autonomous weapon” refers to both out-of-the-loop weapons and those that allow a human on the loop, but that are effectively out-of-the-loop weapons because the supervision is so limited.[3] A range of other terms have been used to describe fully autonomous weapons, including “lethal autonomous robots” and “killer robots.”[4]

Fully autonomous weapons, which are the focus of this report, do not yet exist, but technology is moving in the direction of their development and precursors are already in use. Many countries employ weapons defense systems that are programmed to respond automatically to threats from incoming munitions. Other precursors to fully autonomous weapons, either deployed or in development, have antipersonnel functions and are in some cases designed to be mobile and offensive weapons. Militaries value these weapons because they require less manpower, reduce the risks to their own soldiers, and can expedite response time. The examples described in this report show that a number of countries, most notably the United States, are coming close to producing the technology to make complete autonomy for robots a reality and have a strong interest in achieving this goal.

SAFEGUARDS FOR CIVILIAN PROTECTION

According to international law and best practices, states should evaluate new or modified weapons to ensure they do not violate the provisions of international humanitarian law, also called the laws of war.[5] States should conduct weapons reviews at the earliest stages of development and continue them up through any production decision. Given military plans to move toward increasing autonomy for robots, states should now undertake formal assessments of the impacts of proposed fully autonomous weapons and technology that could lead to them even if not yet weaponized.

As this report shows, robots with complete autonomy would be incapable of meeting international humanitarian law standards. The rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity are especially important tools for protecting civilians from the effects of war, and fully autonomous weapons would not be able to abide by those rules. Roboticists have proposed different mechanisms to promote autonomous weapons’ compliance with these rules; options include developing an ability to process quantitative algorithms to analyze combat situations and “strong artificial intelligence (AI),” which would try to mimic human thought. But even with such compliance mechanisms, fully autonomous weapons would lack the human qualities necessary to meet the rules of international humanitarian law. These rules can be complex and entail subjective decision making, and their observance often requires human judgment. For example, distinguishing between a fearful civilian and a threatening enemy combatant requires a soldier to understand the intentions behind a human’s actions, something a robot could not do. In addition, fully autonomous weapons would likely contravene the Martens Clause, which prohibits weapons that run counter to the “dictates of public conscience.”

By eliminating human involvement in the decision to use lethal force in armed conflict, fully autonomous weapons would undermine other, non-legal protections for civilians. First, robots would not be restrained by human emotions and the capacity for compassion, which can provide an important check on the killing of civilians. Emotionless robots could, therefore, serve as tools of repressive dictators seeking to crack down on their own people without fear their troops would turn on them. While proponents argue robots would be less apt to harm civilians as a result of fear or anger, emotions do not always lead to irrational killing. In fact, a person who identifies and empathizes with another human being, something a robot cannot do, will be more reluctant to harm that individual. Second, although relying on machines to fight war would reduce military casualties—a laudable goal—it would also make it easier for political leaders to resort to force since their own troops would not face death or injury. The likelihood of armed conflict could thus increase, while the burden of war would shift from combatants to civilians caught in the crossfire.

Finally, the use of fully autonomous weapons raises serious questions of accountability, which would erode another established tool for civilian protection. Given that such a robot could identify a target and launch an attack on its own power, it is unclear who should be held responsible for any unlawful actions it commits. Options include the military commander that deployed it, the programmer, the manufacturer, and the robot itself, but all are unsatisfactory. It would be difficult and arguably unfair to hold the first three actors liable, and the actor that actually committed the crime—the robot—would not be punishable. As a result, these options for accountability would fail to deter violations of international humanitarian law and to provide victims meaningful retributive justice.

Recommendations:

Based on the threats fully autonomous weapons would pose to civilians, Human Rights Watch and IHRC make the following recommendations, which are expanded on at the end of this report:

To All States

· Prohibit the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons through an international legally binding instrument.

· Adopt national laws and policies to prohibit the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons.

· Commence reviews of technologies and components that could lead to fully autonomous weapons. These reviews should take place at the very beginning of the development process and continue throughout the development and testing phases.

To Roboticists and Others Involved in the Development of Robotic Weapons

· Establish a professional code of conduct governing the research and development of autonomous robotic weapons, especially those capable of becoming fully autonomous, in order to ensure that legal and ethical concerns about their use in armed conflict are adequately considered at all stages of technological development.

I. UNMANNED ROBOTS AND THE EVOLUTION TOWARD FULLY AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS

Robots are not new to the battlefield, but their expanding role encroaches upon traditional human responsibilities more than ever before. Most visibly, the use of US Predator, Reaper, and other drones in Afghanistan and elsewhere has provided an early sign of the distancing of human soldiers from their targets. Often piloted from halfway around the globe, these robotic aerial vehicles provide surveillance and identify targets before a human decides to pull the trigger, commanding the drone to deliver lethal force.

In keeping with the escalating use of aerial drones, government planning documents and spending figures indicate that the military of the future will be increasingly unmanned. In recent years, for example, the US Department of Defense has spent approximately $6 billion annually on the research and development, procurement, operations, and maintenance of unmanned systems for war, and that figure is likely to increase rapidly.[6] Drones are seen as just the beginning of a technological revolution. As robotic warfare expert Peter W. Singer suggests, “Predators are merely the first generation—the equivalent of the Model T Ford or the Wright Brothers’ Flyer.”[7]

Unmanned technology possesses at least some level of autonomy, which refers to the ability of a machine to operate without human supervision.[8] At lower levels, autonomy can consist simply of the ability to return to base in case of a malfunction. If a weapon were fully autonomous, it would “identify targets and … trigger itself.”[9] Today’s robotic weapons still have a human being in the decision-making loop, requiring human intervention before the weapons take any lethal action. The aerial drones currently in operation, for instance, depend on a person to make the final decision whether to fire on a target. As this chapter illustrates, however, the autonomy of weapons that have been deployed or are under development is growing quickly. If this trend continues, humans could start to fade out of the decision-making loop, retaining a limited oversight role—or perhaps no role at all.

PLANS FOR AUTONOMY

Military policy documents, especially from the United States, reflect clear plans to increase the autonomy of weapons systems. In its Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2011-2036, the US Department of Defense wrote that it “envisions unmanned systems seamlessly operating with manned systems while gradually reducing the degree of human control and decision making required for the unmanned portion of the force structure.”[10] The US plans cover developments in ground, air, and underwater systems. A US roadmap specifically for ground systems stated, “There is an ongoing push to increase UGV [unmanned ground vehicle] autonomy, with a current goal of ‘supervised autonomy,’ but with an ultimate goal of full autonomy.”[11] According to the US Air Force, “[i]ncreasingly humans will no longer be ‘in the loop’ but rather ‘on the loop’—monitoring the execution of certain decisions. Simultaneously, advances in AI will enable systems to make combat decisions and act within legal and policy constraints without necessarily requiring human input.”[12] A 2004 US Navy planning document on unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs) stated, “While admittedly futuristic in vision, one can conceive of scenarios where UUVs sense, track, identify, target, and destroy an enemy—all autonomously.”[13] Other countries are also devoting attention and money to unmanned systems. [14]

While emphasizing the desirability of increased autonomy, many of these military documents also stress that human supervision over the use of deadly force will remain, at least in the immediate future. According to the US Department of Defense, “[f]or the foreseeable future, decisions over the use of force and the choice of which individual targets to engage with lethal force will be retained under human control in unmanned systems.”[15] The UK Ministry of Defence stated in 2011 that it “currently has no intention to develop systems that operate without human intervention in the weapon command and control chain.”[16] Such statements are laudable but do not preclude a change in that policy as the capacity for autonomy evolves.

Although the timeline for that evolution is debated, some military experts argue that the technology for fully autonomous weapons could be achieved within decades. The US Air Force predicted that “by 2030 machine capabilities will have increased to the point that humans will have become the weakest component in a wide array of systems and processes.”[17] The UK Ministry of Defence estimated in 2011 that artificial intelligence “as opposed to complex and clever automated systems” could be achieved in 5 to 15 years and that fully autonomous swarms could be available in 2025.[18] Other experts have quoted similar estimates while cautioning that intelligence for weapons that equals that of a human is much further off, and many experts believe it is impossible.[19]

The next two sections examine the development of increasingly autonomous weapons. They are not the focus of this report, which instead highlights the risks posed by fully autonomous weapons. They show, however, that autonomous technology already exists and is evolving rapidly. An analysis of these weapons also leads to the conclusion that development of greater autonomy should proceed cautiously, if at all.

AUTOMATIC WEAPONS DEFENSE SYSTEMS

Automatic weapons defense systems represent one step on the road to autonomy. These systems are designed to sense an incoming munition, such as a missile or rocket, and to respond automatically to neutralize the threat. Human involvement, when it exists at all, is limited to accepting or overriding the computer’s plan of action in a matter of seconds.

The US Navy’s MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System is designed to identify and fire at incoming missiles or threatening aircraft. This automatic weapons defense system, shown during a live fire exercise, is one step on the road to full autonomy. Photograph by Chief Fire Controlman Brian Kirkwood, US Navy.

The United States has several such systems. The US Navy’s MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System, the earliest model, was first installed on a ship in 1980, and modified versions are still widely used by the United States and its allies.[20] It is designed to sense approaching anti-ship missiles or threatening aircraft and respond with fire from two 20mm guns with six rotating barrels.[21] The guns each fire 3,000 to 4,500 rounds per minute.[22] More recent models aim to defend against small gunboats, artillery, and helicopters.[23] The Navy describes the Phalanx as “the only deployed close-in weapon system capable of autonomously performing its own search, detect, evaluation, track, engage and kill assessment functions.”[24]

The Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar System (C-RAM) is a US land-based version of the Phalanx. The United States first deployed it at forward operating bases in Iraq in 2005. Twenty-two systems reportedly had more than 100 successful intercepts of rockets, artillery, and mortars [25] and provided more than 2,000 warnings to troops.[26] Like the Phalanx, it can fire 20mm rounds from a six-barrel gun at an incoming munition.[27] According to one US Army publication, after the C-RAM detects a threat, “a human operator certif[ies] the target,”[28] but that would have to happen almost instantaneously in order for the C-RAM to destroy the incoming munition in time.

Other countries have developed comparable weapons defense systems. Israel has deployed its Iron Dome near the border with Gaza and in Eilat, near the Sinai Peninsula.[29] It uses radar to identify short-range rockets and 155mm artillery shells up to 70 kilometers away.[30] It is armed with 20 Tamir interceptor missiles to respond to such threats, and extended range versions of those missiles are reportedly scheduled to be available in early 2013.[31] Israel has received financial support for the Iron Dome from the United States, and the US Department of Defense stated that the system, which reportedly has more than an 80 percent success rate, “has shot down scores of missiles that would have killed Israeli civilians since it was fielded in April 2011.”[32] In a split second after detecting an incoming threat, the Iron Dome sends a recommended response to the threat to an operator. The operator must decide immediately whether or not to give the command to fire in order for the Iron Dome to be effective.[33]

Another example of an automatic weapons defense system is the NBS Mantis, which Germany designed to protect its forward operating bases in Afghanistan. The “short-range force protection system will detect, track and shoot the projectiles within a close range of the target base.” Within 4.5 seconds after detecting targets about three kilometers away, it can fire six 35mm automatic guns at 1,000 rounds per minute.[34] The system has a “very high degree of automation, including automatic target detection and engagement processes which the operator only has to monitor.”[35] Sources were unclear whether “monitoring” also allowed the operator to override the process.

These weapon defense systems have a significant degree of autonomy because they can sense and attack targets with minimal human input. Technically, they fall short of being fully autonomous and can better be classified as automatic. Robotics professor Noel Sharkey defines an automatic robot as one that “carries out a pre-programmed sequence of operations or moves in a structured environment. A good example is a robot arm painting a car.” An autonomous robot, he continues, “is similar to an automatic machine except that it operates in open and unstructured environments. The robot is still controlled by a program but now receives information from its sensors that enable it to adjust the speed and direction of its motors (and actuators) as specified by the program.”[36] Nevertheless, while not the focus of this report, these automatic defense systems can be seen as a step toward greater autonomy in weapons.

As weapons that operate with limited intervention from humans, automatic weapons defense systems warrant further study. On the one hand, they seem to present less danger to civilians because they are stationary and defensive weapons that are designed to destroy munitions, not launch offensive attacks.[37] On the other hand, commentators have questioned the effectiveness of the human supervision in the C-RAM and other automatic weapons defense systems. Writing about the C-RAM, Singer notes, “The human is certainly part of the decision making but mainly in the initial programming of the robot. During the actual operation of the machine, the operator really only exercises veto power, and a decision to override a robot’s decision must be made in only half a second, with few willing to challenge what they view as the better judgment of the machine.”[38] When faced with such a situation, people often experience “automation bias,” which is “the tendency to trust an automated system, in spite of evidence that the system is unreliable, or wrong in a particular case.”[39] In addition, automatic weapons defense systems have the potential to endanger civilians when used in populated areas. For example, even the successful destruction of an incoming threat can produce shrapnel that causes civilian casualties.[40] Thus these systems raise concerns about the protection of civilians that full autonomy would only magnify.

OTHER PRECURSORS TO FULLY AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS

Other unmanned weapons systems that currently retain humans in or on the loop are also potential precursors to fully autonomous weapons. Militaries have already deployed ground robots, and air models are under development.[41] If their potential for full autonomy in the use of lethal force were realized, these systems would pose a greater threat to civilians than automatic weapons defense systems. As currently designed, the systems discussed below would all have the capability to target humans. In addition, the increased mobility and offensive nature of the air systems in particular would give them more range and make them harder to control than weapons like the Phalanx.

South Korea and Israel have developed and started to use sentry robots that operate on the ground. South Korea installed SGR-1s, costing $200,000 each, along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) for testing in 2010.[42] These stationary robots can sense people in the DMZ with heat and motion sensors and send warnings back to a command center.

The South Korean SGR-1 sentry robot, a precursor to a fully autonomous weapon, can detect people in the Demilitarized Zone and, if a human grants the command, fire its weapons. The robot is shown here during a test with a surrendering enemy soldier. © 2007 Kim Dong-Joo/AFP/Getty Images

From there, human soldiers can communicate with the individual identified and decide whether to fire the robot sentry’s 5.5mm machine gun or 40mm automatic grenade launcher.[43] The SGR-1’s sensors can detect people two miles away during the day and one mile away at night. Its guns can hit targets two miles away.[44] At present, the sentry has autonomous surveillance capabilities, but it cannot fire without a human command.[45] The journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers reported, however, “[T]he robot does have an automatic mode, in which it can make the decision.”[46]

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has deployed Sentry Tech systems along Israel’s 60 kilometer border with Gaza. The sentry detects movement and sends signals to a facility “at a distant location.”[47] Soldiers then evaluate the data and decide whether to fire at the target. The Sentry Tech currently has a 12.7mm or a .50 caliber machine gun with a kill zone of about 1 to 1.5 kilometers.[48] To increase its range to several kilometers, the IDF is considering adding anti-armor missiles.[49] Sentry Tech is reportedly designed to defend against people trying to cross the border as well as sniper and rocket attacks.[50] In 2007, Jane’s Defence Weekly described Sentry Tech as “revolutionary” because it could not only detect threats but also engage them.[51] While the system is currently operated by remote control, an IDF division commander told Defense News: “[A]t least in the initial phases of deployment, we’re going to have to keep the man in the loop.”[52] The commander thus implied that human involvement may not always be the case.

Israel has also deployed the Guardium, “a semi-autonomous unmanned ground system,” which is reportedly used for patrolling Israel’s border with Gaza. It can carry lethal or non-lethal payloads. According to the manufacturer G-NIUS’s brochure, “[t]he Guardium UGV™ was designed to perform routine missions, such as programmed patrols along border routes, but also to autonomously react to unscheduled events, in line with a set of guidelines specifically programmed for the site characteristics and security doctrine.”[53] While the brochure implies there is some level of human oversight because it refers to stationary, mobile, and portable control terminals, it also notes that the Guardium can have “autonomous mission execution.”[54]

Unmanned aircraft are moving beyond existing drones to have greater autonomy. The US Navy has commissioned the X-47B, which will be able to take off from and land on an aircraft carrier and refuel on its own power.[55] It was tested multiple times in 2012 and is scheduled in 2013 to do a trial landing on a carrier, “one of aviation’s most difficult maneuvers.”[56] Although as a prototype it will not carry weapons, it has reportedly been designed for eventual “combat purposes,”[57] and it has two weapons bays with a total payload capacity of 4,500 pounds.[58] Humans remain on the loop for the time being, but their role in the flight of the X-47B is limited. Northrop Grumman described it as a system that “takes off, flies a preprogrammed mission, and then returns to base in response to mouse clicks from its mission operator. The mission operator monitors the X-47B air vehicle’s operation, but does not actively ‘fly’ it via remote control as is the case for other unmanned systems currently in operation.”[59] The Los Angeles Times called it “a paradigm shift in warfare, one that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. With the drone’s ability to be flown autonomously by onboard computers, it could usher in an era when death and destruction can be dealt by machines operating semi-independently.”[60]

The US Navy’s X-47B, currently undergoing testing, has been commissioned to fly with greater autonomy than existing drones. While the prototype will not carry weapons, it has two weapons bays that could make later models serve a combat function. Photograph by DARPA.

The United Kingdom unveiled a prototype of its Taranis combat aircraft in 2010. Designers described it as “an autonomous and stealthy unmanned aircraft” that aims to strike “targets with real precision at long range, even in another continent.”[61] Because Taranis is only a prototype, it is not armed, but it includes two weapons bays and could eventually carry bombs or missiles.[62] Similar to existing drones, Taranis would presumably be designed to launch attacks against persons as well as materiel. It would also be able to defend itself from enemy aircraft.[63] At this point, the Taranis is expected to retain a human in the loop. The UK Ministry of Defence stated, “Should such systems enter into service, they will at all times be under the control of highly trained military crews on the ground.”[64] Asked if the Taranis would one day choose its own targets, Royal Air Force Air Chief Marshal Simon Bryant responded, “This is a very sensitive area we are paying a lot of attention to.”[65] He thus left the door open to the possibility of greater autonomy in the future.[66]

The United Kingdom’s Taranis combat aircraft, whose prototype was unveiled in 2010, is designed to strike distant targets, “even in another continent.” While the Ministry of Defence has stated that humans will remain in the loop, the Taranis exemplifies the move toward increased autonomy. © 2010 Associated Press

Other countries have also developed or procured unmanned aircraft that are precursors to fully autonomous weapons. The Israeli Harpy, for example, has been described as a combination of an unmanned aerial vehicle and a cruise missile. It is designed to fly “autonomously to the patrol area.” Once there, it seeks to detect hostile radar signals and then destroy a target with a high explosive warhead.[67]

The US military’s SWARMS technology would also involve autonomous aircraft, but in this case, many such aircraft would navigate in a synchronized way with a human controller directing them as a group “swarm” rather than individually.[68] While initially designed to gather intelligence,[69] SWARMS could one day undertake offensive operations. For example, their numbers, designed to be a force multiplier, could overwhelm an air defense system.[70] At least at this point, designers envision that SWARMS would have a human on the loop. Tests done in August 2012 showed that a single “operator on the ground, using only a laptop and a military radio, can command an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) ‘swarm.’”[71] The ability of a single operator to have effective oversight of dozens or even hundreds of aircraft seems implausible to many experts.[72] As a result, a swarm could operate as a de facto out-of-the-loop weapon.

Because humans still retain control over the decisions to use lethal force, the above weapons systems are not, at least yet, fully autonomous, but they are moving rapidly in that direction. Human oversight is minimal, especially in the case of SWARMS. At the same time, technology is developing that allows weapons to identify targets and travel to and around a battle zone on their own power. Proponents tout military advantages, such as a reduction in the number of human troops required for military operations, the availability of sentries not influenced by laziness or fear, and faster response time.[73] Technological developments combined with these advantages of autonomy create incentives for states to develop weapons with greater autonomy.

Critics have two major concerns, however. First, they question the effectiveness of the existing limited human oversight.[74] Second, they worry that the next step will be to grant these systems control over launching attacks. Speaking of Taranis, for example, Sharkey, a computer scientist and vocal critic of fully autonomous weapons, said, “But warning bells ring for me when they talk about Taranis being ‘a fully autonomous intelligent system’ together with applications in ‘deep missions’ and having a ‘deep target attack’ capability…. We need to know if this means the robot planes will choose their own targets and destroy them—because they certainly will not have the intelligence to discriminate between civilians and combatants.”[75] Control systems specialist Nick Jennings did not object to SWARMS technology as a surveillance tool, but he warned, “We don’t want UAVs selecting targets and working out how best to carry out an attack.”[76] Full autonomy would give weapons this power to decide when to fire.

Given that some believe that full autonomy could become a reality within 20 or 30 years, it is essential to consider the implications of the technology as soon as possible. Both supporters and skeptics have agreed on this point.[77] The UK Ministry of Defence wrote, “[I]f we wish to allow systems to make independent decisions without human intervention, some considerable work will be required to show how such systems will operate legally.”[78] Philip Alston, when serving as the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, warned that “[u]rgent consideration needs to be given to the legal, ethical and moral implications of the development and use of robot technologies, especially but not limited to uses for warfare.”[79] The rest of this report will explore these implications, particularly as they relate to the protection of civilians during times of armed conflict.

II. ARTICLE 36 AND THE REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW NEW WEAPONS

States should review new and modified weapons for their compliance with international law. This rule is codified in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which states:

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of war, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.[80]

Whether considered new types of weapons or modifications of ones that have greater human supervision, autonomous weapons should be subject to such reviews. In fact, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) specifically highlighted autonomous weapons as an area of concern in its authoritative commentary on Article 36. The ICRC wrote, “The use of long distance, remote control weapons, or weapons connected to sensors positioned in the field, leads to the automation of the battlefield in which the soldier plays an increasingly less important role…. [A]ll predictions agree that if man does not master technology, but allows it to master him, he will be destroyed by technology.”[81] This statement from 1987 raised alarms about the risks of partly autonomous weapons. The warning is even more apt for fully autonomous models.

All states, whether or not they are party to Protocol I, should conduct weapons reviews. Some experts contend that Article 36 is customary international law binding on all states, while others see it as a best practice.[82] The ICRC argues that the obligation applies to all states because “the faithful and responsible application of its international law obligations would require a State to ensure that the new weapons, means and methods of warfare it develops or acquires will not violate these obligations.”[83] Regardless of their opinion of Article 36’s legal status, many weapons producing states have accepted the obligation to review. The list includesthe United States, which is not party to Protocol I but has been a leader in robot research.[84]

The review of weapons, including robotic ones, should take place at the earliest stage possible and continue through any development that proceeds. For a producing state, “reviews should take place at the stage of the conception/design of the weapon, and thereafter at the stages of its technological development (development of prototypes and testing), and in any case before entering into the production contract.”[85] Evaluations of weapons being modified should similarly be started early in the process.[86] States must also review weapons that they plan to acquire rather than produce themselves. Given that certain states, such as the United States, are putting large amounts of money into research and development of autonomous weapons, the time to begin reviews is now. In addition to being required, an early assessment is in a state’s interest because weapons development can be expensive and it makes sense to avoid costs that may produce only an unlawful weapon.[87]

When determining if a review is necessary, states should define “weapon” broadly to encompass major components and final products. There has been some concern that the United States dodged a review of at least one new unmanned system by arguing that evaluations of its individual components were sufficient. The Judge Advocate General’s office reportedly said that it did not need to review a newly weaponized Predator drone because both the Predator, when used for surveillance, and the Hellfire missile with which it was to be armed, had previously passed reviews when considered separately.[88] An ICRC guide to Article 36, however, says reviews should cover “an existing weapon that is modified in a way that alters its function, or a weapon that has already passed a legal review but that is subsequently modified.”[89] This rule is especially important for robots because they are complex systems that often combine a multitude of components that work differently in different combinations.

While international legal standards encourage states to review new weapon systems for their compliance with international law, the United States said it did not need to review the newly weaponized Predator drone, shown here firing a Hellfire missile. It argued that the drone and missile had already received approval separately, at a time when the Predator was used for surveillance.

Reviews should also be sensitive to the fact that some robotic technology, while not inherently harmful, has the potential one day to be weaponized. As soon as such robots are weaponized, states should initiate their regular, rigorous review process. It would be even better to review this technology before weaponization to ensure that robots do not get to that stage, especially since states are more reluctant to give up weapons later in the development process.[90] Such reviews would be designed to preempt fully autonomous weapons that are inconsistent with international humanitarian law, not to block all work in robotics.

