Connect with us

America

US used pro-Israel Canary Mission website for deportation efforts, records show

Published

on

The US government has reportedly used the pro-Israel Canary Mission website in its deportation activities.

It has been revealed that the US administration relied heavily on a pro-Israel website named Canary Mission to identify pro-Palestinian academics for deportation.

According to records, to support Donald Trump’s deportation initiative, the Department of Homeland Security established a “tiger team” of intelligence analysts who compiled files on approximately 100 foreign students and academics involved in pro-Palestinian activities.

Deposition records released this week in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s targeting of pro-Palestinian academics show that more than 75 of these individuals were identified by Canary Mission, a mysterious website.

The federal judge currently overseeing the case has publicly released the deposition transcripts, which contain hundreds of pages of sworn testimony from administration officials regarding the efforts to deport individuals from campuses.

Some details from the transcripts emerged in open court on Wednesday as administration officials began to be called to the witness stand.

In response to a query from POLITICO, Canary Mission claimed it has had “no contact with this administration or the previous one.”

Immigration lawyers and pro-Palestinian activists had already suspected that immigration officials were taking names of academics from the Canary Mission site and attempting to revoke their visas with very little independent investigation. However, the deposition transcripts reveal for the first time the extensive degree to which Trump officials relied on this site. Peter Hatch, a Department of Homeland Security official who testified in court on Wednesday, acknowledged the site’s importance to the Trump administration’s efforts but stated that all information taken from the site was independently verified.

Canary Mission states that its purpose is to expose “anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments” on university campuses. It publishes photos and social media profiles of pro-Palestinian academics and documents their protest activities.

Critics allege that the group employs McCarthy-like tactics by labeling pro-Palestinian activists as anti-Semitic based on weak or irrelevant evidence. Canary Mission does not disclose its funders or details about who manages it.

The group stated, “We document individuals and groups that promote hatred of the US, Israel, and Jews. We investigate hate crimes across the entire political spectrum, including far-right, far-left, and anti-Israel activists.”

The released court records also reveal for the first time the deep involvement of the Trump administration, particularly Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller, in efforts to cancel the visas of pro-Palestinian academics studying and teaching at American universities.

John Armstrong, the acting head of the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that he had “at least a dozen” meetings with White House officials about the student deportation campaign and that Miller participated in inter-agency conference calls on the subject “at least once a week.”

According to Armstrong, the conference calls with Miller lasted between approximately 15 minutes and an hour and included other officials from the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The extent to which the White House was involved in selecting specific students remains unclear, as the White House has invoked executive privilege to conceal the details of Miller’s conversations with agency officials.

Detailed testimonies regarding the administration’s attempt to deport pro-Palestinian academics emerged in over 1,000 pages of documents and deposition transcripts released to the public this week as a lawsuit against this policy began in a Boston federal court.

US District Judge William Young is presiding over the case and will decide whether the Trump administration violated the First Amendment of the Constitution by targeting academics for their speech and political views.

The foreign academics were legally living and studying at American universities on student visas or green cards. However, the administration sought to revoke their legal status and force them to leave the country. Courts have so far intervened to prevent the immediate deportation of Khalil, Ozturk, and others.

Hatch provided new information regarding the role of external groups in targeting academics.

Called as a witness in the ongoing trial on Wednesday, Hatch confirmed that Canary Mission played a key role in intelligence work related to deportations.

Hatch said, “Most, if not almost all, of the names came from that website, but we were also getting names and tips from many different websites. We received information about the same protesters from many sources, but Canary Mission provided the most comprehensive information. The lists were coming from all directions.”

Hatch added that he believed his team was told to review the Canary Mission website and was verbally informed that it contained reports on more than 5,000 people.

The Department of Homeland Security official claimed, “This shows why we needed a tiger team. A normal unit, department, or group of analysts working within a regular organizational structure could not handle this workload.”

Hatch said that analysts assigned to the “counter-terrorism intelligence” unit, among others, were reassigned to the “tiger team.”

Hatch also emphasized that all information his analysts obtained from the Canary Mission site had to be verified before being included in official reports.

The official claimed, “Canary Mission is not part of the US government. This is not information that we would consider a reliable source. We do not work with the people who created this website. I do not know who created the website.”

In his testimony, Hatch stated that he believed “more than 75%” of the names in the reports prepared by the “tiger team” came from Canary Mission, and the others came from a group called Betar US, which uses the slogan “Jews stand up” and publishes profiles of pro-Palestinian activists on its website.

In February, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) added Betar to its list of extremist groups, alleging that the organization “openly embraces Islamophobia and harasses Muslims online and in person.”

Betar did not respond to a request for comment. However, a few days after Trump’s return to the White House in January, Betar announced in comments on X and to news organizations that it had provided a “deportation list” to Trump administration officials.

Administration officials called to give sworn testimony before the trial struggled to provide precise definitions of what type of advocacy or activism would be considered antisemitism or support for Hamas, which the US designates as a terrorist organization.

Both justifications were primary reasons for the deportation campaign and the efforts to deny visas to foreigners wishing to study or continue their education in the US.

In his testimony, Armstrong said that the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” frequently chanted at pro-Palestinian rallies, could lead to the denial of a US visa because it calls for the destruction of Israel.

The State Department official said, “I think it could, because by definition, that means the elimination of Israel and the Israeli people.”

Armstrong added that calls for corporate divestment from Israel, an arms embargo on Israel, or an end to military aid to Israel could also be problematic, and that describing the country as an “apartheid state” would “probably” be considered anti-Israel activity.

On the other hand, Armstrong said that calling for a ceasefire in Gaza would not be considered a negative factor in a visa application.

“The President has called for a ceasefire. So no,” said Armstrong, who is scheduled to testify in court on Friday.

When asked what types of “anti-Americanisms” could lead to a visa denial under Trump’s new policy, Armstrong replied, “It would be a general condemnation: All Americans are fat and evil. It wouldn’t be saying, ‘I hate hot dogs.'”

America

Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports

Published

on

The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.

According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.

In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.

As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.

Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.

Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.

On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.

These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.

Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.

CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.

That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.

A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.

Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.

The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.

White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.

The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.

During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.

In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.

The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.

Continue Reading

America

Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races

Published

on

A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.

These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.

According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.

The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.

Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.

Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.

Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:

“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”

The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.

Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.

Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.

More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.

The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.

According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.

Continue Reading

America

Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives

Published

on

Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.

The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.

Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.

Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.

“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”

In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.

Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.

Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.

Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.

Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.

Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.

In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.

Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.

“They are gambling with our lives”

Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.

However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.

Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.

Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.

It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.

Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.

A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.

Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey