The U.S. Air Force is seeking an anti-aircraft gun system to help defend its air bases around the world from drones and cruise missiles. The Request for Information (RFI) about these systems, posted on the government’s contracting website on Thursday, is part of a larger Air Force effort to play a greater role in air base defense via ground-based air defenses (GBADs), a capacity traditionally performed by the Army. As a result, the Air Force currently has no such systems. Now it is interested in changing that.
The request comes as the war against Iran exposed gaps in how the U.S. can provide effective, sustained air defenses for its foreign installations and amid concerns about a future fight against a peer competitor like China or Russia.
“The Government is conducting market research to identify potential industry sources capable of providing solutions for a Ground-Based, Medium-Caliber Gun Weapon System that fires affordable munitions, enables defense against air and missile threats with an initial focus on subsonic cruise missiles (CM) and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to provide persistent defense in support of [the] United States Air Force,” the RFI notes.
The RFI doesn’t stipulate what it considers a medium-caliber round; however, according to the Army, the list includes 20mm, 25mm, 30x113mm, 30x173mm and 40mm shells.
“To effectively assess and compare air defense weapon system performance, there are 15 critical baseline operational and technical parameters that must be analyzed in unison,” the RFI explains.
“These key metrics begin with the system’s Salvo Probability of Kill (Pk) evaluated against both Cruise Missiles (CM) and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Groups 1-5 at maximum range and altitude, ensuring robust lethality against diverse modern threats,” the RFI notes.
A salvo probability of kill measures how effectively a salvo, as opposed to a single shot, defeats a target.
The following chart displays the weight, normal operating altitude and speed of the five drone group classifications.
The Air Force wants this system to be “rapidly deployable, maintaining a lightweight, modular, and transportable footprint that can be swiftly projected into austere theater environments to meet emergent threats.” The RFI does not provide further details of how the Air Force is looking to transport these systems; however, the service relies on its fleets of C-130 Hercules, C-17 Globemaster III and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft to move equipment. The size and weight of the systems determines which kind of aircraft can transport it.
These systems could also be moved by truck or ship or on their own if self-propelled, but those options also incur a cost in terms of the timeliness of delivery, and can be impossible for rapid global deployments.
A key point of evaluation will be the overall cost of the munitions. The Air Force wants to ensure that the shell’s velocity and terminal effects “are maximized without driving the cost-per-engagement to unsustainable levels or exceeding the physical constraints of the host platform,” the RFI states. We’ll discuss these factors in more detail later in this story.
The service is also looking for the integration of “the right mix of radar, electro-optical, infrared, or radio-frequency sensors—to ensure reliable target acquisition and tracking across varying weather conditions, environments, and countermeasure scenarios.”
As we noted at the top of this story, the Air Force is seeking to improve its organic ability to defend its bases. This has become “an increasingly high priority” for the service, Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink told Congress on May 20.
“The Air Force is developing organic air and missile defense capabilities, including Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-sUAS) to defend our air bases in all theatres [sic],” Meink stated in his written testimony. “The fielding of the Air Base Air Defense Systems (ABADS) missile defense capability, including kinetic defenses, at overseas main operation bases contributes to joint layered defense but does not reduce the need for increased joint investment in air and missile defense. We will continue to work judiciously for the development and procurement of these critical defensive capabilities.”
In its Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, the Air Force is seeking about $1.4 billion for a missile defense variant of the Air Base Air Defense Systems (ABADS), according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. In addition, the Air Force also requested $51.8 million in procurement funds for its Small Unmanned Air Defense Systems (SUADS) in Fiscal Year 2026, according to the Air Force Fiscal Year 2026 budget justification book.
The war against Iran and the Ukraine war have, in particular, illustrated the challenges of defending against drones and cruise missiles.
Iran launched thousands of these weapons against U.S. air bases and a wide range of critical infrastructure targets in Bahrain, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It also launched hundreds of ballistic missiles.
Taken in concert, these attacks have resulted in the deaths of at least nine U.S. troops, more than 760 injuries and the destruction of aircraft, radars and other critical equipment as well as widespread damage to the Middle Eastern nations Iran has targeted.