The purpose of a weapons review is to determine if the new or modified weapon would be prohibited by international law. First, states should consider prohibitions under existing weapons treaties.[91] While it is possible that fully autonomous weapons could include components banned or regulated by such treaties, there is no existing treaty that prohibits them as a class.[92] States must then evaluate whether a weapon runs counter to other treaties or customary law. Particularly significant for this discussion are the rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity, the cornerstones of international humanitarian law, all of which are accepted as customary.[93] The Martens Clause, which prohibits weapons that run counter to the “dictates of public conscience,” may also be relevant.[94]

The requirement of distinction is arguably the bedrock principle of international humanitarian law. According to customary international law, articulated in Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, combatants must “distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.”[95] Attacks that fail to distinguish are indiscriminate and unlawful. Indiscriminate attacks include those that do not target a specific military objective, “employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective,” or “employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited.”[96]

International humanitarian law also prohibits disproportionate attacks, in which civilian harm outweighs military benefits. Protocol I defines a disproportionate attack as one that “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”[97] Determination of proportionality requires a subjective balancing of the military and civilian impacts of an attack as anticipated before it is launched.

Although not clearly articulated in a single treaty, the concept of military necessity “infuses” international humanitarian law.[98] It provides that lethal force may only be used for the explicit purpose of defeating an adversary, it must be proportionate, and it “cannot justify violation of the other rules of [international humanitarian law].”[99] As one scholar described it, “Military necessity dictates that military force should only be used against the enemy to the extent necessary for winning the war.”[100] For example, attacking surrendering or wounded troops would be unlawful because it is not essential for victory and is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.[101]

Finally, reviews should assess a weapon under the Martens Clause.[102] The clause dates back to the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and was codified more recently in Article 1(2) of Protocol 1, which states:

In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.[103]

In other words, even if a means of war does not violate an existing treaty or customary law, it can still be found unlawful if it contravenes the principles of humanity or the dictates of public conscience. The International Court of Justice, which found the rule to be customary international law, noted that it “had proved to be an effective means of addressing rapid evolution of military technology.”[104] The clause is a useful tool for evaluating and governing emerging weapons because they often develop faster than international law.[105]

States interested in developing or acquiring fully autonomous weapons should initiate detailed legal reviews of any existing or proposed technology that could lead to such robots. These reviews should begin in the early stages of development, address all configurations of the weapons, and consider such key principles of international humanitarian law as distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. They should also take into account the Martens Clause. States should then cease development of any weapons that fail to meet legal requirements before they become so invested in the technology that they will be reluctant to give it up.

III. International Humanitarian Law Compliance Mechanisms

Proponents of fully autonomous weapons have recognized that such new robots would have to comply with international humanitarian law. Supporters have therefore proposed a variety of compliance mechanisms, two of which will be discussed below, that seek to prevent any violations of the laws of war.[106]

ARKIN’S “ETHICAL GOVERNOR”

Ronald Arkin, a roboticist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has articulated the “most comprehensive architecture” for a compliance mechanism.[107] Recognizing the importance of new weapons meeting legal standards, Arkin writes, “The application of lethal force as a response must be constrained by the LOW [law of war] and ROE [rules of engagement] before it can be employed by the autonomous system.”[108] He argues that such constraints can be achieved through an “ethical governor.”

The ethical governor is a complex proposal that would essentially require robots to follow a two-step process before firing. First, a fully autonomous weapon with this mechanism must evaluate the information it senses and determine whether an attack is prohibited under international humanitarian law and the rules of engagement. If an attack violates a constraint, such as the requirement that an attack must distinguish between combatant and noncombatant, it cannot go forward. If it does not violate a constraint, it can still only proceed if attacking the target is required under operational orders.[109] The evaluation at this stage consists of binary yes-or-no answers.

Under the second step, the autonomous robot must assess the attack under the proportionality test.[110] The ethical governor quantifies a variety of criteria, such as the likelihood of a militarily effective strike and the possibility of damage to civilians or civilian objects, based on technical data. Then it uses an algorithm that combines statistical data with “incoming perceptual information” to evaluate the proposed strike “in a utilitarian manner.”[111] The robot can fire only if it finds the attack “satisfies all ethical constraints and minimizes collateral damage in relation to the military necessity of the target.”[112]

Arkin argues that with the ethical governor, fully autonomous weapons would be able to comply with international humanitarian law better than humans. For example, they would be able to sense more information and process it faster than humans could. They would not be inhibited by the desire for self-preservation. They would not be influenced by emotions such as anger or fear. They could also monitor the ethical behavior of their human counterparts.[113] While optimistic, Arkin recognizes that it is premature to determine whether effective compliance with this mechanism is FEASIBLE.[114]

“STRONG AI”

Another, even more ambitious approach strives to “match and possibly exceed human intelligence” in engineering international humanitarian law-compliant autonomous robots.[115] The UK Ministry of Defence has recognized that “some form of artificial intelligence [AI]” will be necessary to ensure autonomous weapons fully comply with principles of international humanitarian law.[116] It defines a machine with “true artificial intelligence” as having “a similar or greater capacity to think like a human” and distinguishes that intelligence from “complex and clever automated systems.”[117] John McGinnis, a Northwestern University law professor, advocates for the development of robotic weapons with “strong AI,” which he defines as the “creation of machines with the general human capacity for abstract thought and problem solving.”[118] McGinnis argues that “AI-driven robots on the battlefield may actually lead to less destruction, becoming a civilizing force in wars as well as an aid to civilization in its fight against terrorism.”[119]

Such a system presumes that computing power will approach the cognitive power of the human brain, but many experts believe this assumption may be more of an aspiration than a reality. Whether and when scientists could develop strong AI is “still very much disputed.”[120] While some scientists have argued that strong AI could be developed in the twenty-first century, so far it has been “the Holy Grail in AI research: highly desirable, but still unattainable.”[121] Even if the development of fully autonomous weapons with human-like cognition became feasible, they would lack certain human qualities, such as emotion, compassion, and the ability to understand humans. As a result, the widespread adoption of such weapons would still raise troubling legal concerns and pose other threats to civilians. As detailed in the following sections, Human Rights Watch and IHRC believe human oversight of robotic weapons is necessary to ensure adequate protection of civilians in armed conflict.

IV. CHALLENGES TO COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

An initial evaluation of fully autonomous weapons shows that even with the proposed compliance mechanisms, such robots would appear to be incapable of abiding by the key principles of international humanitarian law. They would be unable to follow the rules of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity and might contravene the Martens Clause. Even strong proponents of fully autonomous weapons have acknowledged that finding ways to meet those rules of international humanitarian law are “outstanding issues” and that the challenge of distinguishing a soldier from a civilian is one of several “daunting problems.”[122] Full autonomy would strip civilians of protections from the effects of war that are guaranteed under the law.

DISTINCTION

The rule of distinction, which requires armed forces to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, poses one of the greatest obstacles to fully autonomous weapons complying with international humanitarian law. Fully autonomous weapons would not have the ability to sense or interpret the difference between soldiers and civilians, especially in contemporary combat environments.

Changes in the character of armed conflict over the past several decades, from state-to-state warfare to asymmetric conflicts characterized by urban battles fought among civilian populations, have made distinguishing between legitimate targets and noncombatants increasingly difficult. States likely to field autonomous weapons first—the United States, Israel, and European countries—have been fighting predominately counterinsurgency and unconventional wars in recent years. In these conflicts, combatants often do not wear uniforms or insignia. Instead they seek to blend in with the civilian population and are frequently identified by their conduct, or their “direct participation in hostilities.” Although there is no consensus on the definition of direct participation in hostilities, it can be summarized as engaging in or directly supporting military operations.[123] Armed forces may attack individuals directly participating in hostilities, but they must spare noncombatants.[124]

It would seem that a question with a binary answer, such as “is an individual a combatant?” would be easy for a robot to answer, but in fact, fully autonomous weapons would not be able to make such a determination when combatants are not identifiable by physical markings. First, this kind of robot might not have adequate sensors. Krishnan writes, “Distinguishing between a harmless civilian and an armed insurgent could be beyond anything machine perception could possibly do. In any case, it would be easy for terrorists or insurgents to trick these robots by concealing weapons or by exploiting their sensual and behavioral limitations.”[125]

An even more serious problem is that fully autonomous weapons would not possess human qualities necessary to assess an individual’s intentions, an assessment that is key to distinguishing targets. According to philosopher Marcello Guarini and computer scientist Paul Bello, “[i]n a context where we cannot assume that everyone present is a combatant, then we have to figure out who is a combatant and who is not. This frequently requires the attribution of intention.”[126] One way to determine intention is to understand an individual’s emotional state, something that can only be done if the soldier has emotions. Guarini and Bello continue, “A system without emotion … could not predict the emotions or action of others based on its own states because it has no emotional states.”[127] Roboticist Noel Sharkey echoes this argument: “Humans understand one another in a way that machines cannot. Cues can be very subtle, and there are an infinite number of circumstances where lethal force is inappropriate.”[128] For example, a frightened mother may run after her two children and yell at them to stop playing with toy guns near a soldier. A human soldier could identify with the mother’s fear and the children’s game and thus recognize their intentions as harmless, while a fully autonomous weapon might see only a person running toward it and two armed individuals.[129] The former would hold fire, and the latter might launch an attack. Technological fixes could not give fully autonomous weapons the ability to relate to and understand humans that is needed to pick up on such cues.

PROPORTIONALITY

The requirement that an attack be proportionate, one of the most complex rules of international humanitarian law, requires human judgment that a fully autonomous weapon would not have. The proportionality test prohibits attacks if the expected civilian harm of an attack outweighs its anticipated military advantage.[130] Michael Schmitt, professor at the US Naval War College, writes, “While the rule is easily stated, there is no question that proportionality is among the most difficult of LOIAC [law of international armed conflict] norms to apply.”[131] Peter Asaro, who has written extensively on military robotics, describes it as “abstract, not easily quantified, and highly relative to specific contexts and subjective estimates of value.”[132]

Determining the proportionality of a military operation depends heavily on context. The legally compliant response in one situation could change considerably by slightly altering the facts. According to the US Air Force, “[p]roportionality in attack is an inherently subjective determination that will be resolved on a case-by-case basis.”[133] It is highly unlikely that a robot could be pre-programmed to handle the infinite number of scenarios it might face so it would have to interpret a situation in real time. Sharkey contends that “the number of such circumstances that could occur simultaneously in military encounters is vast and could cause chaotic robot behavior with deadly consequences.”[134] Others argue that the “frame problem,” or the autonomous robot’s incomplete understanding of its external environment resulting from software limitations, would inevitably lead to “faulty behavior.”[135] According to such experts, the robot’s problems with analyzing so many situations would interfere with its ability to comply with the proportionality test.

Those who interpret international humanitarian law in complicated and shifting scenarios consistently invoke human judgment, rather than the automatic decision making characteristic of a computer. The authoritative ICRC commentary states that the proportionality test is subjective, allows for a “fairly broad margin of judgment,” and “must above all be a question of common sense and good faith for military commanders.”[136] International courts, armed forces, and others have adopted a “reasonable military commander” standard.[137] The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, for example, wrote, “In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack.”[138] The test requires more than a balancing of quantitative data, and a robot could not be programmed to duplicate the psychological processes in human judgment that are necessary to assess proportionality.

A scenario in which a fully autonomous aircraft identifies an emerging leadership target exemplifies the challenges such robots would face in applying the proportionality test. The aircraft might correctly locate an enemy leader in a populated area, but then it would have to assess whether it was lawful to fire. This assessment could pose two problems. First, if the target were in a city, the situation would be constantly changing and thus potentially overwhelming; civilian cars would drive to and fro and a school bus might even enter the scene. As discussed above, experts have questioned whether a fully autonomous aircraft could be designed to take into account every movement and adapt to an ever-evolving proportionality calculus. Second, the aircraft would also need to weigh the anticipated advantages of attacking the leader against the number of civilians expected to be killed. Each leader might carry a different weight and that weight could change depending on the moment in the conflict. Furthermore, humans are better suited to make such value judgments, which cannot be boiled down to a simple algorithm.[139]

Proponents might argue that fully autonomous weapons with strong AI would have the capacity to apply reason to questions of proportionality. Such claims assume the technology is possible, but that is in dispute as discussed above. There is also the threat that the development of robotic technology would almost certainly outpace that of artificial intelligence. As a result, there is a strong likelihood that advanced militaries would introduce fully autonomous weapons to the battlefield before the robotics industry knew whether it could produce strong AI capabilities. Finally, even if a robot could reach the required level of reason, it would fail to have other characteristics—such as the ability to understand humans and the ability to show mercy—that are necessary to make wise legal and ethical choices beyond the proportionality test.

MILITARY NECESSITY

Like proportionality, military necessity requires a subjective analysis of a situation. It allows “military forces in planning military actions … to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning,” but those factors are limited by the requirement of “humanity.”[140] One scholar described military necessity as “a context-dependent, value-based judgment of a commander (within certain reasonableness restraints).”[141] Identifying whether an enemy soldier has become hors de combat, for example, demands human judgment.[142] A fully autonomous robot sentry would find it difficult to determine whether an intruder it shot once was merely knocked to the ground by the blast, faking an injury, slightly wounded but able to be detained with quick action, or wounded seriously enough to no longer pose a threat. It might therefore unnecessarily shoot the individual a second time. Fully autonomous weapons are unlikely to be any better at establishing military necessity than they are proportionality.

Military necessity is also relevant to this discussion because proponents could argue that, if fully autonomous weapons were developed, their use itself could become a military necessity in certain circumstances. Krishnan warns that the development of “[t]echnology can largely affect the calculation of military necessity.”[143] He writes: “Once [autonomous weapons] are widely introduced, it becomes a matter of military necessity to use them, as they could prove far superior to any other type of weapon.”[144] He argues such a situation could lead to armed conflict dominated by machines, which he believes could have “disastrous consequences.” Therefore, “it might be necessary to restrict, or maybe even prohibit [autonomous weapons] from the beginning in order to prevent a dynamics that will lead to the complete automation of war that is justified by the principle of necessity.”[145] The consequences of applying the principle of military necessity to the use of fully autonomous weapons could be so dire that a preemptive restriction on their use is justified.

MARTENS CLAUSE

Fully autonomous weapons also raise serious concerns under the Martens Clause. The clause, which encompasses rules beyond those found in treaties, requires that means of warfare be evaluated according to the “principles of humanity” and the “dictates of public conscience.”[146] Both experts and laypeople have an expressed a range of strong opinions about whether or not fully autonomous machines should be given the power to deliver lethal force without human supervision. While there is no consensus, there is certainly a large number for whom the idea is shocking and unacceptable. States should take their perspective into account when determining the dictates of public conscience.

Ronald Arkin, who supports the development of fully autonomous weapons, helped conduct a survey that offers a glimpse into people’s thoughts about the technology. The survey sought opinions from the public, researchers, policymakers, and military personnel, and given the sample size it should be viewed more as descriptive than quantitative, as Arkin noted.[147] The results indicated that people believed that the less an autonomous weapon was controlled by humans, the less acceptable it was.[148] In particular, the survey determined that “[t]aking life by an autonomous robot in both open warfare and covert operations is unacceptable to more than half of the participants.”[149] Arkin concluded, “People are clearly concerned about the potential use of lethal autonomous robots. Despite the perceived ability to save soldiers’ lives, there is clear concern for collateral damage, in particular civilian loss of life.”[150] Even if such anecdotal evidence does not create binding law, any review of fully autonomous weapons should recognize that for many people these weapons are unacceptable under the principles laid out in the Martens Clause.

CONCLUSION

To comply with international humanitarian law, fully autonomous weapons would need human qualities that they inherently lack. In particular, such robots would not have the ability to relate to other humans and understand their intentions. They could find it difficult to process complex and evolving situations effectively and could not apply human judgment to deal with subjective tests. In addition, for many the thought of machines making life-and-death decisions previously in the hands of humans shocks the conscience. This inability to meet the core principles of international humanitarian law would erode legal protections and lead fully autonomous weapons to endanger civilians during armed conflict. The development of autonomous technology should be halted before it reaches the point where humans fall completely out of the loop.

V. OTHER THREATS TO CIVILIAN PROTECTION

In addition to being unable to meet international humanitarian law standards, fully autonomous weapons would threaten other safeguards against civilian deaths and injuries. Two characteristics touted by proponents as making these robots superior to human soldiers—their lack of emotion and their ability to reduce military casualties—can in fact undermine civilian protection. First, delegating to machines the decision of when to fire on a target would eliminate the influence of human empathy, an important check on killing. Second, assigning combat functions to robots minimizes military casualties but risks making it easier to engage in armed conflict and shifts the burden of war onto the civilian population. Humans should therefore retain control over the choice to use deadly force. Eliminating human intervention in the choice to use deadly force could increase civilian casualties in armed conflict.

THE LACK OF HUMAN EMOTION

Proponents of fully autonomous weapons suggest that the absence of human emotions is a key advantage, yet they fail adequately to consider the downsides. Proponents emphasize, for example, that robots are immune from emotional factors, such as fear and rage, that can cloud judgment, distract humans from their military missions, or lead to attacks on civilians. They also note that robots can be programmed to act without concern for their own survival and thus can sacrifice themselves for a mission without reservations.[151] Such observations have some merit, and these characteristics accrue to both a robot’s military utility and its humanitarian benefits.

Human emotions, however, also provide one of the best safeguards against killing civilians, and a lack of emotion can make killing easier. In training their troops to kill enemy forces, armed forces often attempt “to produce something close to a ‘robot psychology,’ in which what would otherwise seem horrifying acts can be carried out coldly.”[152] This desensitizing process may be necessary to help soldiers carry out combat operations and cope with the horrors of war, yet it illustrates that robots are held up as the ultimate killing machines.

Whatever their military training, human soldiers retain the possibility of emotionally identifying with civilians, “an important part of the empathy that is central to compassion.”[153] Robots cannot identify with humans, which means that they are unable to show compassion, a powerful check on the willingness to kill. For example, a robot in a combat zone might shoot a child pointing a gun at it, which might be a lawful response but not necessarily the most ethical one. By contrast, even if not required under the law to do so, a human soldier might remember his or her children, hold fire, and seek a more merciful solution to the situation, such as trying to capture the child or advance in a different direction. Thus militaries that generally seek to minimize civilian casualties would find it more difficult to achieve that goal if they relied on emotionless robotic warriors.

Fully autonomous weapons would conversely be perfect tools of repression for autocrats seeking to strengthen or retain power. Even the most hardened troops can eventually turn on their leader if ordered to fire on their own people. A leader who resorted to fully autonomous weapons would be free of the fear that armed forces would rebel. Robots would not identify with their victims and would have to follow orders no matter how inhumane they were.

Several commentators have expressed concern about fully autonomous weapons’ lack of emotion. Calling for preservation of the role of humans in decisions to use lethal force, a US colonel who worked on the US Future Combat Systems program recognized the value of human feelings.[154] He said, “We would be morally bereft if we abrogate our responsibility to make the life-and-death decisions required on a battlefield as leaders and soldiers with human compassion and understanding.”[155] Krishnan writes:

One of the greatest restraints for the cruelty in war has always been the natural inhibition of humans not to kill or hurt fellow human beings. The natural inhibition is, in fact, so strong that most people would rather die than kill somebody…. Taking away the inhibition to kill by using robots for the job could weaken the most powerful psychological and ethical restraint in war. War would be inhumanely efficient and would no longer be constrained by the natural urge of soldiers not to kill.[156]

Rather than being understood as irrational influences and obstacles to reason, emotions should instead be viewed as central to restraint in war.

MAKING WAR EASIER AND SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO CIVILIANS

Advances in technology have enabled militaries to reduce significantly direct human involvement in fighting wars. The invention of the drone in particular has allowed the United States to conduct military operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere without fear of casualties to its own personnel. As Singer notes, “[M]ost of the focus on military robotics is to use robots as a replacement for human losses.”[157] Despite this advantage, the development brings complications. The UK Ministry of Defence highlighted the urgency of more vigorous debate on the policy implications of the use of unmanned weapons to “ensure that we do not risk losing our controlling humanity and make war more likely.”[158] Indeed, the gradual replacement of humans with fully autonomous weapons could make decisions to go to war easier and shift the burden of armed conflict from soldiers to civilians in battle zones.

While technological advances promising to reduce military casualties are laudable, removing humans from combat entirely could be a step too far. Warfare will inevitably result in human casualties, whether combatant or civilian. Evaluating the human cost of warfare should therefore be a calculation political leaders always make before resorting to the use of military force. Leaders might be less reluctant to go to war, however, if the threat to their own troops were decreased or eliminated. In that case, “states with roboticized forces might behave more aggressively…. [R]obotic weapons alter the political calculation for war.”[159] The potential threat to the lives of enemy civilians might be devalued or even ignored in decisions about the use of force.[160]

The effect of drone warfare offers a hint of what weapons with even greater autonomy could lead to. Singer and other military experts contend that drones have already lowered the threshold for war, making it easier for political leaders to choose to use force.[161] Furthermore, the proliferation of unmanned systems, which according to Singer has a “profound effect on ‘the impersonalization of battle,’”[162] may remove some of the instinctual objections to killing. Unmanned systems create both physical and emotional distance from the battlefield, which a number of scholars argue makes killing easier.[163] Indeed, some drone operators compare drone strikes to a video game because they feel emotionally detached from the act of killing.[164] As D. Keith Shurtleff, Army chaplain and ethics instructor for the Soldier Support Institute at Fort Jackson, pointed out, “[A]s war becomes safer and easier, as soldiers are removed from the horrors of war and see the enemy not as humans but as blips on a screen, there is a very real danger of losing the deterrent that such horrors provide.”[165] Fully autonomous weapons raise the same concerns.

The prospect of fighting wars without military fatalities would remove one of the greatest deterrents to combat.[166] It would also shift the burden of armed conflict onto civilians in conflict zones because their lives could become more at risk than those of soldiers. Such a shift would be counter to the international community’s growing concern for the protection of civilians.[167] While some advances in military technology can be credited with preventing war or saving lives, the development of fully autonomous weapons could make war more likely and lead to disproportionate civilian suffering. As a result, they should never be made available for use in the arsenals of armed forces.

VI. PROBLEMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FULLY AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS

Given the challenges fully autonomous weapons present to adherence to international humanitarian law and the way they undermine other humanitarian protections, it is inevitable that they will at some point kill or injure civilians. When civilian casualties in armed conflict occur unlawfully, people want to see someone held accountable.[168] Accountability in such cases serves at least two functions: it deters future harm to civilians and provides victims a sense of retribution.[169] If the killing were done by a fully autonomous weapon, however, the question would become: whom to hold responsible. Options include the military commander, the programmer, the manufacturer, and even the robot itself, but none of these options is satisfactory. Since there is no fair and effective way to assign legal responsibility for unlawful acts committed by fully autonomous weapons, granting them complete control over targeting decisions would undermine yet another tool for promoting civilian protection.

The first option is to hold the military commanders who deploy such weapons responsible for the weapons’ actions on the battlefield.[170] Given that soldiers are autonomous beings, commanders are not held legally responsible for the actions of their subordinates except in very particular circumstances. It seems equally unfair to impose liability on commanders for their fully autonomous weapons. These weapons’ autonomy creates a “responsibility gap,” and it is arguably unjust to hold people “responsible for actions of machines over which they could not have sufficient control.”[171]

In certain situations, under the principle of “command responsibility,” a commander may be held accountable for war crimes perpetrated by a subordinate. It applies if the commander knew or should have known that the individual planned to commit a crime yet he or she failed to take action to prevent it or did not punish the perpetrator after the fact.[172] While this principle seeks to curb international humanitarian law violations by strengthening commander oversight, the doctrine is ill suited for fully autonomous weapons. On the one hand, command responsibility would likely apply if a commander was aware in advance of the potential for unlawful actions against civilians and still recklessly deployed a fully autonomous weapon. This application would be legally appropriate. On the other hand, a commander might not be able to identify a threat pre-deployment because he or she had not programmed the robot. If the commander realized once a robot was in the field that it might commit a crime, the commander would be unable to reprogram it in real time to prevent the crime because it was designed to operate with complete autonomy. Furthermore, as will be discussed in greater detail below, a commander cannot effectively punish a robot after it commits a crime. Thus except in cases of reckless conduct, command responsibility would not apply, and the commander would not be held accountable for the actions of a fully autonomous weapon.

An unlawful act committed by a fully autonomous weapon could be characterized as the result of a design flaw. The notion that a violation is a technical glitch points toward placing responsibility for the robot’s actions on its programmer or manufacturer, but this solution is equally unfair and ineffective. While the individual programmer would certainly lay the foundation for the robot’s future decisions, the weapon would still be autonomous. The programmer could not predict with complete certainty the decisions a fully autonomous robot might eventually make in a complex battlefield scenario.[173] As Robert Sparrow, a professor of political philosophy and applied ethics, writes, “[T]he possibility that an autonomous system will make choices other than those predicted and encouraged by its programmers is inherent in the claim that it is autonomous.”[174] To hold the programmer accountable, therefore, “will only be fair if the situation described occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the design/programming team.”[175] Furthermore, to be held criminally liable under international humanitarian law, the programmer would have had to cause the unlawful act intentionally.[176] Assuming any miscoding by the programmer was inadvertent or produced unforeseeable effects, there would be no option for accountability here.

Some have pointed to the product liability regime as a potential model for holding manufacturers responsible for international humanitarian law violations caused by fully autonomous weapons.[177] If manufacturers could be held strictly liable for flaws in these weapons, it would provide an incentive for those manufacturers to produce highly reliable weapons to avoid liability. Yet the product liability regime also falls short of an adequate solution. First, private weapons manufacturers are not typically punished for how their weapons are used, particularly if the manufacturers disclose the risks of malfunction to military purchasers up front.[178] It is highly unlikely that any company would produce and sell weapons, which are inherently dangerous, knowing the firm could be held strictly liable for any use that violates international humanitarian law. Second, product liability requires a civil suit, which puts the onus on victims. It is unrealistic to expect civilian victims of war, who are often poverty stricken and geographically displaced by conflict, to sue for relief against a manufacturer in a foreign court, even if legal rules would allow them to recover damages. Thus, the strict liability model would fail to create a credible deterrent for manufacturers or provide retribution for victims.

Holding accountable any of the actors described above—commanders, programmers, or manufacturers—is not only unlikely to be fair or effective, but it also does nothing to deter robots themselves from harming civilians through unlawful acts. Fully autonomous weapons operate, by definition, free of human supervision and so their actions are not dependent on human controllers.[179] Fully autonomous weapons also lack any emotion that might give them remorse if someone else were punished for their actions. Therefore, punishment of these other actors would do nothing to change robot behavior.

Looking into the future, some have argued that the remaining party—the fully autonomous weapon itself—might be held responsible for the unlawful killing of civilians. Krishnan writes, “At the moment, it would obviously be nonsensical to do this, as any robot that exists today, or that will be built in the next 10-20 years, is too dumb to possess anything like intentionality or a real capability for agency. However, this might change in a more distant future once robots become more sophisticated and intelligent.”[180] If a robot were truly autonomous, the robot might be punished by being destroyed or having its programming restricted in some way. Merely altering a robot’s software, however, is unlikely to satisfy victims seeking retribution.[181] Furthermore, unless the robot understood that it would be punished for violating the law, its decisions would not be influenced by the threat of accountability.[182]

These proposed methods would all fail to ensure accountability for the same reasons. They would neither effectively deter future violations of international humanitarian law nor provide victims with meaningful retributive justice. Taking human beings out of the loop of robotic decision making would remove the possibility for real accountability for unlawful harm to civilians, making it all the more important that fully autonomous weapons are never developed or used.

CONCLUSION

Fully autonomous weapons have the potential to increase harm to civilians during armed conflict. They would be unable to meet basic principles of international humanitarian law, they would undercut other, non-legal safeguards that protect civilians, and they would present obstacles to accountability for any casualties that occur. Although fully autonomous weapons do not exist yet, technology is rapidly moving in that direction. These types of weaponized robots could become feasible within decades, and militaries are becoming increasingly invested in their successful development. Before it becomes even more challenging to change course, therefore, states and scientists should take urgent steps to review and regulate the development of technology related to robot autonomy. In particular, states should prohibit the creation of weapons that have full autonomy to decide when to apply lethal force.

To achieve these goals, Human Rights Watch and IHRC recommend:

To All States

Prohibit the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons through an international legally binding instrument.

States should preemptively ban fully autonomous weapons because of the threat these kinds of robots would pose to civilians during times of war. A prohibition would ensure that firing decisions are made by humans, who possess the ability to interpret targets’ actions more accurately, have better capacity for judging complex situations, and possess empathy that can lead to acts of mercy. Preserving human involvement in the decision-making loop would also make it easier to identify an individual to hold accountable for any unlawful acts that occur from the use of a robotic weapon, thus increasing deterrence and allowing for retribution.

This prohibition should apply to robotic weapons that can make the choice to use lethal force without human input or supervision. It should also apply to weapons with such limited human involvement in targeting decisions that humans are effectively out of the loop. For example, a human may not have enough time to override a computer’s decision to fire on a target, or a single human operator may not be able to maintain adequate oversight of a swarm of dozens of unmanned aircraft. Some on-the-loop weapons could prove as dangerous to civilians as out-of-the-loop ones. Further study will be required to determine where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable autonomy for weaponized robots.

Adopt national laws and policies to prohibit the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons.

National measures could serve as means of prohibition before the creation of an international instrument. They could also raise awareness of the problems of fully autonomous weapons and help establish best practices on how to deal with them.

Commence reviews of technologies and components that could lead to fully autonomous weapons. These reviews should take place at the very beginning of the development process and continue throughout the development and testing phases.

Such early and ongoing reviews help ensure that states do not develop weapons, like fully autonomous weapons, that fail to comply with international humanitarian law. States should make public their determinations about a weapon’s or technology’s ability to meet legal standards because transparency can allow for monitoring and confidence building. In addition, transparency would allow reviews to facilitate public debate about the problems and potential solutions.

TO ROBOTICISTS AND OTHERS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROBOTIC WEAPONS

Establish a professional code of conduct governing the research and development of autonomous robotic weapons, especially those capable of becoming fully autonomous, in order to ensure that legal and ethical concerns about their use in armed conflict are adequately considered at all stages of technological development.

A code of conduct for those involved with developing robotic weapons could help ensure that such technology evolves in accordance with the legal and ethical frameworks that protect civilians in armed conflict. Academic and scientific associations could draft and distribute the code. Codes of conduct for military technological development already exist in the fields of synthetic biology and nanotechnology.[183] They serve to increase transparency in research agendas and encourage researchers to adopt socially responsible approaches to scientific development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was researched and written by Bonnie Docherty, senior researcher in the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch and senior clinical instructor at the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) at Harvard Law School. Julia Fitzpatrick and Trevor Keck, students in IHRC, contributed to the research and writing. Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division, edited the report. Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, Dinah PoKempner, general counsel, and Tom Porteous, deputy program director, all reviewed the report.

Kate Castenson, coordinator in the Arms Division, provided research and production assistance. Arms Division interns Rachel Borrell and Denise Tugade provided additional research assistance. This report was prepared for publication by Kate Castenson, Anna Lopriore, photo editor, Grace Choi, publications director, and Fitzroy Hepkins, administrative manager. Russell Christian produced the cartoon for the report cover.

Human Rights Watch and IHRC would like to thank Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, for providing a technical review of the report. Human Rights Watch and IHRC would also like to thank Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate and chair of the Nobel Women's Initiative, for encouraging us to undertake work on this issue and for helpful comments on the report itself.

ATTACHMENT SEVEN – FROM USA TODAY

THE CONSUMER SURVEILLANCE STATE

Welcome to Your Friendly 21st-Century Panopticon

By Olivier Knox – July 21

The debate over aggressive surveillance has historically centered on the state – government was the Big Brother in “1984,” reaching into and dominating every facet of human life. That’s understandable: It wields immense power.

But technological breakthroughs are now reshaping fears about spying to include the guy recording his surroundings while sitting next to you in the coffee shop or the reclusive neighbor with the “smart” doorbell that watches you, unblinking, every time you leave the house.

For years I have joked that the coming surveillance dystopia will be a robust public-private partnership, not one modeled on George Orwell’s all-consuming English Socialism. A few recent developments make me think that dystopia is already here, courtesy of consumer electronics.

To repurpose the old anecdote: We appear to have accepted that we’re going to be recorded. Now we’re just haggling over whether we can stop people from doing so in secret …

WHITE LIGHT, WHITE KNIGHT?

… because it turns out that’s apparently what millions of them want to do. Consider the tug of war involving Meta’s AI glasses, pitting the company against its own users, who desire to film or photograph other people without their knowledge, much less their permission.

Each pair has a white light in the forward-facing part of the frame. Meta says the light blinks once when the wearer takes a photo and blinks continuously as long as they are recording a video.

“It’s there so people around you know when you are taking a photo or video you could save to your gallery and share with others,” the company said in an early July post on its official website.

So what are some users trying to do? They started by covering up the light. Meta made it so the camera is disabled if the company detects that what it calls the “capture LED” has been blocked. So users escalated to “sophisticated efforts” to modify or destroy the light.

“Now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed,” Meta said in its July 7 post.

The stakes aren’t just about who appears on whose camera roll: Two Harvard undergraduates showed in 2024 that you could pair “smart” glasses with face search engines, large language AI models and public databases.

“Their viral project, I-XRAY, is a pair of glasses that reveal to the wearer anyone’s personal details – home address, name, phone number and more – just by looking at them,” according to a Harvard University post.

No thanks.

RECORDING EVERYTHING

The Meta glasses thing was pretty scary, but the impetus for this column was a Wall Street Journal piece last week in which Katherine Bindley documented people recording … pretty much everything and running it through AI.

“Asking for permission is out, even though in some situations, that could mean violating the law. It isn’t creepy if it’s in the name of productivity, say the people doing the recording,” Bindley wrote. (I’m here to tell you that nonconsensual recording is, in fact, creepy.)

Here, too, consumer electronics are making it increasingly easy to record others, notably a transcription app called Granola that does not store audio but produces a word-for-word transcript, along with summaries or possible action items.

The showstopper in Bindley’s piece was the woman who uses Granola on “most of her first dates” then “has the feed automatically sent to Anthropic’s Claude to report back on how she did.” That includes a breakdown of who spoke for what proportion of the encounter.

Would you speak differently if you knew anyone around you might be recording?

SEARCH PARTY OR HUNTING PARTY?

Would you dress or act differently if you knew that your neighbor’s smart doorbell not only recorded who comes to or leaves your house but is connected to what amounts to a surveillance grid?

That’s the concern raised by the Electronic Frontier Foundation about Amazon’s Ring and its Search Party feature, which uses AI to scan footage from nearby smart doorbells. Amazon sells this tech as a way to reunite lost pets and their distraught owners.

Since Ring regularly interfaces with law enforcement, it does not take much to erase the boundaries between private security and public surveillance.

Barring a political response to rein in the brave new world of small, cheap, effective tech, we’re looking at a world in which every glance is an act of surveillance and every neighbor is a data collector.

The future is less Big Brother than everyone and their brother.

ATTACHMENT EIGHT – FROM THE OBSERVER

THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL MINEFIELD OF A.I.-DRIVEN EMPLOYEE SURVEILLANCE

The same technologies marketed as objective performance tools may quietly amplify bias, erode privacy and manipulate worker behavior at scale.

By Kayvon Touran and Ben Dattner • 05/12/26 2:00pm

When we wrote about the legal and ethical implications of A.I. in hiring in 2019, we focused on the assessment of job candidates before they had been hired or consented to an ongoing relationship with an organization. What has become increasingly clear since then is that the far more consequential, and far less scrutinized, deployment of A.I. may be happening deep within the employment relationship itself.

Bottom of Form

Over the past few years, digital innovations and advances in A.I. have turbocharged remote work through data capture, producing a new generation of workplace monitoring, performance analytics and employee profiling tools. Many of these technologies promise to help organizations improve productivity, identify high-potential talent, reduce unwanted turnover and allocate compensation more efficiently. The pitch is compelling: why rely on the inevitably subjective judgment of a manager who observes an employee for a few hours a week when you can have an A.I. system that synthesizes thousands of behavioral data points continuously and in real time?

But this power asymmetry between organizations armed with sophisticated predictive tools and employees who are largely unaware of how they are being profiled raises profound ethical and legal questions that the business community has not yet adequately considered or confronted. Whether they know it or not, most people have now been subject to “surveillance pricing” as consumers. For example, the airline that offers a specific fare bundle because loyalty-program data signals you are likely to buy it, or the website that charges more for infant formula because an algorithm has sensed the desperation of a new parent. The same logic, applied to the employment relationship, produces what labor advocates and researchers have begun to call “surveillance wages”: a system in which pay is set not by an employee’s performance or market value, but by formulas that use personal data—often collected without the employee’s knowledge or consent—to identify the minimum compensation she will accept before looking elsewhere. This is only the beginning.

To be sure, performance management has always been imperfect. Alan Colquitt’s research cited in Next Generation Performance Management consistently shows that performance ratings tell us nearly as much about the rater as about the person being rated, reflecting idiosyncratic biases, attribution errors and halo effects as much as actual job performance. Organizations have long recognized this problem and invested in calibration sessions, 360-degree feedback systems and structured rating scales in an attempt to reduce subjectivity. Now, A.I. promises to replace biased human judgment with objective, data-driven evaluation, but the transition from bias-laden human assessment to algorithm-driven appraisal introduces its own set of distortions. The added danger is that those distortions are invisible, self-reinforcing and cloaked in the authority of “objective” data science.

Before examining the specific temptations that employers will face and what can be done to address them, it is worth noting that the legal framework governing the employment relationship was not designed with these tools in mind. Employment law in the United States rests on a foundation of statutes like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and an increasingly active patchwork of state privacy laws that were drafted to govern the conduct of human decision-makers, not algorithmic systems trained on behavioral data. As A.I. becomes a substitute for managerial judgment, the legal protections these statutes were designed to afford employees may be quietly circumvented.

What temptations will companies face in using A.I. to monitor and evaluate employee performance?

The first and most straightforward temptation is to use A.I. to monitor and evaluate employee behavior in ways that go far beyond what any manager could observe directly. Modern workplace monitoring tools can log keystrokes, track mouse movements and active screen time, analyze email and messaging patterns for sentiment and engagement signals, flag extended periods of inactivity, transcribe and interpret video calls and track an employee’s physical location through mobile phones or badge swipe data. Productivity platforms increasingly use machine learning to synthesize these digital outputs into a single performance score that is fed, often invisibly, into compensation, promotion and termination decisions. This is no longer a niche practice: a 2022 New York Times examination found that eight of the ten largest American companies surveil their employees with tracking software, while global demand for employee monitoring tools increased 65 percent between 2019 and 2022—a figure that has only grown as remote and hybrid work normalized continuous digital observation.

Microsoft’s Viva Insights platform, deployed across thousands of enterprises globally, tracks employees’ email response times, meeting attendance, focus hours and collaboration patterns, synthesizing these into dashboards visible to managers and HR. Commercial monitoring vendors such as Teramind and Hubstaff offer SaaS tools enabling any employer to log keystrokes, take random screenshots and generate per-employee productivity scores; Teramind’s platform additionally analyzes email content and web browsing behavior for “insider threat” detection.

Additionally, Amazon’s algorithmic management system in its warehouse operations tracks worker activity to the second via its “Time Off Task” (TOT) system: employees who accumulate more than 30 minutes of inactivity receive automated warnings, and those exceeding two hours face automatic termination workflows, entirely without manager involvement. In January 2024, France’s data protection authority (CNIL) fined Amazon €32 million for this “excessively intrusive” surveillance system.

The problem is that such systems measure activity, not performance. And they do so in ways that can systematically disadvantage employees with disabilities, caregiving responsibilities or non-traditional work styles. An employee who processes information slowly due to a learning disability, who takes frequent short breaks to manage anxiety or who thinks best in extended periods of offline focus may score poorly on an A.I. system calibrated on the behavioral signatures of historically top-rated employees. These top-rated employees also may have been rated highly due to factors unrelated to their actual contribution, such as gender, race or similarity to their supervisors. If historical performance ratings are biased, and the research suggests they frequently are, then training an A.I. model on those ratings will simply launder and amplify those biases at scale, with the additional complication that the resulting discrimination becomes harder to detect and challenge.

There is also a more insidious temptation: to use A.I.-generated performance profiles not merely to evaluate employees but to categorize them in ways that invisibly shape how they are managed, communicated with and developed over time. If an algorithm flags an employee as “low potential” or “high flight risk,” that categorization may subtly recalibrate every subsequent interaction she has with the organization, reducing the developmental investment she receives, limiting her access to stretch assignments and potentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of disengagement and exit. The A.I. doesn’t terminate the employee directly, but it reorganizes the environment around her until she leaves of her own accord. Under the ADA, an employer cannot take adverse action against an employee because it perceives her to have a disability or impairment. But if an A.I. system, trained on behavioral patterns correlated with depression, anxiety or ADHD, flags that employee for reduced investment, the legal and ethical boundaries become deeply blurred. This all means that A.I. is now not only empowered to identify or infer disabilities or disadvantages, but in some sense to create them.

What temptations will companies face in using employees’ personal data to profile and manipulate compensation?

A second, and more recently visible, temptation involves the use of data that extends far beyond the four corners of the employment relationship to calibrate an employer’s leverage over individual workers. This includes consumer data such as spending patterns and subscription services, which can reveal whether an employee is living paycheck to paycheck or has a financial cushion. It may include real estate records indicating the size of an employee’s mortgage. It may include signals from professional networks suggesting whether an individual is passively browsing external opportunities. When aggregated and processed by a predictive model, these data points can give an employer a remarkably granular estimate of the lowest salary a given employee will accept before seeking employment elsewhere.

A first-of-its-kind August 2025 audit of hundreds of labor-management A.I. vendors by Veena Dubal and Wilneida Negrón, published by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, found that employers in healthcare, customer service, logistics and retail are among the customers of vendors whose tools are specifically designed to enable this practice, with major U.S. companies including Intuit, Salesforce and Colgate-Palmolive identified as clients.

According to Nina DiSalvo, policy director at the labor advocacy group Towards Justice, some of these systems use signals directly associated with financial vulnerability, including data on whether a prospective or current employee has taken out a payday loan or is carrying a high credit-card balance, to infer the minimum pay she might accept. Employers can also scrape candidates’ public social-media pages, DiSalvo has noted, to determine whether they are more likely to seek to join a union or may become pregnant: data points that, if used in employment decisions, veer directly into discrimination territory under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

This practice represents a fundamental distortion of what labor economists have traditionally understood as the employment bargain. The functioning labor market assumes that both parties to the wage negotiation are operating with roughly comparable information: that the employee knows her market value and can advocate for it, while the employer evaluates its options and competes accordingly. When employers gain access to fine-grained medical, psychological and financial profiles of individual employees, this equilibrium collapses. The employee believes she is negotiating, while in practice, she is being managed to a predetermined outcome.

The gig economy offers the clearest early illustrations of surveillance wages in action. In on-demand healthcare staffing, platforms such as CareRev, Clipboard Health, ShiftKey and ShiftMed have been found to adjust pay for individual shifts based on what the algorithm knows about each worker, including how often a nurse accepts shifts, how quickly she responds to postings and what pay she has accepted in the past, rather than on the skill or seniority the shift requires. The Roosevelt Institute, drawing on interviews with gig nurses, found that this routinely produces situations where workers are paid materially different amounts for identical work, even within the same facility. This pay was driven by the algorithm’s individual behavioral profile of each nurse (including shift acceptance rates, response speed and prior accepted wages) rather than skill or seniority. ShiftKey even charges nurses fees for every shift worked.

In rideshare, comparable dynamics have been documented for years: Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout has written that Uber “uses data-rich driver profiles to match the wage to the individual incentives of the driver,” and drivers themselves report being offered different base fares for the same trip at the same time, with no transparency about how the starting rate is set. “It’s judging our desperation rate,” Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, has said—a phrase that captures, with uncomfortable precision, what surveillance wages are designed to do. The same logic is now migrating from gig platforms into traditional employment, as the tools that perfected algorithmic pay-setting for contingent workers become available to any employer willing to purchase them.

A 2023 article in the Columbia Law Review by Veena Dubal documented that Uber and Lyft use behavioral profiling to offer different base fares to different drivers for identical trips—a practice she termed “algorithmic wage discrimination.” Her research found that between 2021 and 2023, driver income declined substantially while Uber’s effective take rate from drivers reached 40 percent of gross bookings. The article identifies this as a structural shift from uniform wage-setting to individualized, behavior-contingent compensation.

Uber itself acknowledged practices that confirm the article’s claims: the U.K.’s Worker Info Exchange published evidence in 2024 that Uber admitted to using individualized driver behavioral profiles to set both pay rates and task allocation.

The legal status of such practices is, at best, uncertain. The NLRA guarantees employees the right to discuss their wages and working conditions with one another; a right that Congress specifically enacted because it recognized the inherent information asymmetry between employers and employees. Using A.I. to deepen that asymmetry in ways that effectively suppress individual wages may not constitute a technical violation of the statute, but it is difficult to argue that it honors its animating purpose. Moreover, if the personal data used to profile employees includes information that correlates with protected characteristics—financial precarity that proxies for race, consumer behavior that correlates with disability status or location data that reflects national origin—then the employer may be inadvertently encoding protected-class information into its compensation model, raising potential liability under Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA. As we have noted in prior work, the fact that a decision is not made directly on the basis of a protected characteristic does not immunize an employer from liability if the practical outcome is discriminatory.

What temptations will companies face in using A.I. to monitor employee psychological states and predict behavior?

Perhaps the most consequential, and least publicly examined, frontier of workforce A.I. is the application of behavioral and sentiment analysis to infer employees’ physical condition, psychological states, loyalty and future behavior. Tools already exist and are being commercially deployed that analyze patterns in employee email and messaging communications to produce individual engagement scores, identify potential flight risks before they materialize, flag early indicators of burnout or dissatisfaction and detect what vendors sometimes euphemistically describe as “cultural misalignment.” More sophisticated systems use passive sensing data from workplace devices to infer mood, cognitive load and interpersonal dynamics. Some organizations are now deploying continuous micro-surveys processed by natural language processing algorithms to monitor the psychological temperature of the workforce in real time and at the level of individual employees.

Verint, an A.I. software deployed by major insurance and financial services companies in their contact centers, uses A.I. to analyze employees’ voice tone and speech patterns in real time during calls, inferring emotional state and alerting supervisors when an employee appears disengaged, stressed or emotionally flat. The system provides managers with a continuous emotional readout of the workforce.

Microsoft’s Viva Insights, integrated into Microsoft 365 and used by millions of employees globally, provides managers with aggregated and individual-level data on employee “well-being” and “focus time,” and its 2025 Copilot Analytics extension tracks which employees are adopting A.I. tools and at what pace, creating a new behavioral metric that can feed into performance assessments. Perceptyx and Glint, the latter acquired by Microsoft, deploy continuous “listening” tools that analyze patterns in pulse surveys and open-ended text responses to generate individual-level engagement scores and flight-risk predictions, surfacing these to managers and HR.

These tools are often sold to employers as instruments of employee well-being as a way to identify and support those struggling before burnout or attrition occurs. That framing is not entirely disingenuous; there are legitimate use cases for understanding the aggregate health of a workforce and directing well-being resources toward those who need them most. But the granularity of individual-level data, combined with the inherent power imbalance of the employment relationship, creates conditions that are ripe for manipulation rather than support. An employer that knows which employees are most stressed, most financially vulnerable, most disengaged and most likely to leave is positioned not merely to help those employees, but to manage them by identifying and neutralizing sources of potential dissent, selectively investing retention resources in those deemed most valuable and quietly initiating the managing-out of those who do not fit the desired profile.

The ADA’s prohibition on disability-related inquiries extends to current employees, not only to job candidates. An employer cannot ask an employee whether she suffers from depression, anxiety or any other condition that might qualify as a disability under the Act. But if an A.I. system infers these conditions from behavioral data and routes those inferences into management decisions, limiting opportunity, reducing investment and accelerating separation, the employer may be effectively circumventing a legal protection that Congress deliberately enacted. The absence of a direct question does not eliminate the legal exposure, nor does it resolve the ethical one.

HireVue, one of the largest A.I.-powered hiring assessment companies, serving over 700 enterprise clients, deployed facial expression analysis technology using Affectiva’s emotion recognition software for several years to generate “employability scores” that weighted nonverbal cues from video interviews before discontinuing the feature in 2021 following documented concerns about disability bias and discriminatory outcomes. In 2023, the ACLU filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division against Intuit and HireVue after research demonstrated that the A.I. system performed significantly worse when evaluating deaf, hard-of-hearing and non-white speakers, a finding with direct implications for ADA-covered applicants and employees. The same underlying technology architecture that infers characteristics from behavioral data that correlate with protected conditions is now commercially available not only for pre-employment screening, but also for post-hire performance monitoring.

A still more troubling frontier involves the deliberate use of employee psychological profiles to actively engineer behavior. Once an A.I. system has assembled a sufficiently detailed portrait of an employee’s psychological traits—the stable, enduring characteristics such as introversion, need for achievement, risk aversion or sensitivity to fairness—and psychological states—the more transient and situational conditions such as current stress levels, financial anxiety, career frustration or heightened ambition—the temptation to deploy that knowledge as a tool of behavioral influence becomes very real. This represents a qualitative shift from A.I. as a surveillance and prediction instrument to A.I. as a manipulation engine, operating at the level of the individual employee and calibrated to her specific psychological vulnerabilities.

The distinction between traits and states matters enormously in this context. Traits are relatively stable features of personality and temperament that predict behavior across situations: an employee’s characteristic level of conscientiousness, her chronic need for status recognition, her sensitivity to equity and fairness or her tendency toward self-doubt. States, by contrast, are transient psychological conditions shaped by recent experience: the employee who just received a difficult performance review, the recently divorced colleague who is suddenly financially precarious or the ambitious manager who has just been passed over for a promotion. Both are exploitable, but in different ways. While traits enable long-term, systematic profiling and targeting, states enable real-time, opportunistic leverage. An A.I. system sophisticated enough to track both is positioned to influence her behavior with a precision that no human manager could match, and that most employees would find deeply alarming if they understood it was occurring.