Concerns about the tremendous expenditure of U.S. interceptors exacerbating the stress on America’s magazine depth of these high-end defensive weapons are an issue that TWZ has raised frequently for years.
There are two facets to potential use of gun systems for base defense. The first is that in complex air defense environments, it provides an inner, last line of defense against incoming threats. If the outer layers fail to take down the target or that target is not considered a priority over others, a hard-kill gun system offers a predictable and relatively reliable fallback. The gun system would become even more important if interceptor stocks run low, even temporarily, and those weapons need to be rationed for higher-end threats. With the outer defensive rings collapsing, the inner becomes far more important.
For small drones, that interceptors would not be effective with anyway, the gun system can take them down in localized air defense scenarios. Then there is also defending bases in lower threat areas where there are not additional layers of SAM systems. A gun system can provide a core aerial defense against lower-end, lower-density drone and cruise missile threats without costing huge sums of money or requiring a huge logistical footprint.
Beyond that, there is a direct cost comparison argument, but again, that is in a vacuum and a gun system cannot take the place of a multi-layered air defense system without inviting huge risk. Still, the engagement cost comparison is worth mentioning.
High-end, expensive, difficult-to-manufacture air defense weapons, like Patriot PAC-3 MSE, are clearly inefficient against drones. For instance, a mass-produced Iranian Shahed-136 can cost about $35,000 to $50,000, while a Patriot PAC-3 can run about $5 million and takes years to procure. By comparison, the cost-per-engagement efficiency of gun-based air defense systems, designed to defend against drones and subsonic cruise missiles, is far greater. One example of how this plays out is the cost of firing the Army’s Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) system. It is a ground-based version of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) used on various U.S. and foreign warships, and is armed with a six-barrel 20mm Vulcan Gatling-type cannon firing M940 rounds. Those self-destructing rounds currently have a price tag of $80.70, according to the Army’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget request. This means a two-second burst from a Centurion, at a rate of fire of 4,500 rounds per minute, would cost just over $12,100.
Again, this is not a strict apples-to-apples comparison, but it can become a bigger factor during prolonged conflicts when high-end weapons stocks begin to run short. It’s also worth noting that drone interceptors are a rapidly growing capability set that are a lower-cost option for swatting down one-way attack drones and even some cruise missiles. Systems like Coyote have been in service for years with the Pentagon and have been protecting bases overseas with strong results. Even cheaper systems are emerging out of lessons learned in Ukraine. All of these systems have their own advantages and disadvantages, but pairing them with a new gun system would likely have synergistic effects. Overall, deploying densely layered short-range air defenses is becoming increasingly important in its own right, at least in high-threat areas.
Ukraine has a great deal of experience with the costs and prioritization of air defense capabilities. The country faces daily attacks by Russian missiles and drones, which is causing mounting casualties and destruction. This ceaseless bombardment has almost completely depleted Ukraine’s supply of Patriot interceptors, leaving it largely defenseless against ballistic missiles. As we noted yesterday, Ukraine is also running short of air-to-air missiles its Air Force F-16s use to swat down drones.
However, Ukraine has also relied heavily on a wide array of gun-based air defense systems, including the German-made Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAG). Based on the chassis of the Leopard 1 main battle tank, Gepards feature twin radar-aimed 35mm automatic cannons, mounted on a single turret. The German variant sports an S-band search radar and a Ku-band tracking radar. These radars are critical to the Gepard’s ability to locate, track, and engage targets at night and amid poor weather conditions.
The success of the Gepards in Ukraine have helped spur new global interest in SPAAGs.
The following video shows a Gepard blasting an Iranian-made Shahed-136 out of the sky.
A video reportedly showing two Russian Shahed-136 (Geran-2) loitering munitions being shot down by the Ukrainians with a German-delivered Flakpanzer Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG) during last night's attack in Odesa Oblast, southern Ukraine.… pic.twitter.com/OhH7vTultm
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) September 7, 2023
The Air Force force is also looking at directed energy weapons like lasers for force protection and especially for defending bases overseas. While gaining traction across the services due in large measure to the much lower cost of delivering effects, these systems are still works in progress. Gun-based air defenses, on the other hand, are mature and proven, and modern precision-guided, programmable ammunition makes them even more efficient and effective.