A few concrete examples illustrate how this might work in practice. For the employee whose profile reveals a high need for recognition but limited financial negotiating leverage, an employer might substitute effusive public praise: a recognition award, a “spotlight” feature in the company newsletter, a personal call from a senior leader in lieu of meaningful compensation increases. For the employee whose profile suggests a competitive disposition and strong status sensitivity, management communications might be systematically framed in terms of peer rankings and relative performance standings, driving effort without increasing pay.

For the employee with a highly developed sense of organizational justice and loyalty, appeals to mission and fairness may be deployed to discourage job searching without improving actual working conditions. For the employee whose profile reflects fragile self-esteem paired with a strong need to prove herself, a task might be introduced with language deliberately engineered to trigger a psychological reaction: “This is an unusually difficult challenge—not everyone has what it takes to pull it off, but we thought you might be bold enough to try.” For the employee whose profile indicates a strong need for group belonging and affiliation, the framing might instead appeal to collective identity and team loyalty: “The whole team is counting on you—you’re the kind of person who doesn’t let people down.” And for the employee whose behavioral data suggests a thin boundary between professional and personal identity, that very characteristic may be quietly exploited, with the A.I. routing high-visibility weekend assignments, last-minute deadline projects and holiday-adjacent demands to her calendar, because her profile predicts she will comply without complaint.

None of these interventions necessarily violates any existing employment statute in isolation. No law prohibits an employer from publicly praising an employee, framing a task as a challenge, appealing to team spirit or scheduling weekend work. But when these decisions are made systematically, at scale, on the basis of covertly assembled psychological profiles that employees did not consent to share, and in ways specifically designed to extract maximum effort or minimize compensation cost at the individual level, the cumulative effect is a form of institutional manipulation that strikes at the foundation of trust on which the employment relationship depends.

It is also worth noting that the scientific reliability of A.I.-generated psychological profiles is itself open to serious question. Psychological traits inferred from email sentiment analysis, calendar patterns or messaging response times are not the same as traits measured by validated psychometric instruments administered with informed consent. The gap between what the A.I. “knows” about an employee and what is actually true about her creates the additional risk that manipulation strategies will be built on inaccurate foundations, causing harm not only to the employee’s dignity and autonomy, but potentially to the organization’s own legitimate interests as well.

A parallel that has only recently received the legal attention it deserves offers a sobering preview of where this trajectory leads. In courts across the U.S. and in regulatory proceedings around the world, social media companies have faced, and in a growing number of cases now lost, judgments holding them accountable for knowingly designing their platforms to exploit the psychology of users, particularly minors, in ways that generated engagement and advertising revenue while causing documented harm to mental health and well-being. The core finding in these cases is not simply that the platforms were harmful; it is that their architects knew they were harmful and did not prompt a redesign. Instead, they prompted optimization.

Internal research at companies like Meta confirmed that Instagram worsened body image and anxiety in teenage girls, and features like infinite scroll and variable-ratio notification schedules were modeled explicitly on the psychology of slot machines. The same mechanisms that caused harm also drove the engagement metrics on which the business model depended. In a precise and disturbing sense, the psychological harm to the user was not a side effect of the product, but the product itself.

In September 2021, the Wall Street Journal published internal Facebook documents provided by whistleblower Frances Haugen showing that Meta’s own research had confirmed Instagram worsened body image and mental health in teenage girls, findings the company chose not to act upon. By 2024, dozens of U.S. states had filed lawsuits against Meta alleging knowing design of addictive and harmful platform features. Federal courts have allowed these cases to proceed on product liability and consumer protection theories. This litigation is the closest existing legal precedent for what liability might look like when an employer is shown to have deliberately engineered workplace conditions to exploit employees’ psychological vulnerabilities, which is precisely what A.I.-driven behavioral profiling and manipulation, as described in this article, enables.

The logic of A.I.-driven employee profiling and manipulation is structurally identical, and the commercial incentives are, if anything, stronger. An employer that uses a continuously learning A.I. system to identify which employees respond to competitive framing, which are sustained by social approval, which can be retained through status recognition rather than pay and which have so thoroughly fused their professional identity with their work that they have no effective psychological off-switch, is engaged in precisely the same optimization logic as a social media platform maximizing session length. The goal is not employee flourishing; it is the extraction of maximum “discretionary” effort at minimum cost.

And just as social media companies discovered that the psychological mechanisms most effective for that extraction are variable reward, social comparison, fear of exclusion and the need for belonging were also the ones most damaging to users’ long-term well-being, employers pursuing this path may find that the same is true of their workforces. Employees whose behavior has been systematically shaped by A.I.-calibrated stimuli, whose work habits, emotional responses and sense of self have been gradually engineered to serve organizational ends, are not engaged. They are, in the most clinically precise sense of the word, conditioned. In the most extreme version of this trajectory, the workplace becomes not merely a place of employment, but a carefully designed psychological environment engineered to make productive compliance feel not like an obligation, but like a compulsion or an addiction, which benefits the employer and the employee’s diminished autonomy as the cost that never appears on any balance sheet.

Whether the legal frameworks now being developed to address manipulative and addictive platform design will ultimately extend to the employment context remains to be seen. The behavioral science underlying both phenomena is identical. The power imbalance in employment, where the stakes include livelihood, advancement and professional identity, is considerably greater than that between a social media platform and a teenage user. The commercial incentive for employers to exploit psychological vulnerability is no less intense than the advertising incentive that drove platform design. It took more than a decade of documented harm, internal whistleblowers and sustained investigative journalism before courts began to hold social media companies accountable for what they knowingly built. Regulators and legislators who are only now grappling with that reckoning would do well to look ahead to the employment context before, rather than after, an equivalent body of harm accumulates and before the infrastructure of algorithmic psychological conditioning becomes as embedded in the workplace as the infinite scroll is in the smartphone.

What can organizations do to manage and mitigate these temptations?

The foregoing is not an argument against the use of A.I. in the assessment and management of human capital. These technologies are powerful, they are already widely deployed and they will only become more sophisticated. Refusing to engage with them is not a realistic option for most organizations. But there is a meaningful and consequential difference between using A.I. as a tool that augments human judgment in transparent, accountable and validated ways, and using it as an instrument of surveillance and manipulation that deepens the power asymmetry between employers and employees. The former is consistent with both ethical employment practice and long-term organizational health, while the latter is clearly not.

Several principles can help organizations navigate this distinction.

First, transparency: employees should know, in plain language, what data is being collected about them, how it is being used and which decisions it informs or influences. The fiction that behavioral monitoring is an incidental byproduct of routine workplace technology is no longer

tenable, and employers who maintain it are accumulating significant trust deficits that will ultimately manifest as exactly the attrition and disengagement they are seeking to prevent.

Second, consent: there is a meaningful ethical distinction between an employee who knowingly participates in a performance monitoring program and one who is unaware that her communications and movements are being continuously analyzed. The fact that monitoring may be technically permitted under an employment agreement does not make it ethical to conduct it without meaningful disclosure.

Third, validation: just as pre-employment assessments should be validated against actual job performance, A.I. systems used to evaluate and profile employees should be regularly and independently audited for accuracy, adverse impact on protected groups, and alignment with legitimate organizational objectives. An A.I. system that produces biased or inaccurate outputs is not a neutral tool simply because a machine generated the result, and its perceived objectivity may make it more damaging than an equivalent human bias, precisely because it is harder to identify and challenge.

Fourth, human oversight: consequential decisions about compensation, advancement, discipline, and termination should not be fully delegated to algorithmic systems. A.I. can and should inform these decisions, but it should not replace the human accountability that employment law and basic organizational justice demand.

Fifth, legislative engagement: organizations should actively support, rather than resist, the development of clear regulatory frameworks governing the use of algorithmic tools in employment decisions. Legislators are beginning to act. New York state has passed a rule requiring companies to disclose to consumers when prices are set algorithmically using their personal data, a model that advocates are pushing to extend to wages. More ambitiously, Colorado has introduced the Prohibit Surveillance Data to Set Prices and Wages Act, which would ban companies from using intimate personal data, including payday-loan history, location data or search behavior, to set what someone is paid algorithmically, while carving out performance-based compensation. Whether or not these specific measures become law, they signal the direction of regulatory travel. Employers who get ahead of this trajectory by auditing their own systems, adopting voluntary transparency standards and engaging constructively with policymakers will be better positioned than those who wait for enforcement to force their hand.

In Mobley v. Workday (N.D. Cal.), a federal class action filed in 2023, plaintiffs allege that Workday’s A.I.-powered applicant screening tools systematically discriminated against candidates based on race, age and disability, making it the first major U.S. class action to hold an A.I. vendor (rather than the employer) directly liable for algorithmic employment discrimination. The court denied Workday’s motion to dismiss in July 2024; in May 2025 the court conditionally certified a nationwide ADEA collective action.

There is, however, a critical gap in this emerging legislative landscape that deserves explicit attention: every measure that has been proposed or enacted, from the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation and AI Act to California’s Consumer Privacy Act, from New York’s algorithm-disclosure rule to Colorado’s proposed wage-surveillance prohibition, addresses monitoring. They require that companies disclose what data they collect, how they process it, and, in some cases, what automated decisions flow from it. These are meaningful protections, and they represent genuine legislative progress. But they say nothing, and no legislature anywhere in the world has yet proposed anything about manipulation.

A company could comply fully with every transparency and disclosure requirement currently on the books, inform its employees in plain language that it has assembled a detailed psychological profile of each of them, and then proceed to use those profiles to craft individualized behavioral interventions: engineering which employees are praised in lieu of being paid, which are baited with competitive framing, which are assigned weekend work because their profiles predict compliance, which are told a project “might be too hard for you” because their profiles identify a reactive need to prove themselves. None of that is currently unlawful anywhere.

This gaping omission, comprehensive legislative attention to the inputs of algorithmic employment systems, and virtually none to their behavioral outputs, represents the most significant unaddressed frontier in employment law today. Closing it will require regulators and legislators to grapple with a question that has no clear precedent: not merely what an employer knows about you, but what it is permitted to do with that knowledge to shape your behavior without your awareness and against your interests.

A.I.’s expansion from the recruitment process into the daily life of the employment relationship represents one of the most consequential and underexamined developments in the contemporary world of work. The same technologies that promised to make talent decisions fairer and more objective at the point of hiring can, in the hands of organizations operating without appropriate governance, become instruments of intrusion, control, manipulation and discrimination.

The legal frameworks designed to protect employees are straining to adapt to a technological environment that moves far faster than legislation, case law, organizational policies or employee handbooks. The possible harm that may result from surveillance wages and algorithmic psychological manipulation needs to be discussed, debated and mitigated.

Employees subject to it won’t be able to identify it or effectively inoculate themselves against it. That is precisely what makes it so dangerous, and precisely why it demands attention now, before it becomes the permanent infrastructure of the contemporary workplace. There are no simple answers to the questions we have raised here. But they are questions that urgently require honest engagement from technology companies, business leaders, HR leaders, legal scholars, regulators and workers themselves.

Filed Under: Business, Artificial Intelligence, Policy, Technology, Veena Dubal, Wilneida Negrón, Nina DiSalvo, Alan Colquitt, employment law, Organizational Leadership Experts, workforce, The Future of Work, Tech Experts, AI Experts, Amazon, Facebook, Instagram, Meta, Microsoft

ATTACHMENT NINE – FROM FUTURISM

DIE ROBOTER

Major Union Livid After 1,000 Factory Workers Were Replaced With 50 Robots

"They say it's the wave of the future, and if that's so, they're taking away jobs from people."

By Joe Wilkins Published Jul 4, 2026 6:01 AM EDT

One of the most powerful labor unions in the United States is furious, as over 1,000 workers at General Motors’ leading Detroit factory .

According to Crain’s Detroit Business, the lack of work coincides with the installation of 50 AI-integrated manufacturing robots, which GM installed in its Factory Zero plant, a major all-electric vehicle facility in Detroit. When the industrial robots went online, the UAW says the factory idled the thousand-odd workers, a situation in which employees aren’t allowed to work, but aren’t fully fired either (as Crain’s explains, the vast majority of these workers have functionally been laid off.)

“It’s always a concern when you see a robot coming to a plant, especially after they have laid off over a thousand people,” UAW local 22 president James Cotton told Crain’s. “They say it’s the wave of the future, and if that’s so, they’re taking away jobs from people.”

The 50 robo-arms — which GM euphemistically calls “cobots,” a style of robot designed to work alongside humans — are primarily being used to bolt body panels onto EVs, AutoBlog reported. Designed by the firm Fanuc, the cobots are built to operate at slower speeds, use less power, and contain more emergency-stop triggers than typical assembly-line robots.

Their installation comes after months of forced EV manufacturing slowdowns in an effort to curb overproduction — in other words, to keep the price of GM’s electric vehicles artificially high. That timing suggests GM may be using Factory Zero as a testing grounds for the so-called cobots, which should come as alarming news for autoworkers in Detroit and beyond.

It also comes after some major wins for the UAW. Back in 2023, the 90-year old union secured major wins for workers of the “big three” auto companies Ford, GM, and Stellantis following a strike that lasted over a month. In this light, the massive layoffs can be seen as cost-cutting measures in order to circumvent those concessions and weaken the UAW’s position ahead of some major 2028 contract negotiations.

“Our manpower is being taken away from us,” Cotton told Crain’s. “From top to bottom, we’re disgusted that they have cobots in our plants.”

More on automation: Factory Paying Human Worker to Watch Robot Worker All Day

ATTACHMENT TEN – FROM FUTURE COO

AI-LED SHIFT IN SUPPLY CHAIN TECHNOLOGY TRENDS FOR 2026

by FutureCOO Editors July 15, 2026

Supply chains are entering a new phase of transformation driven by increasingly autonomous and interconnected technologies, with artificial intelligence at the core, according to Gartner’s latest outlook on top supply chain technology trends for 2026.

The research identifies a shift towards systems that are not only intelligent but also self-directed and accountable, reshaping how chief supply chain officers (CSCOs) design operations, manage risk and deliver business value.

THREE THEMES SHAPING TRANSFORMATION

Gartner groups the emerging trends under three strategic themes: autonomy and agency, specialisation and intelligence, and trust and governance. Together, these reflect a move towards hyperconnected environments where digital and physical systems operate in tandem.

AUTONOMY RESHAPES OPERATIONS

Technologies under the autonomy and agency theme point to a reconfiguration of operational models. Polyfunctional robots, for example, are evolving beyond single-task automation to perform multiple roles, offering a flexible response to ongoing labour shortages.

Physical AI is also gaining traction, combining AI models with sensors, robotics and automation to enable real-time decision-making across manufacturing, warehousing and logistics.

Meanwhile, agentic AI introduces a virtual workforce capable of planning and executing tasks independently, while collaborative multi-agent systems allow these digital workers to coordinate across complex workflows.

For COOs, the implication is a shift from process optimisation to orchestration of hybrid human-machine ecosystems.

SMARTER, SPECIALISED INTELLIGENCE

Under the specialisation and intelligence theme, Gartner highlights the growing importance of tailored AI models and advanced simulation tools. Intelligent simulation enhances predictive planning by integrating AI into modelling environments, enabling more dynamic and proactive decision-making.

Domain-specific language models, trained on supply chain data and workflows, are expected to improve accuracy and compliance in areas such as procurement, logistics and regulatory reporting. These tools allow organisations to move beyond generic AI applications towards more targeted, high-impact use cases.

GOVERNANCE BECOMES CRITICAL

As AI adoption accelerates, governance is emerging as a central concern. Technologies supporting product provenance are enabling organisations to track the origin and movement of goods with greater transparency, driven by regulatory and consumer demands.

At the same time, decision governance frameworks are becoming essential to ensure that AI-driven decisions are explainable, auditable and aligned with corporate policies.

Titze emphasised that these trends represent more than incremental change. “They are catalysts for transforming supply chains. Organisations that proactively integrate these technologies in line with their business objectives will be better positioned to navigate disruption and maintain competitive advantage,” he said.

ATTACHMENT ELEVEN – FROM THE COLLEGE FIX

‘FAR FROM HUMAN LEVEL’: AI MODELS SCORE BELOW 25% ON JOB TASKS, UC BERKELEY STUDY FINDS

By Eric Mathemeier - Liberty University Posted on July 19, 2026

Key Takeaways

· A UC Berkeley study found that popular AI models scored below 25 percent on real-world professional tasks, highlighting their limited capabilities in executing complex workflows across various industries.

· The AI models, including OpenAI's ChatGPT-5.5, struggled with sustained reasoning and execution-heavy workflows, averaging a mere 2.6 percent success rate on the most challenging tasks.

· While currently ineffective at handling complex tasks, researchers believe that AI will increasingly automate repetitive, routine jobs, although decision-intensive roles may remain secure for longer.

Popular artificial intelligence language models scored below 25 percent when researchers from the University of California Berkeley tested their capabilities in more than 50 industries.

The Berkeley Center for Responsible, Decentralized Intelligence conducted the “Agent’s Last Exam,” the school’s real-world professional workflow test designed to determine whether AI is “job-ready,” according to the study.

“On ALE’s hardest tier, every frontier agent we tested, including Fable 5, achieved a 0% success rate,” the study states.

The test covered “more than 1,500 expert-sourced tasks spanning 55 occupations,” including finance, law, and manufacturing.

Yiyou Sun, a postdoctoral researcher who led the study with Berkeley Professor Dawn Song, told The College Fix that one of the most surprising elements of this study was that the AI models “still lack practical experience when it comes to execution-heavy workflows.”

When asked what skills AI might still struggle with, Sun said that its ability to choose how to complete tasks, as well as to change methods when failure occurs, remains difficult.

“It is still too early for us to draw conclusions about the rate of progress,” Sun added. “As researchers and model developers focus on these shortcomings, I expect many of the current limitations to improve substantially over time.”

Asked which industries would be most affected, Sun said, “The key factor is not the industry itself but the nature of the work.”

The repeatability of tasks, rather than the trade it’s conducted in, is a larger factor in the opportunity for automation through AI, Sun said.

“Highly repetitive workflows generate large amounts of data that are easier to collect, verify, and use for training AI systems. As a result, these tasks tend to be learned and automated more quickly,” Sun said.

Despite the low passage rates of current AI models, Sun believes repetitive human tasks will be replaced by AI.

Similarly, Peyton Hornberger, a spokesperson for the Alliance for Secure AI, told The College Fix that “while AI may not be able to completely replace humans yet, the technology is trending towards a fully automated workforce.”

“AI is better at coding than virtually all humans, and that is just the beginning of its practical capabilities,” Hornberger said.

She called for “independent third-party evaluations by reliable entities, safety testing before deployment, and, most importantly, transparency to the public about the models’ capabilities.”

“There is a lot of fear around AI taking people’s jobs … Leaders in DC have an opportunity to set the standard for AI safety testing,” Hornberger said.

However, policymakers might not be getting the full picture on AI capabilities, as the lack of a standard benchmark makes it hard to assess industry-reported results, she said.

Ultimately, Hornberger recommended a set of three standards for future evaluations of AI systems, asking for “independent testing, transparency about limitations and capabilities, and transparency to the public about dangers and risks.”

The College Fix reached out to OpenAI and Anthropic for their response to the study. Neither responded.

ATTACHMENT – FROM FUTURE COO

AI CONFIDENCE RISES AMONG SG WORKFORCE, BUT ADOPTION GAPS PERSIST

by FutureCOO Editors July 16, 2026

Confidence in artificial intelligence is strengthening among Singapore’s workforce, yet uneven adoption across organisations and lingering questions over productivity gains signal a more complex transition for business leaders.

According to ADP’s People at Work Report 2026, only 10% of workers in Singapore now feel uncertain about AI’s impact on their roles, down from 19% a year ago. The shift reflects growing familiarity with the technology as usage becomes embedded in day-to-day work.

More than half (56%) of employees report using AI multiple times a week, while nearly a quarter (23%) use it daily — placing Singapore ahead of global averages in adoption frequency.

ADOPTION UNEVEN ACROSS FIRMS

Despite rising confidence, the report highlights a clear divide in how organisations are scaling AI. Mid-sized firms are emerging as frontrunners, with 34% of employees using AI daily — significantly higher than both small businesses and large enterprises, where usage stands at 19%.

The disparity suggests structural challenges at both ends of the spectrum. Smaller firms may lack access to cost-effective tools and implementation expertise, while larger organisations face complexity in integrating AI across established processes and systems.

“Singapore’s workforce is becoming more confident about AI and its role in the workplace,” said Yvonne Teo, vice president of HR, APAC at ADP. “The challenge now is scaling its use effectively across organisations of different sizes.”

Teo noted that mid-sized companies often strike a balance between agility and resources, offering a model for broader adoption.

PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX EMERGES

While usage is increasing, perceived value remains less certain. Only 15% of Singapore workers strongly believe AI will positively impact their job responsibilities in the near term, pointing to a gap between adoption and tangible outcomes.

Globally, frequent AI users report higher engagement and lower stress levels, yet are also more likely to question their productivity. This paradox suggests that while AI may improve workplace experience, its contribution to measurable output is not yet fully understood.

“AI is reshaping how work gets done, but adoption alone does not guarantee meaningful workplace impact,” said Jessica Zhang, senior vice president of APAC at ADP. “Workers need to understand how these technologies fit into their day-to-day workflows to unlock real productivity gains.”

IMPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING MODELS

The findings carry implications for COOs tasked with translating AI adoption into business performance. Experts point to the need for clearer operating frameworks, targeted training and well-defined performance metrics to ensure employees can effectively integrate AI into their roles.

Workforce sentiment also varies by role and demographic. Knowledge workers show higher optimism about AI’s potential, while adoption spans age groups more evenly than expected, with mid-career professionals among the most active users.

Dr Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP, said organisations must manage both operational and cultural shifts. “Employers that help workers transition to new ways of working can foster a workplace where AI feels less like a disruption and more like a teammate,” she said.

Recent Posts

APAC leads AI adoption in real estate but faces biggest talent shortage

"Weather as Operational Intelligence" to tackle construction's biggest disruptor

Robots cost far more than humans in nursing, construction and care roles

AI confidence rises among SG workforce, but adoption gaps persist

AI-led shift in supply chain technology trends for 2026

ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN – FROM FUTUREIOT/COO HONG KONG

ROBOTS COST FAR MORE THAN HUMANS IN NURSING, CONSTRUCTION AND CARE ROLES

by FutureCOO Editors July 17, 2026

Automating frontline care and construction roles would be markedly more expensive than retaining human staff, according to a June 2026 analysis from scheduling platform Planera.

The study compared government wage data with real-world prices from automation vendors to estimate the annual cost of replacing one worker with machines, factoring purchase, installation, maintenance and the human supervision still required.

High-cost roles at the top

10 PROFESSIONS THAT WOULD COST MORE TO AUTOMATION

Source: Planera 2026

Planera’s ranking of 30 common US occupations places nursing assistants as the most expensive to automate. With a median wage of US$42,200, the platform estimates the annual cost to replace one nursing assistant at around US$375,100 — nearly nine times the worker’s salary.

Home health and personal care aides follow closely: automation would cost an estimated US$282,000 a year against a median wage of US$35,800, an eightfold multiple.

Construction labourers are also expensive to displace. The report estimates automation would cost roughly US$285,000 per worker annually, about six times the median pay of US$47,000. Planera highlights that no commercial robot yet handles the full physical and variable demands of a building site, making full replacement uneconomical for now.

MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND TEACHING ASSISTANTS

Maintenance and repair workers rank fourth, with an annual automation price near US$287,000 versus a US$49,500 median wage. The study assigns a high “difficulty index” to these roles because they require diagnostic judgement across diverse equipment types — another area where general-purpose robots are not yet viable.

Teaching assistants are the fifth-most costly role to automate. Replacing one would cost about US$194,000 per year, more than five times the US$36,800 salary. Planera argues that supervision, classroom safety and the social aspects of supporting pupils remain firmly human responsibilities.

CHEAPER AUTOMATION EXISTS, BUT NOT ALWAYS PREFERABLE

Not all occupations are expensive to automate. Planera identifies cashiering as the least costly conversion, with self‑checkout systems estimated at roughly US$24,000 per year — cheaper than employing a cashier. That disparity reflects the maturity of certain automation technologies and the relative simplicity of the tasks involved.

A BROADER LABOUR-MARKET IMPLICATION

Planera’s spokesperson framed the findings as a rebuttal to the idea that low-paid, low-skill roles are automatically most vulnerable to automation. “For years, the assumption was that low-paid, low-skill jobs would be the first to go. But the data shows the opposite,” they said.

“The workers earning the least tend to be doing the most physically demanding, human-facing work — and that turns out to be exactly what machines struggle with most. It is white-collar roles that are now more exposed.” Planera

The report underlines a nuanced picture for developers and employers weighing automation: upfront technology costs, ongoing operation and residual supervisory labour can make displacement financially impractical for many frontline occupations, even where social and regulatory pressures push towards automation.

Related: Tech keeps HK’s housing-related services open amid pandemic

Recent Posts

Robots cost far more than humans in nursing, construction and care roles

AI confidence rises among SG workforce, but adoption gaps persist

AI-led shift in supply chain technology trends for 2026

Sun Group launches unified loyalty platform to connect entire ecosystem

SK Telecom charts 15GW AI data‑centre build to make Korea an Asia hub

ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN – FROM 36KR (CHINA)

TURING AWARD WINNERS AND AI LEADERS GATHER AT WAIC: WHAT ORDINARY PEOPLE NEED TO HOLD ONTO IS MORE THAN JUST THEIR JOBS

2026-07-19 21:48

AS AI BECOMES MORE CAPABLE, PEOPLE NEED TO RETURN THEMSELVES TO THEMSELVES MORE.

From July 17 to 20, 2026, the main forum of the 2026 World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the Global Governance High-Level Meeting on Artificial Intelligence (WAIC 2026) was officially held. As an annual grand event for the AI industry, this year's conference still gathered large model companies, AI application and hardware manufacturers from home and abroad. The AI new media "Lei Tech AGI (leikejiagi)" under Lei Tech (ID: leitech) also dispatched a reporting team to Shanghai for on-site coverage.

On the first day of the conference, the most frequently discussed topics on stage were undoubtedly models, agents, world models, and embodied intelligence. However, when these experts, scholars, and business leaders pushed the conversation further, they repeatedly arrived at the same question:

As machines become increasingly capable, what should humans do? This is probably the question that ordinary people most want to ask today, yet find it hardest to get an answer to at a technology conference.

Over the past few years, the most common answer from the industry has been "AI will not replace humans, but people who can use AI will replace those who cannot." This statement is not wrong, but by 2026, when agents can perform tasks continuously and AI has begun to enter scientific research and the physical world, it is no longer sufficient. The real changes have long gone beyond just learning an extra tool. More and more responses, operations, and even decisions that originally required human effort can now be taken over by machines.

Of course, humans cannot outperform machines in every single link. But this does not mean that ordinary people can only learn the latest tools while waiting for their work to be revalued. After reviewing WAIC's public speeches, roundtables, and on-site conversations, I would rather summarize the answer into four things:

1. Stop competing with machines for answers, and hold onto problems and goals;

2. Do not give back all the time saved by automation to work;

3. You can authorize AI to perform tasks, but you cannot outsource values and responsibilities;

4. Finally, always leave yourself a path to pivot.

HUMANS NO LONGER NEED TO COMPETE WITH MACHINES FOR ANSWERS

"Asking good questions is probably very important, even more important than having the answers."

At the AI for Science roundtable of WAIC, QIU Xipeng, a professor at Fudan University, condensed his advice for young people into this sentence. It sounds like a cliché, but in today's world where AI can write code, conduct research, and call tools, this sentence has taken on new weight.

In the past, the threshold for many professions was built on "knowing the answers." If you remembered more knowledge, were familiar with more processes, and could produce a document faster, you could get a higher position in an organization. But the first thing large models do is to make standard answers and standard outputs quickly become cheap.

Turing Award winner Richard Sutton also reminded that today's AI is mainly using human knowledge and then delivering that knowledge back to people. It can write, draw, and calculate, but it still lacks first-person experience of acting around goals and continuously improving through real-world feedback. He even stated bluntly that current AI is still "relatively weak and unreliable."

The problem is that Sutton does not believe this limitation will exist forever. AI is moving from the static "era of human data" to the "era of experience" where it can learn through action. Once machines can predict, act, get feedback, and adjust on their own, the advantages that ordinary people build by memorizing knowledge and executing processes proficiently will continue to shrink.

At this point, the most worth-training human ability must move one step forward: first decide what problem to solve, what conditions the results should meet, what costs are unacceptable, and then judge whether the answers given by the machine are meaningful.

This also explains why at the same roundtable, Omar M. Yaghi, the Nobel laureate in Chemistry, affirmed that AI has greatly accelerated some chemical research that used to take weeks or months, while also worrying that if scientists do not take the initiative to try and verify, eventually agents might end up telling humans "how science should be done."

AI brings more answers, but it also shifts the difficulty to selection: what is worth asking, which direction is worth investing in, and which results should enter the real world.

WANG Jian, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, founder of Alibaba Cloud, and director of the Zhijiang Laboratory, talked about similar changes from another perspective. Today's large models have read a large number of papers, books, and web pages, but much of the knowledge of the natural world is actually hidden in spectra, remote sensing data, seismic waves, gene sequences, and experimental data.

If the next generation of scientific foundation models can directly understand these data, AI will not just repeat the conclusions written by humans, but may also discover new problems from old data.

On that day, humans may no longer monopolize discoveries. But at least for quite a long time, humans will still need to answer which discoveries are worth pursuing, how to verify them, and where they should be applied.

Therefore, the first way for ordinary people to get along with AI is to let go of the anxiety of training themselves to become a faster machine, moving from "can I do it" to "why this thing needs to be done." Being able to write a plan is certainly useful, but being able to define the real problem that the plan needs to solve is more important; it is easy to get AI to generate ten answers, but knowing what the eleventh question is is increasingly rare.

THE FREED TIME SHOULD NOT ONLY BE USED TO TAKE ON MORE WORK

"The mission of physical intelligence is to give humans back to humans." So said SU Hao, Dean of the Institute of General Physical Intelligence at Fudan University.

In his vision, robots take on tasks such as turning over elderly people, carrying heavy loads, and performing dangerous operations in high-altitude, underground, and high-temperature environments; humans step back behind the safety line and continue to take on companionship, care, judgment, and creation. This division of labor is ideal and easy to recognize.

But in today's offices, things often go in another direction. When AI saves an hour for a person, the organization may not necessarily return that hour to life; instead, it is more likely to add two more tasks. When one person, with the help of agents, has the output capacity of a past team, the company may in turn question why the original team is still needed.

This is the most easily overlooked other side of "AI liberating humans." Technology can eliminate some repetitive labor, but it cannot automatically decide who the saved time belongs to, nor can it automatically ensure that workers live better as a result.

YIN Qi, Chairman of StepStar, judged that in the future, engineers, designers, and researchers may all have exclusive agents, so that "one person has the capabilities of a team." As a business leader, he sees the opportunity for personal capabilities to be amplified tenfold. But from the perspective of ordinary people, this judgment needs to add the second half:

When personal output is amplified ten times, how will the benefits be distributed, and will the work intensity also be amplified ten times?

Good AI should enhance human capabilities, expand human boundaries, and let people gain knowledge, abilities, and growth in the process of use, rather than making people dependent on the product. This standard is not only suitable for judging products, but also for judging your own work. After using AI for a period of time, you can go back and ask three very specific questions:

Without this tool, do I understand the original problem better? Have I mastered a set of transferable methods as a result? Has the time it saved turned into new creations, relationships, and rest, or has it only brought more tasks?

If the answer is always the latter, then AI has indeed improved efficiency, but it has not given humans back to humans.

When Turing Award winner John Hopcroft talked about education on site, he also said that the most fundamental mission of universities is to help students discover their own interests and find career paths that can demonstrate their self-worth. In an era where the next technological shift cannot be accurately predicted, a more reliable strategy than chasing short-term popular skills is to cultivate people who can adapt to changes.

Interest here is not some literary term. It means that when a skilled skill is quickly automated, you still have the motivation to keep asking questions, learning, and reorganizing your work. AI can help people complete more and more processes, but where a person is willing to place their long-term attention will still determine what they eventually accumulate.

YOU CAN LET AI EXECUTE, BUT DON'T HAND OVER RESPONSIBILITY ALONG WITH IT

If large models mainly change "who answers," agents change "who executes." In his speech, YIN Qi proposed that computers, mobile phones, cars, and robots will become the "bodies" of the same agent in different scenarios. Agents can not only call tools, but may also have identities, capabilities, and credit, independently find partners, organize collaborations, and even complete transactions.

The questions are: who the agent acts on behalf of, who is responsible for the consequences, whether the identity is credible, whether permissions can be controlled, and whether behaviors can be traced.

These issues sound a lot like industry governance, but they are not far from ordinary people. Letting AI rewrite a piece of text can be redone if there is a mistake; letting it send an email on your behalf, operate an account, submit an application, or arrange medical advice, errors may enter real relationships, money, and systems, and it is even very difficult to withdraw them.

XUE Lan, Dean of Tsinghua University's Schwarzman College and Dean of the Tsinghua University Institute for AI International Governance, put it more directly at the main forum: "Issues involving value judgment cannot be handed over to AI."

After humans make mistakes, we can distinguish between intent and negligence, and people can also be held accountable and punished; AI itself does not have a subject personality that can bear legal and moral consequences. In the event of an accident, the responsibility will ultimately fall back on specific people and organizations along the complete chain of development, deployment, operation, and use.

Therefore, when ordinary people use agents, it is not that important how beautifully the prompt is written. What matters more is whether boundaries are set. When it comes to public release, identity, privacy, money, medical care, and legal matters, permissions should be as small as possible, key steps should retain confirmation, the process should be viewable, and operations should be revocable.

This is not excessive caution about technology. At the opening speech of the conference, President pointed out that agents are new forms of artificial intelligence products and services. It is necessary to clarify decision-making authority and behavioral boundaries, establish behavior traceability and risk warning mechanisms, focus on improving the endogenous security capabilities of agents, and resolve application-derived risks.

Ultimately, authorization means only handing over a task to the machine, not throwing judgment and responsibility along with it. The more AI behaves like a partner that can handle things for you, the clearer humans must be about when they have to show up in person.

ALWAYS LEAVE YOURSELF A PATH TO PIVOT

Ordinary people certainly still need to learn AI.

But what is really worth learning is not the buttons of a certain model, a certain prompt format, or even just the most popular workflow at the moment. Tools are iterating faster and faster. Binding yourself to a single platform and a single process may lead to the need for a complete redo as soon as you get familiar with it.

"All existing inertia and dependence on original experience are now decreasing." CAO Yue, a researcher at the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence and founder of Sand.ai, summarizes the characteristics of the new generation as being better at abandoning old experiences. The depth and ability of young people to use new tools largely depend on whether they are "willing to believe and dare to believe."

In the WAIC Young Scientists Dialogue, LIU Ziming, an assistant professor at Tsinghua University's School of Artificial Intelligence and Chief Scientist of MetaRing Intelligence, added: The "new generation" has nothing to do with age. The key is whether you will use expired experience to mechanically handle new problems. ZHUGE Mingchen, a founding member of Recursive, also pointed out that AI five years ago is completely different from today. "You must always keep a new path for yourself" instead of passively responding when new things begin to have an impact.

The so-called keeping a new path does not necessarily mean quitting your job and switching careers. It can be proactively integrating AI into a real job to see where it works and where it goes wrong; it can be maintaining the ability to keep learning outside of your main business; it can also be not locking all your materials, processes, and personal knowledge into a single platform, leaving yourself room to switch tools.

More importantly, don't only learn AI in the dialog box. Sutton regards experience as the source of intelligence, and SU Hao says the physical world is the "most honest examiner." The underlying truth is the same: any seemingly beautiful output must ultimately be tested by reality.

Whether the plan is willing to be used by someone, whether the code can run, whether the content can withstand fact-checking, and whether the decision will harm specific people—these feedbacks cannot be completely replaced by asking the model a few more rounds of questions.

In the AI era, ordinary people's sense of security does not come from mastering all new tools, which is impossible anyway. It more likely comes from a set of non-expiring abilities: being able to ask questions, verify results, try and make mistakes in reality, know which judgments cannot be outs

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN – FROM 1440

THE COCKROACH UPRISING

Tens of thousands of protesters marched toward India's Parliament in New Delhi yesterday before police fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. The self-described Cockroach Janta Party is demanding the education minister's resignation following repeated leaks of a medical entrance exam that millions of students see as determining their futures. See clashes unfold (w/photos).

The movement emerged in May after India's chief justice compared unemployed young people to "parasites" and "cockroaches" during a Supreme Court hearing. The party has since focused on India's medical entrance exam, where more than 2 million students compete annually for roughly 130,000 medical school spots. Families borrow money or even sell land to pay for years of private tutoring, while the competitive exam culture has also raised concerns about students' mental health. Go inside India's high-stakes exam system here.

India is home to the world's largest youth population, with about half its 1.5 billion people under age 30. Explore India's population pyramid.

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.A – FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

POLICE IN INDIA USE TEAR GAS AND BATONS ON CROWDS PROTESTING EXAM SCANDAL

Young people angry about frequent leaks of college entrance tests present one of the biggest challenges in years to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

By Mujib Mashal and Pragati K.B. Reporting from New Delhi July 20, 2026

Chaotic scenes played out on the streets of New Delhi on Monday, as security forces used tear gas and batons to disperse tens of thousands of people marching on the Parliament in one of the largest protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in years.

The protest in the Indian capital, largely fueled by young people, was called to demand the resignation of the country’s education minister after botched college entrance exams that have disrupted the lives of millions of students.

A smiling Mr. Modi, who arrived to open a session of the Parliament, tried to project an image of calm. He did not address the protesters’ demands directly, even as security forces struggled to hold back the crowds spilling onto the roads leading to the building.

By day’s end, the police crackdown, in which protesters were beaten up, appeared to have dispersed much of the crowd. The exact number of protesters injured was not clear, but Indian media reported that over 100 people had been brought to two hospitals in Delhi.

Police officials told Indian news outlets that at least 50 of their personnel were also injured.

Over 60 protesters were arrested, according to lawyers who were rallying legal help for them.

Mr. Modi’s response has so far remained consistent with his decade-old position that his ministers are not answerable to public pressure.

But the size and force of the protests may indicate that his ruling party has underestimated the raw anger among young people in India, particularly after recent student movements in neighboring Bangladesh and Nepal toppled governments.

His image as a strongman may also be showing cracks.

Television channels friendly to Mr. Modi, which had largely ignored the buildup to Monday’s protest, broadcast footage of panic around the Parliament as security guards ran around holding the line with water cannons and tear gas. On social media, a space where Mr. Modi’s ruling party has enjoyed outsize influence, the Gen-Z protesters appeared to be breaking through, with memes and livestreams of the protests and the police crackdown.

“The apathy the government is showing us is shameful,” said Anshul Yadav, 20, who attended the protests on Monday with two friends. “The government should come talk,” he said. “Education is important.”

Public anger over the exam scandal has been simmering since May, when more than two million students who took India’s biggest entrance exam for medical school found out that the results would be scrapped because the questions had been leaked and that they would have to retake the test.

Such leaks have become a frequent problem in recent years, and news reports in India that some students have died by suicide because of the stress have intensified the outrage. The movement has since grown into broader discontent over the failings of the Indian education system and the lack of accountability in governance.

The movement gained momentum over the weekend after the police forcibly removed Sonam Wangchuk, a prominent activist who had been on hunger strike at the protest site for more than 20 days. The police said that they had moved him to a hospital for court-ordered essential medical care, despite opposition from his family and fellow protesters.

Running the Barricades

On Monday morning, crowds chanting slogans against Mr. Modi poured into the Jantar Mantar area, a protest site not far from the Parliament. The streets were jammed with mostly young people, many saying that they had come from other parts of India. They tried to push their way to the site through heavy barricades. In some areas, the police welded tall barricades to stop the protesters from moving toward the Parliament.

By Monday afternoon, a senior member of Mr. Modi’s cabinet, J.P. Nadda, met with representatives of the movement, the first such outreach since the protests began. The movement’s leaders have issued three specific demands: the immediate resignation of the education minister, Dharmendra Pradhan; the discharge from the hospital of Mr. Wangchuk; and compensation for the families those students who died by suicide.

Mr. Pradhan is seen as close to Mr. Modi, having played an important role in recent victories by his Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., in key state elections. The education minister has previously brushed the protesters aside, calling them “the B-team of terrorists.”

Mr. Nadda, in a statement, confirmed having met “in a cordial atmosphere,” but offered no sign of what the government response to the demand would be. “I have requested all the protesters to end their sit-in and assist the administration in restoring normalcy,” he said.

On the streets, the police continued to chase away protesters.

“Seeing the brutality with which peacefully protesting youth are being dealt with, I have decided to continue my fast,” Mr. Wangchuk, who has been held at a hospital against his will, said in a statement.

Protest leaders said that the police had destroyed the stage where Mr. Wangchuk lay during his fast and which had become their gathering point, but that they were regrouping again late in the evening. “We won’t leave Jantar Mantar until education minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigns,” said one of the leaders, Ashutosh Ranka.

Angry Students

The protesters accuse Mr. Pradhan of doing little to fix an education system that can be corrupt, lax and inefficient. The latest example — the cancellation of the entrance exams to medical school because the question papers were leaked and sold — affected millions of students.

Such tests can be a ticket to a better life, whether for higher education or for a coveted government job. Many families sell land or borrow money to pay for private tutoring to give students a chance of success.

One doctoral student, Priyam Dubey, 26, said he had been in schoolin 2024 when exam questions were leaked. After taking an entrance exam for a fellowship that could fund his graduate degree, he was told that it had been scrapped and that he had to sit for it again.

“I gave in the paper, it went really well and next morning when I woke up, the paper got leaked and they canceled the examination,” he said. “I didn’t want to prepare again.”

He said no one was being held accountable for what young people like him often go through.

As the crowds built up, the internet became inaccessible in the protest area.

Sreelakshmi Sreevalsam, 37, traveled to Delhi from Bengaluru to “make things audible to the government,” she said. Ms. Sreevalsam, a project manager at a financial technology company, met up with two friends on Monday morning for the protests.

“I want to be on the right side of history,” she said.

Bharati Ghosh, a B.J.P. spokeswoman, said on Sunday night that the police had arrested those responsible for the leaks and that the law would take its course. “The B.J.P. government senses, understands and responds to its people,” she said. “We are not sensing that the entire country is angry or frustrated.”

Amit Malviya, who is in charge of the ruling party’s social media wing, tried to downplay the scale of the protest.

“This hardly looks like a protest that enjoys support beyond professional agitators and ideological groups,” he said on X.

Rare Dissent

The space for protest and dissent in India’s traditionally raucous democracy has shrunk significantly during Mr. Modi’s 12 years in office. His government has cracked down on dissent and put activists behind bars, creating a chilling effect on public opposition.

The current protest was started by the Cockroach Janta Party, a grass-roots movement founded just two months ago that has come to symbolize the anger among India’s youth. It started in response to a rant by India’s chief justice comparing the country’s unemployed youth with cockroaches and parasites. In June, the party announced a sit-in demanding accountability over the exam leaks.

When the crowds filled the area around the protest site on Monday morning, the movement’s social media handles posted: “A flood of hundreds of thousands of cockroaches.”

Mujib Mashal is the South Asia bureau chief for The Times, helping to lead coverage of India and the diverse region around it, including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan.

Pragati K.B. is a reporter for The Times based in New Delhi, covering news from across India.

A version of this article appears in print on July 21, 2026, Section A, Page 10 of the New York edition with the headline: After Exam Scandal In India, Protests Draw Tear Gas and Batons.

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.B – FROM X

Indian Chief Justice Surya Kant says there are "parasites" attacking the system. "There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment and don't have any place in the profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, some of them become RTI activists, some of them become other activists, and they start attacking everyone." - CJI.

ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN – FROM CALCALISTECH.COM (ISRAEL)

AI WON'T REPLACE WORKERS, BUT IT WILL CHANGE WHO SUCCEEDS

Executives and experts say the winners of the AI era will combine technical expertise with uniquely human skills that machines cannot easily replicate.

By Maya Nahum Shahal 10:09, 16.07.26

As the world of work has changed in recent years, particularly with the rise of generative AI, employers are rethinking the qualities and skills they value most in employees. For decades, technological expertise was the primary currency in the technology industry, but companies are increasingly placing greater emphasis on human advantages, soft skills and broader capabilities that complement technical knowledge.

In an era where AI tools can increasingly perform complex technical tasks, human skills are not replacing professional expertise but becoming an essential addition to it. The ability to communicate, collaborate, exercise judgment, think creatively and understand people is becoming a larger part of the modern employee's toolbox.

"AI will not necessarily replace you, but you may be replaced by someone in your profession who knows how to use AI platforms better," says Dr. Eldad Rom, an organizational psychologist and partner at Team8, who works primarily with founders and senior executives.

"Development managers tell me that if experienced developers do not adopt AI tools quickly enough, younger developers may overtake them. Today, we should think of every developer as a mini team leader, instead of managing five people, they may be managing five AI agents that write code and help design system architecture. The more skilled you become at managing these agents, the more effective you become."

Asked which new human abilities employees need to develop in the AI era, Rom points to creativity, critical thinking and adaptability.

"We need to become more creative because AI does not independently think out of nowhere or create ideas in the way humans do. It knows how to generate based on what it has learned. The more creative we are and the better we know how to work with AI, the greater our advantage will be."

He says critical thinking is becoming increasingly important because AI is creating an unprecedented flood of information.

"We need to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. We also need the ability to adapt quickly because technological changes today happen every few months, and we need strong self-learning capabilities. People who are comfortable learning independently have a significant advantage."

Rom also emphasizes the importance of practical experience.

"There is a lot of value in doing things with your hands, a skill that develops through practice. This is an era where theoretical learning alone is limited and requires experimentation and trial and error. Some people have a fear of technology and change, but it is important not to be afraid and to try."

At the same time, he warns that the rapid adoption of AI also creates new organizational risks.

"Anyone can now create agents for themselves, but those agents are not always secure. This creates new attack surfaces and cybersecurity challenges that organizations did not face before."

The growing importance of human capabilities was also highlighted by veteran American software engineer Kent Beck, creator of the Extreme Programming methodology.

In a recent episode of "The Pragmatic Engineer" podcast, Beck discussed weaknesses he sees among software engineers, including a lack of emotional regulation and empathy.

Throughout his career, Beck said he realized that influence does not come only from technical expertise.

"Your ability to create change in the world depends on your ability to communicate with other people and understand them," he said.

These skills, he noted, were areas he previously underestimated.

Recent research suggests companies are already shifting their approach to hiring.

According to a study by technology and consulting company Cognizant and education company Pearson, based on a survey of 750 human resources executives and published in June, 69% of respondents said that for early-career employees, a broad interdisciplinary background has become more important than narrow professional specialization or a specific degree.

Almost all respondents said soft skills including curiosity, judgment and adaptability have become more important as organizations require greater flexibility, problem-solving ability and human decision-making.

Rom believes traditional hiring processes must evolve accordingly.

"I'm not sure resumes are still relevant in the same way. For years, LinkedIn profiles have partly replaced resumes because they allow people to present skills, projects and experiences that are difficult to capture in a traditional document."

He believes companies need to focus more on evaluating capabilities directly.

"Critical thinking, adaptability and independent learning can be assessed during the hiring process far better than through a resume. This is important because selection processes also need to change."

"In the past, it was easier. If someone came from a strong military intelligence unit and had a degree from a respected university, there were already systems that had filtered them for me. But if that candidate lacks creativity or the ability to learn independently, they may eventually fall behind."

DEGREES MATTER LESS, LEARNING MATTERS MORE

Efrat Shapira, Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Ness, says companies are already seeing a fundamental shift.

"There is no doubt we are in the middle of a revolution and a major transformation. In development roles, technological knowledge and experience remain important, but the world is changing rapidly and new tools appear every day. Therefore, the ability to learn independently has become essential."

She says curiosity and willingness to adopt new tools are becoming critical.

"If learning something new requires taking a course, it may already be outdated because things change so quickly. What is required today is broader thinking, systemic vision and business understanding."

THE ROLE OF DEVELOPERS IS ALSO CHANGING.

"If yesterday a developer mainly coded independently, today they need to know how to work with AI tools, write effective prompts and think about the business consequences of what they build."

Shapira says companies are increasingly looking for employees who can bridge technology and business.

One example is the emerging role of the Forward Deployed Engineer, professionals who take existing AI models and tools and apply them to solve specific organizational problems.

"The role is evolving and takes a different form in every organization. We recruit and train employees, and we have built upskilling programs designed to take our current employees into the world of tomorrow."

The change is also affecting recruitment criteria.

"We still need a certain level of experience and knowledge, but we are looking for people with broader backgrounds, people who know how to develop and adopt tools, who can adapt, learn independently and build projects outside their formal work."

She says academic credentials are also becoming less decisive.

"A person does not necessarily need a bachelor's degree for me to recruit them for a development role if they have learned independently and can demonstrate the required abilities."

SO WHAT SHOULD PEOPLE STUDY?

"What you love," Shapira says. "The world is changing."

Rom agrees that the specific field of study matters less than the mindset people develop.