Beyond the cost, high-end air defense systems — including their component sensors — though portable, are generally fixed to a specific location. That makes them vulnerable to attack. This has been the case in both the war against Iran and Ukraine. The same concerns hold true of aircraft. Both conflicts have shown aircraft vulnerability to drones when parked out in the open. Ukraine’s Operation Spider Web attack on Russian strategic bombers last year in particular shed light on this issue, which we have been sounding the alarm on for a long time.
For years now, U.S. military officials have often pushed back on the utility and cost-effectiveness of investing more in the physical hardening of bases and other critical facilities, especially shelters to shield aircraft from drones and other threats. However, that is beginning to change. In February, the Pentagon released new guidance about hardening, which “does not mean enclosing an entire facility, but selectively introducing obstacles that disrupt predictable aerial access,” the document explains. “Even modest obstacles can deter low-cost, consumer-grade drones and force higher-risk flight profiles.”
In addition to these challenges, the Air Force is also facing the headwinds of an overall lack of U.S. short-range air defense capabilities, a concern we have been highlighting for years. Currently, there are three gun-based SHORAD systems being fielded by the U.S. military. These include the aforementioned Centurion C-RAM systems.
The Army also uses the Sgt. Stout, an air defense system based on the 8×8 Stryker light armored vehicle. The Sgt. Stout has a turret that can be fitted with up to two four-round launchers for Stingers. Those launchers can also be swapped out for ones that can be loaded with a pair of millimeter-wave radar-guided AGM-114L Hellfire missiles. The turret also has a 30mm XM914 automatic cannon, which can fire proximity-fuzed airbursting rounds against drones and other aerial threats, and a 7.62x51mm M240B machine gun.
The Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) is armed with 30mm cannons and M240C coaxial machine guns in remote weapon stations (RWS). The RWS on one of the two vehicles is also configured to fire Stinger missiles for a spectrum of ground-based air defense scenarios.
The Army may have additional gun-based systems on the way. In July, the service put out a request for information to companies that can provide a new gun-based air defense option, using a 50mm cannon system to track and defeat Group 1, 2 and 3 drones.
A few weeks later, Northrop Grumman introduced its Raid Hunter 50mm GBAD system, which it said “combines proven Chain Gun® technology, precision‑guided 50mm ammunition and a networked, interoperable system controller to deliver powerful protection against high-volume, mixed-threat aerial raids. It is designed to defeat a range of aerial threats including high‑priority cruise missile threats, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and other advanced threats.”
We’re introducing Raid Hunter
— Northrop Grumman (@NGCNews) August 11, 2026
There are foreign options should the Air Force want to go that route. For instance, German arms maker Rheinmetall makes the popular Skyranger 35 gun system, which is a turret that can fit on a wide array of armor hulls.
The Skyranger 35 “is equipped with a KDG 35/1000 revolver cannon in 35 mm x 228 caliber with a firing rate of 1,000 rounds per minute,” according to Rheinmetall, which began delivering these to Ukraine in January. “It has an effective range of up to 4,000 meters and a high degree of commonality with the Oerlikon Revolver Gun Mk 3. Thanks to AHEAD technology, the Skyranger 35 is airburst-capable. In the future, it will also be possible to equip it with modern guided missiles.”
Skyranger 35s mounted on Cold War-era Leopard 1 tanks have just emerged on the battlefield for Ukraine.
You can see a video of that system below.
It seems that Ukraine's 1020th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment which belongs to the Ground Forces has taken delivery of the first Skyranger 35 SPAAGs mounted on a Leopard 1 chassis made by @RheinmetallAG.
— GAU (@deaidua) September 3, 2026
A contract for the delivery of the Skyranger 35 SPAAGs was signed in H2 of… pic.twitter.com/VRWhGx1LCa
Skyshield is the fixed placement cousin of this system and has been bought by a number of nations.
This is just one example of a large number of potential offerings that could fit the USAF’s interests, from both domestic and foreign origins.
As we discussed earlier in this story, the U.S. is already facing a challenge defending against Iranian threats. A war with China would be more devastating and, when it comes to the Air Force protecting its bases, require far more robust defenses. At the same time, the Air Force is still very early in the process of taking on more responsibility for protecting its assets.