"It's not only about the degree you choose. It is about your ability to continue learning. What you study today will not necessarily give you an advantage forever because AI can also learn information."

The advantage will come from uniquely human capabilities.

"AI is excellent at analysis, but it does not know how to decide what is right. I see managers struggling with decisions because they have more information than ever before. But decisions require values, judgment and the willingness to take responsibility."

Rom says one of the most important skills in the AI era is the ability to remain comfortable without immediate answers.

"Among senior managers and people in complex positions, there is a growing need to tolerate not knowing and not rush to produce answers."

"Humans have always struggled with ambiguity and uncertainty, which is why we create anchors. But today we live in a world where every question appears to have an answer within seconds. The ability to remain with an open question long enough for something meaningful to emerge is becoming extremely valuable."

He warns that AI can create false confidence.

"AI provides answers with a great deal of confidence, but confidence does not necessarily mean correctness."

For employees and managers alike, he says the ability to sit with uncertainty is becoming increasingly rare.

"I want to see more people who are comfortable remaining with a question mark instead of immediately running toward the false certainty AI provides."

FROM JOBS TO SKILLS

Ayalla Reuven-Lelong, CEO of global consulting firm EQ.el and an expert on the future of work, believes the fundamental shift is from occupations to capabilities.

"We have moved from a world of roles to a world of skills. Competitive advantage will no longer be determined only by what we know, but by our ability to learn, change and create value."

More than 15 years ago, Reuven-Lelong led a research process with Prof. Ilan Meshoulam and around 300 managers from Israel and abroad to identify the capabilities that would define success in the future workplace. The process produced the "Five Continents" model, which maps human capabilities required for success in the 21st century.

"Looking back after years of working with organizations and employees around the world, I can say with confidence that success in the AI era will depend less on what we know and more on our human abilities: lifelong learning, creativity, critical thinking, empathy, flexibility, adaptability and problem-solving."

According to data collected as part of the "Israeli Readiness for the AI Era" project led by EQ.el and Prof. Eliezer Shalev, only 18% of Israeli workers and managers currently demonstrate a high level of readiness for the AI era.

The research found that 18% demonstrate strong lifelong learning capabilities, 11% demonstrate the required level of creativity, and only 27% demonstrate optimal critical thinking abilities.

"Many executives and board members still view the AI revolution primarily as a technological revolution. But that is only half the story," Reuven-Lelong says.

"Within a few years, AI will become a basic workplace tool, just like computers, the internet and smartphones. The question will no longer be who uses AI, but who knows how to create more value with it."

"The real competitive advantage will come from human capabilities, learning faster, thinking better, creating, solving problems and adapting more quickly to change."

ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN – FROM REUTERS

TRUMP SET TO EXPAND POWER COST PLEDGE ON DATA CENTERS

By Tim McLaughlin, Laila Kearney and Jarrett Renshaw

July 22, 2026 12:09 PM EDTUpdated 2 mins ago

Pledge expansion to be announced at a White House event

· Patchwork of US grids already under severe strain

· FERC set to examine PJM's worsening supply-demand imbalance on Thursday

· Expanded pledge would apply to 80% of US delivered electricity, White House says

July 22 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump is set to unveil on Thursday a pledge backed by governors, lawmakers, utilities and data center developers aimed at shielding households from electricity costs tied to the AI boom, as he pushes to make the United States the global leader in artificial intelligence.

It extends Trump's original Ratepayer Protection Pledge from March to ensure the companies building and using data centers ⁠pay above and beyond normal rates so that costs are not passed on to average households.

Trump will be joined by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, and several of the state governors who signed the original pledge, according to a White House official.

Protecting electricity customers from data center demands is no easy task, however, as the country's patchwork system of regional electric grids is already under severe strain. Massive congestion on transmission lines, for example, surged 81% to $3.2 billion in 2025 in the PJM Interconnection, the largest regional electric grid that serves 67 million people.

Last week, the latest annual power ‌auction ⁠at PJM pushed up prices to record levels. On Thursday, energy regulator FERC will meet to discuss the precarious future of PJM in light of its ongoing supply and demand imbalance.

"Today’s electricity system forces almost everyone, from homeowners to hyperscale data centers, to depend on the same network," Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies ⁠at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, recently wrote.

"That one-size-fits-all model increasingly does not serve either group well. Large customers may wait a decade or longer for service, while ordinary ratepayers worry that expanding the grid for ⁠massive new industrial loads will ultimately increase their own bills."

Data center advocates say the industry’s rapid expansion is driving long-overdue investments in America’s electric grid and cite other factors driving up costs, including ⁠power-plant retirements and transmission constraints.

The White House says the pledge, which is nonbinding, will now cover 80% of all the power delivered to U.S. homes and businesses.

ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN – FROM KPNX TV (PHOENIX, AZ) VIA MSN

AMID BACKLASH OVER AI DATA CENTERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCES NEW INITIATIVE

by David Chasanov

President Donald Trump announced he’s making a promise to protect consumers from having to pay for the energy cost of AI data centers.

He said he wants companies to be responsible for the bill instead.

These centers are continuing to be built across the country, including here in Arizona.

In Ahwatukee near 48th Street and Chandler Boulevard, another data center is under construction.

Lots of people don’t like the idea of a new data center coming to Ahwatukee, sharing concerns about the noise, and how much water and power this project would demand.

This comes as President Trump introduced what’s called the Ratepayer Protection Pledge.

"The cost of building the new infrastructure required to meet this demand should be borne by the corporations themselves, not by the American consumers," President Trump said.

The new, voluntary Ratepayer Protection Pledge aims to stop surrounding homes, and businesses from having to pay higher utility bills. This comes as the AI boom is leading to a massive energy demand.

The White House initially announced the pledge program back in March, but President Trump recently touted it again at an event on Thursday.

While it's not a binding agreement, President Trump says nearly 200 companies and 23 governors, all Republican, have signed on.

The administration claims the pledge will eventually cover 80% of the electricity delivered to U.S. homes, and businesses.

Some lawmakers here in Arizona and nationwide worry that the boom in data centers could have a negative impact on the environment.

But President Trump says this will lead to new jobs. He wants to make this happen before any other country does.

"With the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, we're creating a fair deal for everybody," President Trump said. "This is how we'll grow our economy, lower the cost of living, protect American consumers and lead the world in AI, and high tech all at the same time. We want to lead the world.”

While the White House pushes this new pledge, people in Ahwatukee say they plan to continue protesting the construction of a new data center in the area.

ATTACHMENT NINETEEN – FROM CNN

SCIENTISTS HAVE FOUND AN ALARMING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF VAST DATA CENTERS

By Laura Paddison Updated Mar 30, 2026

The vast data centers that power artificial intelligence guzzle huge amounts of energy but they also have another alarming impact, according to new research. They are creating “heat islands,” warming the land around them by up to 16 degrees Fahrenheit, and making life hotter for more than 340 million people.

There are still big gaps in our understanding of the impacts of data centers, even as they boom in number, said Andrea Marinoni, associate professor with the Earth Observation group at the University of Cambridge, and an author of the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

Marinoni and his colleagues decided to dig into one under-researched impact: the heat they release through their energy-intensive processes, including computation and powering cooling systems.

To do this, they looked at temperature data over the last 20 years from remote sensors and mapped it against the locations of AI “hyperscalers” — vast data centers that house thousands of servers and can stretch over a million square feet, which have mostly been built within the last decade.

They focused on more than 6,000 data centers located away from highly dense urban areas, as surface temperatures around these were less likely to have been affected by other factors, such as manufacturing or the heating of homes. The researchers also filtered out seasonal impacts, global warming trends and other influences.

They found surface temperatures increased by an average of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit after a data center started operations. In extreme cases, nearby temperatures increase by up to 16.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

These increases were consistent across the globe, the researchers found. In Mexico’s Bajio region, for example, which has become a data center hub, the study found unexplained temperature rises of around 3.6 degrees over the last 20 years. A similar situation was seen in Aragon, Spain, a European center for hyperscale AI data centers, which recorded a temperature increase of 3.6 degrees which was not replicated in neighboring provinces.

Strikingly, the impacts weren’t limited to a data center’s immediate surroundings; temperature increases affected areas up to 6.2 miles away, the research found, affecting more than 340 million people.

The findings are particularly alarming, the scientists say, because AI data centers are set to boom over the next few years, and these temperature rises come as planet-warming pollution is already making heat waves more extreme around the world.

The planned scale up of data centers “could have dramatic impacts on society” in terms of the environment, people’s welfare and the economy, Marinoni said.

Deborah Andrews, emeritus professor of design for sustainability and circularity at London South Bank University, who was not involved in the research, said there are plenty of concerns over the impacts of data centers but this was the first paper she’d seen focusing specifically on the heat islands they produce.

“The ‘rush for AI-gold’ appears to be overriding good practice and systemic thinking,” she said, “and is developing far more rapidly than any broader, more sustainable systems.”

Other experts say more research is needed to verify the results. The study provides “some interesting figures” but the effects reported “seem very high,” said Ralph Hintemann, a senior researcher at the Borderstep Institute for Innovation and Sustainability. “As far as climate change is concerned, the emissions generated by power generation for data centres remain the more alarming aspect,” he added.

Marinoni wants the research to spark more discussion about how to reduce AI’s impacts. “There still might be time to consider the possibility of a different path … without affecting the demand of AI and its ability to provide progress for mankind,” he added.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated Deborah Andrews' comment. It has been updated to reflect that this is the first paper she's come across on heat islands produced by data centers.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY – FROM YAHOO FINANCE

ORACLE SEVERED 21,000 EMPLOYEES DURING AN AI SPENDING SPREE, THEN HIT A $7 BILLION WISCONSIN POWER HURDLE

Clay Halton Wed, July 22, 2026 at 7:45 AM EDT

The race to dominate artificial intelligence is becoming one of the most expensive corporate contests in history.

Amazon, Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet and Meta are expected to spend about $600 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026, according to Reuters. The historic spending spree is squeezing cash flow and putting pressure on companies to prove that their investments in chips, servers and data centers will eventually pay off.

Must Read

· Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one

· Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here's what it is and 3 simple steps to fix it ASAP

· Millionaires under 43 hold only 25% of their wealth in stocks. Here's where their money is actually going

Oracle has made one of the biggest bets. The company has emerged as a major supplier of AI computing capacity after reportedly signing a $300 billion contract with OpenAI, but the data centers needed to fulfill that agreement have contributed to a cash crunch. Oracle subsequently pursued thousands of job cuts as it looked for ways to fund its expansion, Reuters reported in March.

By the end of its 2026 fiscal year, Oracle's workforce had fallen by approximately 21,000 employees, or 13%, from 162,000 to 141,000. The reduction came as Oracle restructured its business, partly in response to the adoption of AI within its operations.

Now, Oracle's weakened financial position could make it significantly more expensive to secure electricity for one of the data centers at the heart of its AI ambitions.

Wisconsin regulators want a $7 billion guarantee

Oracle is involved in a planned nearly one-gigawatt data center in Port Washington, Wisconsin, that is expected to help the company fulfill its OpenAI contract.

But the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has declined to loosen financial safeguards designed to prevent residential electricity customers from bearing the costs if a massive data center fails or closes, according to the Financial Times.

Under We Energies' "very large customer" tariff, data center operators with an S&P credit rating below A- must provide collateral covering the power plants and transmission infrastructure constructed to serve them.

Oracle was rated BBB, two notches below the threshold, when the requirements were considered. S&P subsequently downgraded the company to BBB-, leaving it one notch above junk status. The ratings agency cited Oracle's heavy AI spending and uncertain path toward generating enough profits from those investments.

As a result, Oracle could be required to provide more than $7 billion in cash or a letter of credit before the facility receives power. Maintaining that guarantee could cost the company more than $100 million annually.

Oracle has challenged the requirement in court, arguing that the added financing costs could discourage future investment in Wisconsin. The company said it remains committed to the approximately $15 billion project and would provide guarantees ensuring Wisconsin ratepayers are not exposed to its financial risks.

Regulators have held firm, stating that existing customers should not subsidize data centers "now or in the future."

The concern extends well beyond Wisconsin. At least 24 states have approved large-load tariffs containing special pricing, minimum contract terms, exit fees or collateral requirements for data centers and other major electricity users.

AI SPENDING IS FORCING DIFFICULT TRADEOFFS ELSEWHERE

Oracle is not the only company finding that AI costs can quickly overwhelm budgets.

Uber exhausted its planned 2026 AI coding budget within four months as thousands of engineers adopted tools such as Claude Code. One two-hour session reportedly generated a bill of approximately $1,200, while some heavy users consumed between $500 and $2,000 per month.

Microsoft has also cut jobs while investing heavily in AI infrastructure. In July 2025, the company announced plans to eliminate approximately 9,000 positions, or nearly 4% of its workforce, after committing $80 billion in capital spending for that fiscal year. Reuters reported that the cost of expanding Microsoft's AI infrastructure was weighing on its cloud margins.

Microsoft announced another 4,800 job cuts in July 2026 as companies continued shifting resources toward AI infrastructure.

Amazon and Meta have similarly announced thousands of job cuts while pouring money into AI. Reuters noted that layoffs and even employee buyouts have become part of the financial tradeoff as technology companies try to fund the industry's unprecedented infrastructure buildout.

Oracle's dispute in Wisconsin shows that cutting payroll and raising money may not be enough. As data centers consume more power and require billions of dollars in new electrical infrastructure, companies must also convince utilities and regulators that their AI bets are financially sound.

What To Read Next

· The tax breaks in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' expire after 2028 — and experts say most people won't act in time. What to do before the window closes

· Here's the average income of Americans by age in 2026. Are you keeping up or falling behind?

· When he dies, Warren Buffett said 90% of his wife's inheritance will go into a single investment. Here's why (and how you can do it too)

· 'Gold still crashing!': Robert Kiyosaki admits he was wrong — but doubles down on his $35K prediction

Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise's best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.

This article originally appeared on Moneywise.com under the title: Oracle severed 21,000 employees during an AI spending spree, then hit a $7 billion Wisconsin power hurdle

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE – FROM BUSINESS INSIDER

WHY MARK CUBAN SAYS MANY AI DATA CENTERS COULD WIND UP AS 'PICKLEBALL COURTS'

Mark Cuban joked that AI efficiency gains could lead to obsolete data centers being turned over to pickleball fans. (PAYWALLED)

ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO – FROM 247 WALLST.COM

AI COULD DESTROY US ECONOMY

By Douglas A. McIntyre Published Jul 20, 10:07AM EDT

Quick Read

· AI could drive US unemployment from 4% to 15%, gutting the 80% of federal tax revenue that comes from individual income taxes.

· Goldman Sachs estimates 15 million AI-driven layoffs, pushing unemployment halfway between the Great Recession and Great Depression peaks.

· Even hundreds of billions in AI company profits cannot offset the federal revenue shortfall needed to fund a $7 trillion government.

· It’s a novel idea, but it is gaining supporters. AI does not take over the world from humans. It does destroy jobs, but over time, they are replaced by new jobs that complement AI’s strengths. Most of those that remain are service jobs, such as medical personnel, athletes, and musicians. In the meantime, unemployment is rising in many job categories, including bank tellers, divers, and software programmers.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AI REJIGGERS THE JOB MARKET?

There is a period during which unemployment rises, if only temporarily. The US tax base falls apart. Tax revenue from individuals is 80% of the income collected by the IRS and Social Security. The $7 trillion needed to run the federal government takes a hit that is beyond imagination. Social security falls apart as payouts become a fraction of what they are today. The US’s inability to pay off its debt triggers a default. US borrowing costs soar.

The antidote to this tax apocalypse is that AI companies pay a large percentage of their profits to the government to cover the cost of lost jobs. However, that does not necessarily cover the loss of tax revenue. Even if AI revenue runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars, its profits will likely not be large enough to offset the plunge in federal tax revenue.

AI giant Anthropic has estimated that US unemployment could temporarily rise from the current 4% to 13%. It may have a reason to keep the number fairly low, given the risk that the government would throttle back its activity, which might hurt the job market.

Yale released a research paper about job loss. “The Real Job Destruction from AI Is Hitting Before Careers Can Start.” In the analysis, it cited several examples of how unemployment rates could be at the high end of most estimates. Among these is one from Goldman Sachs, which puts U.S. AI-based layoffs at 15 million. The US workforce is 167 million people. The Goldman figure is not unlike Anthropic’s.

A 15% unemployment rate is halfway between the peak 10% level of the Great Recession and the Great Depression’s peak of 24.9% in 1933. At 15%, both the stock market and housing market suffer. The core of American individual net worth gets damaged.

The US federal government deficit will be about $2 trillion this year. If the government deficit rises very rapidly and much higher than that, the financial strain starts to become unimaginable.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE – FROM HR AGENDA

AMERICA’S LAYOFF SAFETY NET WAS BUILT FOR A DIFFERENT ECONOMY, AND AI IS ABOUT TO BREAK IT

By: Bijal Shah Date: July 22, 2026

Bijal Shah is the CEO of Guild, America’s leading talent development solution that helps unlock the potential of the workforce. Prior to Guild, Shah held executive and leadership roles at Ibotta and in corporate strategy at Visa.

When an employee loses their job today, they are handed a map to a city that no longer exists.

The systems that were meant to catch them—from unemployment insurance and corporate outplacement to federal reemployment programs—were designed for a workforce that cycled through downturns and recovered. Historically, this has looked like cyclical layoffs, concentrated in blue-collar fields, with predictably short unemployment spells. That world is not the one AI-driven displacement is creating. And the gap between what workers need and what the safety net delivers is about to become a chasm.

As HR leaders, this is going to land on your desk. Not someday, but now.

THE THREE STALWARTS ARE CRACKING

As of January 2025, only 18 states had unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund reserves meeting the minimum federal solvency standard—down from 31 states before the pandemic. That benchmark comes from the Department of Labor’s own State UI Trust Fund Solvency Report 2025, and it does not account for the higher cost and longer duration of white-collar, AI-driven unemployment. The UI system’s funding formulas have not kept pace with how the composition of unemployment has shifted. A wave of white-collar displacement could exhaust trust funds in states that believe they are solvent.

The outplacement market generates roughly $5 billion annually. The fee structure tells you everything you need to know about its incentives: Employers pay per employee enrolled, not by workers gaining labor-aligned credentials or being placed into new roles, meaning there is essentially no accountability for outcomes. And a very low percentage of eligible workers actually use the benefit they are entitled to. The rest receive a brief document of resources and are sent on their way. This is the product HR teams have been buying for decades to check the WARN Act box to reduce legal exposure, but not to meaningfully rebuild careers.

The structural failure runs deeper than low utilization. LHH July 2025 data from 200,000+ outplacement candidates found that 58% of displaced workers in 2024 pivoted to entirely new occupational categories, yet the typical outplacement product is designed for lateral, same-industry moves. The industry is helping workers find a similar job at a different company at exactly the moment AI is decreasing demand for those roles.

Lastly, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) legally requires that funds be prioritized for low-income individuals and those facing significant barriers to employment. Of course, this is well-intended, but it means that when a 42-year-old marketing director or a paralegal with a bachelor’s degree walks in after an AI-linked layoff, they are systematically de-prioritized by the program most people assume exists to help them.

These three systems were each designed with a logic. The problem is not that they are broken—it is that they were each built for a different layoff. Together, they hand off to each other with little coordination and almost no shared accountability for whether workers actually land on their feet.

WHY THIS IS AN HR PROBLEM RIGHT NOW

HR leaders are a critical piece in creating a system that supports workers, businesses and local economies. You sit at the intersection of talent transformation, benefit deployment and company outcomes. And you have more leverage than you are using.

More than $250 billion flows annually through federal workforce development programs. Employers spend tens of billions more on tuition assistance and learning benefits, often treated as effective retention tools rather than transition tools. When those resources are siloed, they underperform. When they are braided together and pointed at a shared outcome, they can move workers at scale.

We have seen what is possible when employers commit to this: In the last five years, we have helped healthcare organizations move more than 11,000 employees into high-demand clinical and specialized roles. We did this not through external hiring, but through intentional redeployment powered by employers’ education investment. The same logic applies to transition: You can use what you already have to help build a genuine redeployment infrastructure, not just an exit package.

But that requires treating your outplacement vendor relationship, your education benefit and your state workforce agency partnerships as a system rather than three separate line items.

THE POLICY WINDOW IS CLOSING

The architecture for something better already exists. What is missing is the coordination and the political will to build it before the wave hits.

Policymakers need to hear specifically from HR leaders. You have credibility in these conversations that workforce advocates alone do not. When a CHRO tells a governor’s office that the UI trust fund in their state can’t handle a moderate AI-driven displacement event, that lands differently than a policy brief. When HR leaders collectively push for WIOA reform that removes the income eligibility barrier for workers displaced mid-career, it becomes a viable ask.

The window to act before disruption becomes a headline crisis is short. Congress is aware of the AI displacement risk in the abstract, but is moving too slowly towards action. It is not yet treating it with the structural urgency it requires. That changes when the people who manage the workforce (HR leaders!) show up and name the specific failure points.

WHAT YOU CAN DO BEFORE POLICY CATCHES UP

You do not need to wait for legislative reform to start building resilience. You can:

· Audit your outplacement contract: If you are paying per enrollment and have no visibility into job placement, skill attainment or credential outcomes, there is more value to be achieved. Push for outcome data.

· Redirect education benefits toward adjacent skill pathways: Tuition assistance aimed at career-adjacent credentials is one of the most scalable internal transition tools employers have.

· Engage your state workforce agency: Many employers have no meaningful relationship with their state’s workforce development infrastructure. WIOA incumbent worker training funds can support reskilling of employees who are still employed but at risk, and are often underutilized precisely because employers do not know they exist or how to take advantage of them.

The safety net America built was designed for a different economy. AI is not going to wait for us to redesign it. HR leaders are in the best position to bridge the gap, but only if you act before the next wave of layoffs proves the point.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR – FROM FORTUNE

While recent graduates kicked off their summer of potential unemployment by booing commencement speakers extolling the benefits of AI, they may have to look elsewhere to blame for those low hire rates. One top economist argued the generation has reasons beyond just the technology to blame for the weak job market they are inheriting, and the proof is simply because today’s unemployment data changed little after the introduction of today’s popular AI tools.

Nasdaq CFO says AI-native Gen Z has an edge

“Many have been quick to blame the gap on ChatGPT’s November 2022 release and the broader rise of AI,” Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok said in a recent blog post. “But the AI-exposed sectors where these graduates cluster are also the most sensitive to Fed tightening, trade-war uncertainty, and slowing immigration, so the entry-level squeeze is far more likely a product of the general low-hire, low-fire labor market than of a technology that companies had barely begun to deploy when the gap emerged.”

Slok noted a divergence in unemployment rates between Gen Z graduates and the general population beginning around April 2022, about six months before ChatGPT’s release, leading him to conclude that other factors must be behind the generation’s widening unemployment.

He explained that while unemployment for college graduates and recent college graduates has exceeded the broader unemployment rate, the gap between these numbers has remained stable, both prior to and after OpenAI introduced ChatGPT nearly four years ago.

The Apollo economist’s observation sheds light on a disconnect Gen Z is facing as it enters the workforce: AI is stirring anxiety and resentment, despite young people facing a slew of economic challenges that is actually making their job search an uphill battle.

WHERE DOES GEN Z’S MISMATCHED AI ANXIETY COME FROM?

Gen Zers have made their attitude toward AI clear: According to an iCIMS Workforce Report from January, more than half (51%) of Gen Z feel AI poses the greatest threat to their job security. It appears part of this anxiety comes from how companies are talking about AI: Companies like Meta are pushing employees to deploy more AI tools, but at the same time are citing the technology as reasons behind layoffs and hiring reductions. Glassdoor’s 2026 Worklife Trends Midyear Check-In found this rhetoric is taking a toll on workers, with 53% of discussions about AI on the platform being negative and 43% positive, compared with last year, when 41% were negative and 55% positive.

But as anxiety mounts, data on the true impact of AI on the workforce remains muddied: A first-of-its-kind Stanford study published last year reified this fear, finding AI had a “significant and disproportionate impact on entry-level workers in the U.S. labor market,” including a 13% relative decline in early-career worker employment. However, Yale Budget Lab has found no meaningful changes in churn or length of unemployment in jobs with both high or no exposure to AI, indicating that if AI-related labor changes are happening, it’s not at a large enough scale for data to pick up on it.

Experts like Cal Newport, a computer scientist and author of the book Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World, blame tech leaders for stoking this AI-related anxiety through “doom trolling,” or catastrophizing the impacts of AI in public forums. In a New York Times op-ed published last week, he posited that tech companies are engaging in doom trolling perhaps to amplify the power of their technologies ahead of key IPOs or to recruit talent. However, he warned, it’s coming at the expense of the mental wellness of the population trying to make sense of how this technology will affect them.

WHAT’S ACTUALLY CAUSING GEN Z’S EMPLOYMENT NIGHTMARE?

Economists including Apollo’s Slok have argued that while data on AI’s true labor impact is cloudy, there’s plenty of salient reasons why Gen Z might have trouble finding a job. He cited a February analysis he conducted looking at AI-sensitive jobs and found that since late 2022, those same high-exposure industries—such as warehousing and storage, payroll services, and transportation support roles—were also impacted by trade uncertainty, a slowdown in immigration-driven labor supply, and a contractionary monetary policy. Employment in jobs most exposed to AI was also more highly correlated to when the Federal Reserve began hiking rates in early 2022, making it challenging to ascertain if AI is the driving force behind labor challenges.

“The slowdown in employment in AI-exposed sectors is likely driven by some combination of all these factors rather than only AI,” Slok wrote.

Economists have indeed warned of trade and immigration policies’ impact on hiring. Pantheon Macroeconomics analysts Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen argued in a note last year that tariffs were suppressing wage growth as companies look to claw back shrinking margins as a result of more import taxes. While 2026 jobs numbers have been stronger than the year before, weak hiring rates have been a through line, and this mentality among companies to preserve margins may extend to hiring.

“Oftentimes when there is heightened uncertainty, it’s just difficult for businesses and people to make decisions in real time,” Laura Ullrich, director of economic research at the Indeed Hiring Lab, told Fortune last year. “And so that slows down employment. It slows down all those processes.”

President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown has had a similar impact on U.S. employment. A National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) policy brief published earlier this year found falling labor force participation among U.S.-born workers age 16 and older, leading economists to conclude that not only is the immigrant workforce shrinking, but the absence of immigrant workers is also leaving U.S. companies with fewer resources to grow business and increase hiring of domestic-born workers.

Altogether, these factors create a low-hire, low-fire job market, which disproportionately impacts Gen Z. A Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis report published this week found that the employment-to-population ratio between 16- to 24-year-olds and 25- to 64-year olds has grown since 2023, suggesting when hiring slows, young people who rely on new job openings are the most impacted.

“At times during the business cycle, the labor market can appear strong on the surface while becoming much less hospitable to new entrants, who are often young workers,” Fed researchers wrote.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE – FROM WHITEHOUSE.GOV

ENDING CRIME AND DISORDER ON AMERICA’S STREETS

July 24, 2025

Executive Order 14321

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions. The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.

Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.

Sec. 2. Restoring Civil Commitment. (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall take appropriate action to:

(i) seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time; and

(ii) provide assistance to State and local governments, through technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.

Sec. 3. Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:

(i) enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;

(ii) enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;

(iii) enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;

(iv) enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or

(v) substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.

(b) The Attorney General shall:

(i) ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;

(ii) take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;

(iii) assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and

(iv) enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.

Sec. 4. Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:

(i) ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;

(ii) provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and

(iii) ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.

(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.

Sec. 5. Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions to increase accountability in their provision of, and grants awarded for, homelessness assistance and transitional living programs. These actions shall include, to the extent permitted by law, ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency; increasing competition among grantees through broadening the applicant pool; and holding grantees to higher standards of effectiveness in reducing homelessness and increasing public safety.

(b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.

(c) With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:

(i) the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases; and

(ii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.

(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children.

(e) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:

(i) allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development identifies as necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the funding program from all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and

(ii) require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities in circumstances permitted by law and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 24, 2025.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX – FROM NPR

SUPREMES CRIMINALIZE HOMELESSNESS

The Supreme Court says cities can punish people for sleeping in public places

BY Jennifer Ludden June 28, 202411:15 AM

In its biggest decision on homelessness in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that cities can ban people from sleeping and camping in public places. The justices, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, overturned lower court rulings that deemed it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to punish people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go.

Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch said, “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many.” But he said federal judges do not have any “special competence” to decide how cities should deal with this.

“The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy,” he wrote.

Law

Supreme Court appears to side with an Oregon city's crackdown on homelessness

But advocates for the unhoused say the decision won’t solve the bigger problem, and could make life much harder for the quarter of a million people living on streets, in parks and in their cars. “Where do people experiencing homelessness go if every community decides to punish them for their homelessness?” says Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. @prison

Today’s ruling only changes current law in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes California and eight other Western states where the bulk of America’s unhoused population lives. But it will also determine whether similar policies elsewhere are permissible; and it will almost certainly influence homelessness policy in cities around the country.

A homeless man was charged with a felony for camping. He's one of the first

Trump is pushing to institutionalize homeless people. That may include veterans

CITIES COMPLAINED THEY WERE HAMSTRUNG IN MANAGING A PUBLIC SAFETY CRISIS

Grants Pass and other cities argued that lower court rulings fueled the spread of homeless encampments, endangering public health and safety. Those decisions did allow cities to restrict when and where people could sleep and even to shut down encampments – but they said cities first had to offer people adequate shelter.

That’s a challenge in many places that don’t have nearly enough shelter beds. In briefs filed by local officials, cities and town also expressed frustration that many unhoused people reject shelter when it is available; they may not want to go if a facility bans pets, for example, or prohibits drugs and alcohol.

Critics also said lower court rulings were ambiguous, making them unworkable in practice. Localities have faced dozens of lawsuits over the details of what’s allowed. And they argued that homelessness is a complex problem that requires balancing competing interests, something local officials are better equipped to do than the courts.

The decision will not solve the larger problem of rising homelessness

Attorneys for homeless people in Grants Pass argued that the city’s regulations were so sweeping, they effectively made it illegal for someone without a home to exist. To discourage sleeping in public spaces, the city banned the use of stoves and sleeping bags, pillows or other bedding. But Grants Pass has no public shelter, only a Christian mission that imposes various restrictions and requires people to attend religious service.

"It's sort of the bare minimum in what a just society should expect, is that you're not going to punish someone for something they have no ability to control," said Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center, which represents those who sued the city.

He also said saddling people with fines and a criminal record makes it even harder for them to eventually get into housing.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN – FROM BBC

US CITIES CAN NOW PUNISH HOMELESSNESS. WILL IT HELP OR HURT A CRISIS?

BY Sam Granville and Christal Hayes 7/4/24

Experts say arresting or fining people sleeping outdoors will deepen the problem by making it harder for these individuals to get out of homelessness.

"I still have 20 more minutes before I have to move," Anthony yelled from his green tent on a Hollywood sidewalk as he heard footsteps approaching.

Officials in Los Angeles had come by earlier to warn him that he could face arrest if he didn't move his belongings.

They told him about the recent Supreme Court opinion that opened the door for cities and states across the US to punish anyone sleeping outdoors — the most significant ruling on homelessness since at least the 1980s, when many experts say the modern US homeless crisis began.

It's added to the lengthy list of worries Anthony says he already has.

"I’m just trying to survive,” he told the BBC while lying down in his tent, using a blue backpack as a pillow.

A black trash bag sits inside, filled with what belongings he can carry as he moves from one area to the next.

“Some nights I don’t get no sleep,” he said. “I’ve been tired all day. I just want to lay somewhere comfortable and get a good nap in. And that’s it. I am not bothering nobody.”

Moments later, Anthony packed up his tent and went looking for a new place to call home.

The high court’s ruling is already having a ripple effect on cities across the country, which have been emboldened to take harsher measures to clear out homeless camps that have grown in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Many US cities have been wrestling with how to combat the growing crisis. The issue has been at the heart of recent election cycles on the West Coast, where officials have poured record amounts of money into creating shelters and building affordable housing.

Leaders face mounting pressure as long-term solutions - from housing and shelters to voluntary treatment services and eviction help - take time.

“It’s not easy and it will take a time to put into place solutions that work, so there’s a little bit of political theatre going on here," Scout Katovich, an attorney who focuses on these issues for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the BBC.

"Politicians want to be able to say they’re doing something,”

The problem, Ms Katovich and other advocates say, is arresting or fining the homeless will only worsen the problem.

“This tactic simply kicks the can down the road. Sure, you might clean up a street but the people you arrest will surely be back.”

US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

Rough sleeping up more than a quarter in a year

Homeless numbers hit new records in 2023

The high court's ruling last week didn’t mandate how cities and governments should handle homelessness - but it gave communities leeway to take more severe measures without the fear of legal recourse.

The case began in the small city of Grants Pass, Oregon, with a population of around 40,000. Over the last 20 years the city doubled in size, but its supply of affordable and public housing did not keep up. Housing prices skyrocketed and the number of homeless grew.

Elected leaders passed laws allowing the city to issue $295 (£230) fines - or 20-day jail sentences for repeat offenses - to unhoused people sleeping or camping in public. Three homeless people sued the city in 2018 after they received multiple citations they were unable to pay.

An appeals court found such laws virtually banned homelessness and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court finally ruled that cities were clear to prohibit homeless people sleeping outside in public places.

“A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority's opinion.

Theane Evangelis argued this case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Grants Pass.

She says city officials had their hands tied because they could not force anyone into a shelter. She argues those who refuse to use the services offered end up staying in encampments.

“Living in tents is not a compassionate solution, and it's not treating people with dignity. And so the Supreme Court's decision was remarkable in the degree to which it listened to those cities,” she said.

Leaders in Grants Pass say they plan to examine the Supreme Court opinion before making a plan on whether to enforce its ban on encampments.

The ruling comes at a critical time for the unhoused.

Last year, the US tracked the highest numbers of homeless people since 2007 - when the US Department of Housing and Urban Development started tracking such data.

There were 653,104 homeless people counted as part of the agency's yearly homeless assessment in 2023. That's a nearly 11% increase from the year prior.

ADVOCATES WORK TO STEER AWAY FROM ARRESTS

The ACLU has been tracking the reaction to the decision by city leaders across the US.

It has already sent a letter to Manchester, New Hampshire, after the mayor promised to ban encampments to “make our streets safe, clear and passable”.

Other city leaders, like the mayor in Lancaster, California, have promised to “be much more aggressive” against encampments in neighbourhoods and near stores.

Mayor R Rex Parris told the Los Angeles Times “we’re going to be moving them really fast”.

State lawmakers in Oregon also seem poised to look at changing laws that will give them greater latitude to rid homeless camps, local media reported.

In Spokane, Washington, leaders are asking authorities to dismantle more camps.

But fining people who don’t have the means for housing worsens their finances, advocates say.

Arresting them can make it harder to find a job or housing, experts told the BBC.

"It actually prevents people from accessing shelter.”

Not all cities have welcomed the court decision.

In Los Angeles, the mayor called the ruling “disappointing” and vowed to continue investing in affordable housing, voluntary treatment and eviction protections.

Days after the opinion, the city released a homeless count showing the first drop in nearly six years.

Advocates say it is a prime example that other cities can learn from.

“Real change takes time,” Sasha Morozov, a regional director for PATH, a leading homeless provider in the Los Angeles area, told the BBC.

Ms Morozov noted, though, outreach teams in the greater Los Angeles area are still working to inform those living on the streets about the Supreme Court’s ruling. Teams are also preparing for increased demand for legal services.

JAILING THE HOMELESS? ‘AT LEAST I’LL HAVE A BED’

Around the corner from Anthony, Topher Williams, 28, calls a makeshift tent on a sidewalk home.

Black and blue tarps are tied to tree branches and street parking poles. Plywood boards line the edges of the structure, which he calls a three-room apartment.

Mr Williams, who told the BBC he was an Army veteran, has been living on the streets for four years. An unlucky combination of medical expenses and the pandemic's economic struggles left him without a job or shelter.

Like Anthony, he’s frustrated at the lack of compassion from city officials and law enforcement.

“It's mind blowing the way people look at us. The way people straight up treat us like we're like less than animals. And they have no idea,” he said, tears welling in his eyes.

“I served eight years in the military. I did two tours of duty. I gave the ultimate sacrifice fighting for this country, and to be treated like I’m a second-class citizen is wild.”

Asked if he was scared about potential arrests, he said it's part of this way of life.

“We’ve got a lot that we have to deal with already. A lot of the things are kind of stressful. But I don’t worry about things until they start affecting me.”

Like Topher, Anthony said being arrested may not be the worst outcome.

“At least I’ll have a bed and maybe I’ll be in the system and get the right kind of help.”

MORE ON HOMELESSNESS

US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

Deaths put spotlight on growing US homeless population

Free air con? US cities look at new ways to prevent heat deaths

ATTACHMENT TWENTY EIGHT – FROM REDDIT

PEANUTS SPEAK UP…

CMV: I think we could genocide the homeless and not enough people would care to stop it.

(I am basing this on people in the US/Canada)

I'm basing this off of my understanding of how the Holocaust was carried out, which had very little criticism from within the Third Reich while it was going on even though tons of people knew about it. Responses could go from either:

Civilian: Hey, where are all the Jews in neighborhood going?

Policeman/State authority: They are going 'to the east' to work.

Civilian: Understood, have a nice day. (Never thinks much about the fact they never see these people again.)

Or in many cases the local civilian populations enthusiastically helped carry out the extermination program.

So it was very easy for humans to either assist in, or to ignore genocide of a dehumanized group. But the thing is we already view the homeless as sub-human. Normal everyday restaurant owners, landlords, homeowners, pedestrians, transit employees, etc very often treat homeless people as if they were pests rather than human beings.

Like, when restaurants throw out food it is common to lock the food trash containers just to keep homeless people from eating the perfectly good food within. Showing that we care more about our profits than humans who are starving to death on our doorsteps. Or how we implement hostile architecture just to punish keep these people away from us.

And these are practices/attitudes that are just acceptable and common.

So if the police started rounding up homeless people and cramming them on buses/freight trains, and just giving the excuse 'We are sending them up north to work' most of us wouldn't want to pay much attention to it. Most Americans/Canadians would just be quietly glad that all the filthy homeless people are gone and not think much more about it.

Some counter culture groups/elements would certainly have an issue with it, but not enough to really do anything about it on the large scale.

To be clear I think this is a very BAD thing about our current society/attitudes.

Comments Section

RodeoBob

•

3y ago

There's... a lot wrong with this paragraph. So much that I'm going to have to take it in stages.

restaurants throw out ...perfectly good food within

No they don't. They throw out food that's been kept too warm, or too cold, or for too long to be safely served. There's this weird survivorship-bias that shows up when this gets discussed of "well, I ate some moldly bread and didn't die!" but about 3,000 people a year die from food poisoning, with another 128k being hospitalized. source

On top of that restaurants regularly throw out things that aren't food, but that can poke or scrape or stab or slice people who are rummaging through the trash. So they lock up the containers to not only stop homeless people from getting food poisoning, but also to keep them from getting tetanus. How dare they!

On top of that, trash bins are kept by the business, and the act of opening bins and pulling things out tends to be messy and unsanitary. A business that doesn't want its trash strewn around its parking lot and entrances isn't evidence of some amoral views, it's just wanting to present a sanitary, clean place of business.

...humans who are starving to death on our doorsteps.

It's really hard to get solid numbers on how many people actually starve to death in America. You can get estimates, but those tend to be very hand-waivy. You get slightly better numbers looking at malnutrition deaths but for both scenarios, even generous estimates place the annual number at less than 20,000 deaths per year for the entire population, not just the homeless.

Homeless people face a lot of challenges, but starvation and malnutrition are pretty low on the list.

Normal everyday restaurant owners, landlords, homeowners, pedestrians, transit employees, etc very often treat homeless people as if they were pests rather than human beings.

And yet those same restaurant owners and landlords and homeowners, those same pedestrians and transit employees, as individuals, donated over $300 billion to charity last year. And that's down from the year before! So clearly, it's a bit more nuanced than "they're not people, keep them away".

bannedbyyourmom

•

3y ago

They also lock the trash to keep out animals, not just humans. They dont want racoons or whatever making a huge mess either.

u/nhlms81 avatar

nhlms81

•

3y ago

Civilian: Hey, where are all the Jews in neighborhood going?

Policeman/State authority: They are going 'to the east' to work.

Civilian: Understood, have a nice day. (Never thinks much about the fact they never see these people again.)

i learned something when i first traveled to germany and visited sachsenhausen (concentration camp about 10 miles outside of berlin), and it was that the opinion i'd had growing up (you describe it well above) was wrong.

sachsenhausen was built immediately adjacent to a town. it was, and i hate making this comparison, but its the only one that comes to mind, similar to a new factory selecting a small town for its location. it represented a boon to the local economy. the couple, where mom might be a local school teacher, was married to the mason who helped construct the walls. the local barber cut and shaved the officers working there. the local baker served them food. the trains that carried their cargo traveled straight thru.

This website has some pictures to show the proximity of the camp to the town.

in short, the civilians in oranienburg were not only, as i once thought, obtuse. they were keenly aware. i think this is a part of the reason germany bears the generational scars that it does.

note: i don't point this out as a means to deride germans, modern or historical. americans were arguably equally aware to the atrocities. i say this only to point out that it wasn't an "out of sight, out of mind" situation as i read you describing above.

u/Raspint avatar

Raspint

•

3y ago

This is not a very good example I must point out. Because sachsenhausen was a concentration camp, not an extermination camp. There is a very big difference. I'm more referring to what took place at camps like Treblinka or Sobibor. Which were isolated, out of sight, and out of mind.

In fact none of these camps even were made in Germany. Technically, the mass execution of Jews happened in Poland/Eastern Europe. Not within the boarders of germany itself.

u/nhlms81 avatar

nhlms81

•

3y ago

In that sach. Was also a factory complex, correct. In that sach didn't exterminate, incorrect. Sach was equipped with gas showers, cremation furnaces that indeed spewed human ash into the air, and a clinic for inhumane research.

u/Biptoslipdi avatar

Biptoslipdi

•

3y ago

If no one cares, why would this man be going to prison for life?

We prosecute crimes against homeless people. Why would that occur if no one cared? How are you going to commit genocide if we are prosecuting these murders? Why would we have shelters and food kitchens? Why would we have any non-profits doing the work they do? Clearly people do care. A lot.

Dyeeguy

•

3y ago

People weren't just like, oh, there goes the jews... it was years of propaganda and military coups, enforced by extreme violence. People who DID oppose it had to do so in secret. Like bruh....

If you are saying it is possible for that to happen again, I guess it can't be ruled out definitely

3y ago

I think something about that period people forget is how fucked Germany from the last war was like ten to fifteen years before Hitler took power things needed to be pretty bad for everyone for that line of thinking to be simply ignored or Tolerated and even when it took power there was plenty of resistance by non targeted civilian within Germany just because it wasn't enough to topple the government doesn't mean it didn't matter or wasn't important to setting things right or helping outside forces attack the corrupt government.

6 more replies

u/OvenSpringandCowbell avatar

OvenSpringandCowbell

•

3y ago

Do you have any examples of premeditated mass killing of fellow citizens in modern US and Canada where there was no effort to prosecute the people doing the killing?

u/Giblette101 avatar

Giblette101

•

3y ago

Indigenous people were subject to genocide in both nations and precious few perpetrator ever saw justice for that. Lots of folks will happily chest beat about it too.

u/OvenSpringandCowbell avatar

OvenSpringandCowbell

•

3y ago

Fair point. When i said “modern” i meant since around 1900. I don’t think there has been proactive killing of indigenous people since then in US and Canada but open to being educated by documented cases that say otherwise.

8 more replies

1 more reply

u/Raspint avatar

Raspint

•

3y ago

Yeah. Serial Killer in western Canada. Robert Pickton

Murdered close to fifty people. But since most of them were homeless people/queer homeless/prostitutes the police just didn't give enough of a care to investigate.

I mean he was prosecuted now after its all come to light. But if these things stay out of sight and mind than not enough people care.

u/OvenSpringandCowbell avatar

OvenSpringandCowbell

•

3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton

I hadn’t heard of this but it looks like he was prosecuted the one time there was a clear accusation against him in 1997 separate from the serial killings. When police had enough evidence to link him to the serial killings, he was arrested. They tried in 1999, but didn’t have enough evidence for a search warrant.

I see there were critics who said the police weren’t sufficiently proactive because of who was getting murdered but that is a bit different from looking the other way

4 more replies

1 more reply

u/eggs-benedryl avatar

eggs-benedryl

•

3y ago

cramming them on buses/freight trains, and just giving the excuse 'We are sending up north to work' most of us wouldn't want to pay much attention to it

this would require us to be lied to, there are enough people involved in every single homeless community that would care and investigate should they suddenly go missing

if people KNEW that this was happening there would be uproar

if your opinion only works if we are unaware and are being lied to then that doesn't support "not enough people would care to stop it."

you can't care about a problem you're unaware of

LAKnapper

•

3y ago

you can't care about a problem you're unaware of

I care about exactly 0% of the problems I am unaware of.

u/eggs-benedryl avatar

eggs-benedryl

•

3y ago

you miss 100% of the genocides you don't see

4 more replies

[deleted]

•

3y ago

A San Franciscan wrote this

Also while a lot of people dislike homeless people, no one thinks of them as subhuman like the nazis did to jews and other minorities

1 more reply

viniciusbfonseca

•

3y ago

Ok, so I need to first point out that you can't GENOCIDE the homeless population because only racial, ethnical, religious or national groups can, per the Genocide Convention, have genocide committed against them. The correct term here would be "massacred" or "exterminated".

Something else that I think you're missing is that, if such a thing was happening, the international community would become aware and there would be backlash, even if it only came from countries that aren't allied to the US/Canada (think Iran, China, Russia, maybe even North Korea). It is extremely unlikely that this wouldn't be breaking news all over the world and would end up reaching the ears of Americans and Canadians (I will now talk as if the country doing it is the US because I don't want to keep writing for both countries).

Another factor to consider is that the extermination would be conducted by whoever is in charge of the White House, so considering that the US only has two parties it is almost certain that the opposition would use these events against the leadership.

Now, for the actual extermination part: if this is - as you described - a government-led extermination, the government would either have to create camps (such as the one that China uses for the Uyghurs) or have the military join forces with the general population and pretty much just shoot homeless people on sight (kind of like what the Burmese are doing to the Rohingya in Myanmar).

With either of those options you would need the US to be under an extremely authoritarian government, because no actual democracy could actually get away with something like this. With that the case wouldn't be that no one "cares enough" to stop it, but that you would only be able to stop it by risking your own life.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY NINE – FROM AI OVERVIEW TODAY

AI DATA CENTER RESISTANCE: SCALE, CAUSES, AND POLICY RESPONSE

Across the U.S., opposition to AI data centers has surged, blocking or delaying at least 75 projects worth about $130 billion in early 2026, with concerns over energy use, water consumption, land use, noise, and rising utility costs Yahoo Finance+1.

Scope of the Backlash

Data Center Watch’s Q1 2026 report found the largest single‑quarter concentration of disrupted data center developments on record, with resistance now spanning 49 states Yahoo Finance. Gallup polling shows 71% of Americans oppose AI data centers near their homes, and 48% are strongly opposed Yahoo Finance+1. In Texas, only 29% support local data center construction, with rural residents far more likely to oppose them The Texas Politics Project.

Key Drivers of Opposition

· Energy & Utilities: Fear of higher electricity bills and strain on the power grid Yahoo Finance+1.

· Water Use: Concerns over large‑scale cooling and water intake Yahoo Finance+1.

· Environmental Impact: Pollution, noise, and land‑use changes The Texas Politics Project+1.

· Local Control & Benefits: Opposition to state subsidies and lack of tangible local gains The Texas Politics Project+1.

· AI Ambivalence: Public skepticism about AI’s social and economic impacts is amplifying resistance The Texas Politics Project.

Geographic Patterns

While most data centers remain in metropolitan areas, rural projects are facing intense pushback and often have smaller tax bases to absorb costs AOL. Some states, like Maine, are considering or implementing statewide moratoriums MultiState.

Political and Regulatory Landscape

· State Action: Over 300 state data center bills filed in early 2026; 14 states introduced moratorium proposals Yahoo Finance+1.

· Federal vs. State: Federal executive orders aim to streamline permitting for large AI data centers, but states retain authority over land use, zoning, and utilities MultiState.

· Local Governance: Community consent is now a critical “fourth input” alongside chips, power, and capital Forbes.

Industry Response

Developers are integrating community consent, local benefits, and ratepayer protections into project planning Forbes. Some are securing long‑term power leases and tradable rights to reduce risk Data Center Frontier.

In short: AI data center resistance in 2026 is nationwide, politically charged, and increasingly decisive. It is reshaping project viability, requiring developers to balance capital, infrastructure, and community approval.

ATTACHMENT THIRTY – FROM WIKI

SOCIAL CLEANSING

Social cleansing (Spanish: limpieza social) is social group-based killing that consists of the elimination of members of society who are considered undesirable, including, but not limited to, the homeless, criminals, street children, the elderly, the poor, the weak, the sick, the needy and disabled people.^[1][2][3] This phenomenon is caused by a combination of economic and social factors, but killings are notably present in regions with high levels of poverty and disparities of wealth.^[1][4] Perpetrators are usually of the same community as the victims and they are often motivated by the idea that the victims are a drain on the resources of society.^[1][5] Efforts by national and local governments to stop these killings have been largely ineffective. The government and police forces are often involved in the killings, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America.^[2][6][7]

CAUSES

AFRICA

In African countries, social cleansing almost always takes the form of witch hunting which is most common in areas with poor economic circumstances.^[4] Several social and economic theories exist as to why such circumstances have arisen and led to accusations of witchcraft, including warfare, natural disasters, unequal patterns of development, and larger forces of globalization. Most scholars agree that the cause of social cleansing efforts is a result of "interaction of economic conditions and cultural factors".^[8] All of these theories must be linked to larger societal trends, including the devaluation and social marginalization of women as well as the placement of blame on individuals for their own economic misfortunes in lieu of recognition of global and local economic forces at play.^[9][10] However, several scholars have emphasized the outside groups and circumstances related to these killings to dispute the idea that they are simply a cultural norm.^[11][12]

ECONOMIC

In many countries, income disparities have led to social tensions and a climate of "mutual suspicion".^[5] The wealthy and powerful are perceived as having obtained their wealth through "evil arts", while the economically disadvantaged are accused of responsibility for misfortunes of the community.^[5] There is also evidence that the causes of social cleansing are linked to globalization and economic liberalization, "to the extent that it has stripped entire populations of their means of subsistence, torn communities apart, deepened economic inequalities and forced people to compete for diminishing resources."^[11] Many African communities have been destabilized as communal lands have been privatized, local currency has been devalued, and public services have been eliminated.^[13] Sometimes these larger economic trends have been linked to more specific events. For example, in Southern Zimbabwe, violent wars led certain areas to be neglected in development efforts, leading to a lack of resources and increasing disparities of wealth in these areas.^[14] In Tanzania, scholars have found positive correlations between extreme rainfall (both floods and droughts) and large negative income shocks and famine. These periods have been statistically linked to increases in murder of witches.^[15]

CULTURAL

Several cultural explanations for social cleansing in Africa are related to religion. One that has been offered by scholars is the presence of Pentecostals, whose focus on the occult^{[according to whom?]} has been spread by the media and increased social anxiety. Pentecostals have been recorded as preaching connections between illness and the devil, which has combined potently with existing indigenous beliefs, most notably in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania.^[4] In Tanzania, a positive correlation exists between witch killing and areas where populations practice traditional religions, where the belief in witchcraft is strong.^[16] While scholars have suggested that the presence of these beliefs is important because it demonstrates the fact that perpetrators generally do believe that their victims are practicing witchcraft, they also recognize the fact that populations with traditional religious beliefs often have a low socio-economic status, which supports their assertion that poverty is still the primary factor in motivating killings.^[17]

LATIN AMERICA

The most widespread myth about social cleansing in Latin America is that these killings are all related to drug use.^[18] However, the phenomenon is larger than the drug problem and is related to state ideology, a culture of violence, and inequitable wealth distribution.^[19] Within Colombia specifically, economic factors account for many of the reasons behind these killings, but such factors are additionally "aggravated by external political and economic pressures from the United States".^[20]

ECONOMIC

Latin America has an extremely large number of individuals living below the poverty line, and these individuals are largely blamed for their impoverished state.^[21] Many of these individuals are in critical poverty, meaning that they do not even have the ability to secure food and shelter.^[22] This critical poverty is connected to inflation rates that has led the cost of living to increase and the minimum salary to be hardly adequate for survival.^[23] Since the 1990s, the gap between the rich and poor has widened, and funds for welfare programs and social services has decreased while funding for security forces to protect "the haves from the have-nots" have tripled in Colombia specifically.^[24]

CULTURE OF VIOLENCE

Main article: Crime and violence in Latin America

Latin America's history has long been plagued by political violence, which over time has morphed into class-based violence.^[25] Despite mostly formally democratic governments, the "legacy of authoritarianism" lingers, and the presence of "armed actors" is prevalent as a result of a long history of violence between military, paramilitary, and guerilla groups.^[26] The presence of the culture of violence has had various effects on the underclass in countries in Latin America. The military and especially the police have been known to use violence to harm citizens, rather than protect them.^[27]

Private "vigilante" security forces have likewise used violence against the poor with the idea of promoting law and order, especially in Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru.^[27] Though many guerilla groups are much less violent than when they originally emerged, they are a presence and an additional source of violence, especially in Colombia.^[27] Tension between political groups has led these guerilla groups, the government, and vigilante actors to suspect peasants of working with their enemy and to intimidate them into leaving land in the countryside for the city.^[23] Other poor rural residents have been forced to leave because of general violence or lack of public services.^[23] Violence at the local level is also extremely common by organized criminals such as street gangs, drug bosses, vigilante justice groups, and local civil patrols.^[27]

When poor residents are forced to move to the city, they often must turn to prostitution, crime, or begging in inner-city ghettos, which puts them in an extremely vulnerable position in the presence of these violent groups.^[28] Men in particular become even more entrenched in the culture of violence as many join gangs to escape "social exclusion and economic disadvantage" and establish a sense of identity and masculinity.^[29] Finally, violence exists at a level even smaller than the community: the home. Children are often victims of "physical, mental, and sexual abuse by adult members of their own families".^[30] In Guatemala specifically, social cleansing occurs with the "backdrop of genocide," and homicide rates are still extremely high after "three decades of armed conflict" during the Guatemalan Civil War.^[31]

Violence experienced across the region has led to an erosion of social capital, which was described by Colombians as including "'social mistrust,' 'lack of unity,' 'fear' and 'lack of social institutions.'"^[32]

IN SPAIN

Spain before colonization demonstrated societal patterns that shaped life in Spain in terms of prejudice and discrimination. The discriminatory practice of Spanish legislation led to a certain caste system pertaining to those with or without honor. Moreover, one's reputation and the way one was treated was based on aspects such as honor, legitimacy, and the limpieza de sangre, a prejudicial marker that indicates one's purity of blood, relating to their family timeline and deciding how society was to treat them.^[33] "Historic meanings of honor included those cultural specific ways that Spaniards had always rationalized discrimination due to defects in birth (illegitimate, nonnoble), religion (non-Catholic), and race (nonwhite)."^[33] That discriminatory institution, based on those concepts of honor, limpieza, and legitimacy, is expressed through the legislation of Spanish government at the time.

An example was in 1414, when Pope Benedict XIII approved the constitution of the Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé, in Salamanca, Spain, which linked those concepts through the school's acceptance policy.^[33] Those accepted into the school had to prove that they had pure blood, rather than Jewish, Moorish, or heretical heritage.

IN COLONIAL LATIN AMERICA

The concept of limpieza de sangre, or purity of blood, was used in societies of Spain and Portugal, originating from Iberian culture, where reputation was inherited from one's ancestors. If someone was found to be a race such as Jewish, a converted Jew, or Muslim in their family timeline, it was said to be a stain on their ancestry.^[33] Consequently, one's own ancestry determined their reputation and social standing, impacting other aspects such as access to education, career, and marriage for further generations. This became known as the culture of honor, which resided in such reputational ancestry that came to define how individuals were respected.^[33]

Limpieza de sangre affected life for every individual in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, including the degree to exclusion and racial discrimination. When Europe came to colonize the "New World" these ethics of honor and limpieza de sangre implied that those with blood lacking purity to European standards was inferior. The Europeans were at the "apex" of social structure and everyone who was not identical in blood was inferior.^[33] As colonists, the presumed inferiors were the colonized and thus, due to this culture of honor, they became victims of this discrimination. While over time assimilation, miscegenation and admixture complicated this concept of social cleansing, the ideals of "purity of blood" prevailed, and elite was considered to be of European and Christian origins.^[33]

The conquest of indigenous people in Latin America strengthened these ideals. The vulnerability of one's identity in colonial America gave way to one's defense of honor, except for the elites and those in power, typically the colonists. As the degree of honor perceived by individuals was reputational, people felt the need to be confirmed by society or by those in good social standing through submission to the given standards that one's place held. The pursuit of this honor led to many disputes, as well as the fear of being rejected by society and losing one's place.^[33]

Despite these long-lived standards, during post-colonialism the ideals of Latin America changed with independence and the growth of democratic values. With this, the culture of honor and respect for those with pure bloodlines changed. People began to socially include those who were previously seen as inferior.^[33]

IN BRAZIL

VICTIMS AND METHODS

The most common murder victim in Brazil is a young, black male living in a favela, or a Brazilian slum.^[34] These young men typically are, or are assumed to be, gang members and criminals.^[35] Violence and murder are most common in areas that are economically disadvantaged and socially marginalized.^[36] Women are often targets by association, though the effects of social cleansing and violence against women are largely absent in existing research.^[37] Killings are often in public places, with victims being beaten or shot in the street.^[38] Police groups sometimes simply enter the community in a large armoured vehicle called a "caveirão" and start shooting.^[39] This vehicle contributes to the "anonymity and impunity for the perpetrators".^[39]

PERPETRATORS AND MOTIVATIONS

Social cleansing in Brazil is the result of a "murky symbiosis [that] has developed between the official security forces and paramilitary and vigilante-type actors" that carry out "law enforcement against the 'marginal classes.'"^[27] State actors often act against the poor "as a form or result of exclusion and oppression".^[40] Gangs serve as a scapegoat for the levels of violence and lack of security in many communities.^[36] Private groups and some gangs perpetrate killings in attempts to take policing into their own hands.^[41] While some killings are a result of groups attempting to punish criminals for misdemeanors, others are a result of perceived threats of poor citizens, such as members of workers' movements.^[37][42]

IN COLOMBIA

VICTIMS AND METHODS

Victims of social cleansing in Colombia are members of society who are considered "undesirable" and "disposable".^[2][44] They are economically disadvantaged, usually live on the streets, and are considered to be a burden on society, "the cause of the country's problems, rather than a consequence of them".^[45]

Street children

One of these groups is street children, who are without homes due to abuse, forced displacement, or the death of their parents.^[30] Death rates for street children have been as high as six to eight children per day.^[46] Children are often shot in their sleep or stabbed to death on the streets or in the police station. A 1993 case in which a nine-year-old girl was strangled to death in Bogota brought attention to this problem and led to nominal reforms.^[30][47] The National Police targets street children specifically under the assumption that they are drug users and criminals. This is to some extent true, as many use drugs to relieve pain and avoid hunger and must shoplift to survive.^[30][48] Despite living in conditions of extreme vulnerability to "aggression and danger", the National Police poses the greatest threat to street children's survival, as they drive them off the streets and target them in social cleansing.^[30][48]

POOR CRIMINALS, DRUG USERS, AND DRUG DEALERS

Poor criminals, drug users, and drug dealers are also common targets. From 1988 to 1993, these individuals collectively comprised 56% of social cleansing victims.^[49] These individuals are often victims of physical and sexual abuse by the police and vigilante groups known as "comas".^[50] One common method of killing these individuals in the city of Bogota is the Choachí run, in which victims are taken to the top of a mountain in the town of Choachí, executed, and thrown off the mountain. In some cases, they are released to attempt escape, but die by falling down the mountain or being shot at as they run.^[50] A similar method is known as "the ride", in which victims are forced into a vehicle, killed, and left in a desolate area.^[51] Death squads have employed other means for killing suspected criminals, such as murdering them, then cutting off their hands and putting them in small boxes in public spaces to intimidate other criminals.^[45] Another group has been known to shoot victims and then cast their bodies into the municipal stadium.^[45]

SEX WORKERS AND SEXUAL MINORITIES

Sex workers and sexual minorities are treated quite similarly in regards to social cleansing, as both are hard to identify and victims of heavy discrimination despite the fact that both homosexuality and prostitution are legal.^[52] Many female sex workers are forced into the line of work due to poverty and domestic violence.^[49][50] Both male and female sex workers are often harassed by the police, and males specifically are demanded to pay a "tax" where "failure to pay results in beatings or imprisonment".^[53] In an upside-down system, encounters with dishonest police are preferable to honest police, as the dishonest will accept bribes, while the honest are more likely to kill.^[53] Sexual minorities are particularly difficult to identify, because not only do some male sex workers participate in gay sex out of economic necessity, but victims are only considered homosexual if they were dressed as females at the time of death.^[53]

RAPISTS AND SEX OFFENDERS

There is a vigilante group called the Los Calvos whose death squad started out in 2004 that killed rapists by summary and subsequently expanded their targets to include drug dealers and addicts.^[54]

Beggars and recyclers

Another group includes those individuals in the most extreme form of poverty. These individuals subsist by asking for money and/or collecting garbage.^[55] The police have been known to kill these victims in especially cruel ways, such as pouring gasoline on them and setting them on fire.^[55] It is also notable that at least 14 destitute individuals have been killed by security guards at one Colombian university for the use of their bodies as cadavers in the medical school.^[55]

Perpetrators and motivations

National Police

The National Police has played a large role in carrying out class-based killings in Colombia. The police created the term "disposable" (Spanish: desechable) to define economically disadvantaged people who are considered to have no value to society.^[1] Whether directly or through "paramilitary clients", the National Police was responsible for 74% of deaths related to social cleansing in 1992.^[56] Motivations include "security, aesthetics, economic well-being, morals, and religion".^[45] In regards to safety and economic well-being, rationales include the idea that the poor are or look like criminals and decrease public safety and drive customers away from businesses.^[57] Moral arguments include protection from homosexuals and prostitutes.^[57]

DEATH SQUADS AND PARAMILITARY GROUPS

The distinction between death squads and paramilitary groups and the National Police is not always clear. Not only are policemen often members of these groups, but these groups typically enjoy the protection of the police.^[1] Other members include businessmen, industrialists, guerillas, and soldiers.^[45] Death squads emerged in the late 1970s, one of the first being the Black Hand, a group that murdered suspected criminals.^[1] Their reasoning behind these killings is the flawed legal system, which convicts less than 3% of criminals.^{[citation needed]} Death squads and other groups believe it necessary to step in where the legal system has failed by eliminating these suspected criminals.^[57] As of 1995, there were no less than 40 of these squads operating in Colombia.^[58]

Other factors

National government

The role of the national government in Colombia has largely been complicit cooperation with the National Police. By failing to deal with crime and then also effectively granting impunity to police and military groups, the state has allowed safety issues to be addressed with violence and has perpetuated a "cycle of crime, lack of public safety, violent response, and impunity" due to "terrifying inefficiency and unwillingness to hold people accountable for their acts".^[45][59] While the government at least tries to protect street children through programs to put them in state-run homes, these programs often do not align with their actual needs and have largely failed.^[30] There have been limited attempts to protect those in poverty in the legal system, and one case of harassment against the poor resulted in a judge calling for their equal treatment and compensation from the offending policemen. However, the decision was not enforced.^[60]

IN GUATEMALA

Victims and methods

Social cleansing and gang killings make up a large portion of the homicides in Guatemala.^[61] Since gangs typically make no effort to cover up crimes and leave bodies at the place of death, "signs of torture", as well as location of the body, "serve as indicators of the existence of social cleansing", according to Elizabeth Sanford.^[62] According to a study by the Human Rights Ombudsman, "the increase in the number of women killed whose bodies bore marks of torture and other sadistic abuse accounted for 40 percent of the total increase in female murders in 2005."^[63] Though female victims account for 10% of all homicides, over 18% of cadavers with signs of torture indicating social cleansing were female.^[62] Furthermore, 2% of female victims of homicide are prostitutes, a common victim group of social cleansing efforts.^[63] Furthermore, young and destitute male gang members, especially those blamed for homicide of females, have been common victims of social cleansing.^[63] The most common form of killing, indicated by the 305 cadavers found in 2005, is strangulation.^[62] Other common methods included victims being beaten, shot in the head, bound by their hands and feet, and in the case of female victims, sexual abuse.^[62] Victims are abducted, taken to a different location, are tortured and killed, and finally have their body dumped in a different location.^[62]

PERPETRATORS AND MOTIVATIONS

Perpetrators include the Guatemalan government as well as private groups either directly or indirectly complicit with the state.^[3] Social cleansing efforts are targeted against gangs and other perceived and actual criminals, who are blamed for the high rates of homicide.^[62] The perpetrators intend to both exterminate victims and intimidate other members of the target group.^[3] Intimidation is carried out both through torture tactics used as well as propaganda including flyers and stickers that support social cleansing as a "method of social control".^[61] Because perpetrators are directly or indirectly tied to the state, they naturally have impunity.^[3]

ORIGINS

The use of "social cleansing" efforts to eliminate criminals and other persons deemed to be socially dangerous has its origins during the period of military dictatorship and civil war (1954–1996). During the 1960s and 70s, many state-operated paramilitary front organizations (so-called "death squads") emerged with the express purpose of exterminating suspected communists and other enemies of the state. These groups included the MANO, NOA, CADEG, 'Ojo por Ojo' and others. While nominally employed against political targets, the use of "death squads" came to be seen by the Guatemalan police forces (specifically the National Police) as a crime fighting tool, particularly after the election of Col. Arana Osorio in 1970 and the subsequent "state of siege". One early example of the use of "death squads" against non-political targets was a phantom organization called the 'Avenging Vulture', which specifically targeted criminals.

IN PERU

The San Miguel del Ene attack was perpetrated in 2021. Leaflets left in the area described the action as a social cleansing operation.^[64]

IN SOUTH KOREA

Main article: South Korea social purification project

IN TANZANIA

Victims and methods

PERPETRATORS AND MOTIVATIONS

Victims are typically killed by members of their own families, who blame them for economic suffering and household misfortune. Accusations and subsequent killings are often incited by death or illness in the family or the family's livestock. However, general misfortune in the form of "failed crops, lost jobs, and bad dreams also arouse suspicion".^[69] While often accusations are raised to the effect of creating a scapegoat, not all forms of social cleansing are connected to witch hunting. The extreme scarcity theory suggests that some families to drive out or starve unproductive family members to provide more nutrients for other members.^[70] Many of these perpetrators are young, unemployed men who see the elderly as a burden on their potential for success.^[71] Another key perpetrator of social cleansing in Tanzania are the Sungusungu, councils of male elders that operate under the premise of promoting village security.^[70] These groups formed under the premise that the government was not able to prevent crimes such as theft, and they serve as a form of vigilante justice.^[6]

OTHER ACTORS

Although the Tanzanian government has made public witchcraft accusations illegal, the efforts to stop them have been unsuccessful.^[7] Conviction levels are extremely low, as "only seven of 1,622 individuals arrested in connection with witch killings during the 1970s and 1980s were convicted, and since then the conviction rate as apparently fallen even lower," according to Edward Miguel.^[7] The perception of the government and police force as unable to control crime has led groups such as Sungusungu to take matters into their own hands, though studies suggest that the police may sometimes be involved in witch killings.^[6]

See also

· Aporophobia

· Classicide

· Communal violence

· Cultural conflict

· Cultural genocide

· Cultural rights

· Crimes against humanity

· Dahiya doctrine

· Democide

· Domicide

· Environmental killings

· Ethnic cleansing

· Ethnic conflict

· Ethnic hatred

· Ethnic nationalism

· Ethnic violence

· Ethnocide

· Extrajudicial killing

· Extrajudicial punishment

· Genocide

· Hate crime

· Hate group

· La Noche de las Tres Pes

· Life unworthy of life

· List of ethnic cleansing campaigns

· List of ethnic riots

· Lynching

· Pogrom

· Police brutality

· Political cleansing of population

· Political violence

· Population cleansing

· Purge

· Sectarian violence

· Religious violence

· Terrorism

· The Holocaust

· Vigilantism

· Violence against LGBT people

· War crime

Notes

1. Ordoñez 1996, p. 18.

2. Schwartz 1995, p. 384.

3. Sanford 2008, p. 110.

4. Federici 2010, p. 12.

5. Federici 2010, p. 18.

6. Abrahams 1987, p. 187.

7. Miguel 2005, p. 1155.

8. Miguel 2005, p. 1169.

9. Federici 2010, p. 14.

10. Zachrisson 2007, p. 34.

11. Federici 2010, p. 11.

12. Miguel 2005, p. 1159.

13. Federici 2010, pp. 15–16.

14. Zachrisson 2007, p. 33.

15. Miguel 2005, p. 1166.

16. Miguel 2005, p. 1154.

17. Federici 2010

18. Schwartz 1995, p. 383.

19. Ordoñez 1996.

20. Schwartz 1995, p. 385

21. Schwartz 1995, pp. 387–88

22. Ordoñez 1996, p. 27.

23. Ordoñez 1996, p. 28.

24. Ordoñez 1996, pp. 27–28.

25. Schwartz 1995, p. 393

26. Koonings 2001, p. 402.

27. Koonings 2001, p. 404.

28. Ordoñez 1996, pp. 28–29.

29. Wilding 2010, p. 741.

30. Ordoñez 1996, p. 22.

31. Sanford 2008, p. 108.

32. McIlwaine and Moser 2001, p. 971.

33. Johnson and Lipsett-Rivera 1998, Chapter 4. pp. 3–8, 73–74.

34. Wilding 2010, p. 730.

35. Wilding 2010, p. 723.

36. Wilding 2010, p. 726.

37. Wilding 2010, p. 733

38. Wilding 2010, p. 739.

39. Wilding 2010, p. 743.

40. Wilding 2010, p. 725.

41. Wilding 2010, p. 732.

42. Koonings 2001, p. 405.

43. World Bank 2000, p. 6.

44. Ordoñez 1996, p. 20.

45. Ordoñez 1996, p. 19.

46. Ordoñez 1996, p. 21.

47. Schwartz 2001, p. 389.

48. Schwartz 2001, p. 388.

49. Schwartz 1995, p. 390.

50. Ordoñez 1996, p. 23.

51. Schwartz 2001, p. 394.

52. Ordoñez 1996, pp. 23–26.

53. Ordoñez 1996, p. 26.

54. Colombia’s ‘social cleansing’ phenomenon: Exterminating people like bugs, Graham, Thomas, Colombia Reports, 21 April 2016.

55. Ordoñez 1996, p. 24.

56. Schwartz 2001, p. 397.

57. Ordoñez 1996, p. 31.

58. Ordoñez 1996, p. 34.

59. Ordoñez 1996, p. 30.

60. Ordoñez 1996, pp. 31–32.

61. Sanford 2008, p. 112.

62. Sanford 2008, p. 111.

63. Sanford 2008, p. 118.

64. E. C. 2021.

65. Hannah Cho and Asta Kongsted (10 September 2024). "South Korea finds mothers were forced to give up babies for adoption abroad". The Guardian.

66. Bugyeong Jung (30 May 2020). "Brothers' Home: South Korea's 1980s 'concentration camp'". BBC News.

67. Susan Kim; Mary Ann Jolley (22 December 2021). "Surviving South Korea's house of horrors". Al Jazeera.

68. Miguel 2005, pp. 1153–56.

69. Miguel 2005, p. 1156

70. Miguel 2005, pp. 1156–58.

71. Federici 2010, p. 10.

References

· Abrahams, Ray. "Sungusungu: Village Vigilante Groups in Tanzania." African Affairs 86, no. 343 (April 1, 1987): 179–96.

· E. C. (24 May 2021). "Vraem: 18 personas fueron asesinadas por miembros de Sendero Luminoso". El Comercio (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 25 May 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2021.

· Federici, Silvia. "Women, Witch-Hunting and Enclosures in Africa Today." Sozial Geschichte Online 3 (2010): 10–27.

· Johnson, Lyman L.; Lipsett-Rivera, Sonya. eds. The Faces of Honor: Sex, Shame, and Violence in Colonial Latin America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. (1998). ISBN 978-0-8263-5345-0. OCLC 867931317.

· Koonings, Kees. "Armed Actors, Violence and Democracy in Latin America in the 1990s: Introductory Notes." Bulletin of Latin American Research 20, no. 4 (October 1, 2001): 401–08.

· McIlwaine, Cathy, and Caroline O. N. Moser. "Violence and Social Capital in Urban Poor Communities: Perspectives from Colombia and Guatemala." Journal of International Development 13, no. 7 (October 2001): 965–84.

· Miguel, Edward. "Poverty and Witch Killing." The Review of Economic Studies 72, no. 4 (October 1, 2005): 1153–72.

· Ordoñez, Juan Pablo. No Human Being Is Disposable: Social Cleansing, Human Rights, and Sexual Orientation in Colombia. Reports on Human Rights in Colombia. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, January 1996.

· Sanford, Victoria. "From Genocide to Feminicide: Impunity and Human Rights in Twenty-First Century Guatemala." Journal of Human Rights 7, no. 2 (April 2008): 104–22.

· Schwartz, Elizabeth F. "Getting Away with Murder: Social Cleansing in Colombia and the Role of the United States." The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 27, no. 2 (December 1, 1995): 381–420.

· Wilding, Polly. "'New Violence': Silencing Women's Experiences in the Favelas of Brazil." Journal of Latin American Studies 42, no. 04 (November 2010): 719–47.

· World Bank (January 2000). Violence in Colombia: Building Sustainable Peace and Social Capital. World Bank Publications. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-8213-4383-8. Archived from the original on 2024-04-06. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

· Zachrisson, Per. "Witchcraft and Witchcraft Cleansing in Southern Zimbabwe." Anthropos 102, no. 1 (January 1, 2007): 33–45.

the DON JONES INDEX…