Parties have until 5 p.m. Oct. 9 to submit their proposals to the Air Force for a gun-based air defense system. With limited options and the service pushing to address its growing desire for organic air defenses, it will be interesting to see who comes forward and what systems they offer. We will provide more details about this effort when they become available.
Contact the author: howard@twz.com
The post U.S. Air Force Seeks Anti-Aircraft Guns To Protect Its Overseas Bases appeared first on TWZ.
Ukrainian crews operating Australian-supplied M1A1 Abrams tanks say the battlefield has become so saturated with Russian drones that their tanks cannot currently be used in combat, but they reject the idea that main battle tanks have become forever obsolete.
Since receiving these tanks last year, the crews, serving with Ukraine’s 425th Separate Assault Regiment “Skala,” have used the Abrams in two combat operations in the fight for Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian logistics hub and part of a defensive belt of towns in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region. They recounted their experiences to Hromadske, an independent media channel in Ukraine.
The first major deployment described by the crews took place in December of last year, when Abrams tanks were used to support assault groups entering Pokrovsk.
The crewmember with the callsign Kent described moving into the city behind a mine-clearing tank and ahead of two infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) carrying assault troops, during a mission that was deliberately aggressive.
“Since a tank is a priority target — my task was to draw their attention, while our infantry dismounted and moved in successfully.”
The Abrams was also assigned three target points to engage along the route.
“We went right in there, poured it on, and drove back out,” he recalled.
A video showing the 425th Separate Assault Regiment in action in August 2025, soon after receiving the Abrams:
The second operation, on March 31, involved an attempt to enter and hold an industrial area near Pokrovsk to help block Russian movement toward Hryshyne, a contested village in the district.
The operation was prepared for more than two weeks. Ukrainian forces conducted reconnaissance flights, examined difficult sections of the planned routes, and provided crews with extensive video and imagery.
“They knew every meter of the route,” another of the unit’s commanders, with the callsign Kubik, said.
Weather was considered essential. The Ukrainians waited for fog and rain, hoping to limit the effectiveness of Russian drones.
“Without the right weather we wouldn’t have been able to pull off operations like that,” Kubik said.
The operation nevertheless resulted in the destruction of four out of five armored vehicles, some of which are seen in the video embedded below.
Russia's Rubicon Drone Center FPV drones destroyed a Ukrainian assault group near Pokrovsk, hitting an M1A1 Abrams tank, M1117 APC and BMP-2 as the unit tried to advance near Hryshyne under fog cover. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/ZzE52qAYxp
— NOELREPORTS
The commander acknowledged that the Russian side may have had advance knowledge of the operation.
“I can’t rule out the possibility that the enemy knew our plan,” he said.
His Abrams was not immediately destroyed. According to the crew, it completed its task and the assault troops dismounted before the weather changed.
“Once the fog lifted, they started working on it with an FPV drone,” the commander said.
The losses prompted criticism from Ukrainian military commentators, particularly after footage of the destroyed vehicles was published.
However, the crews defend the decision to use armored vehicles for the missions. According to the men of the Skala interviewed, the alternative was often to send infantry over several miles on foot while carrying weapons, ammunition, water, and other supplies.
“That takes more time,” Kubik explained. “And the enemy isn’t standing still — the enemy is moving toward them.”
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) December 23, 2025
The tanks of such type recently saw combat in the area of Pokrovsk. pic.twitter.com/qhjSyGbhH6
The argument that infantry could simply move more stealthily on foot also has limitations.
“Every day the Mavic drones are flying, the fixed-wing drones are flying,” he said. “No fog, guys are visible.”
Combined with IFVs, the Abrams can provide the ability to rapidly move troops while simultaneously delivering heavy direct fire against enemy positions and offering substantial protection to its crew.
The crews argue that this capability remains worthwhile even when the tank itself may eventually be lost.
One commander was asked whether deploying a roughly $5-million tank makes sense if a single sortie can result in its destruction.
“Yes, of course it makes sense to deploy it,” he replied.
“First and foremost — it saves the lives of the crew inside it.”
Russian forces captured a relatively lightly damaged M1A1SA Abrams main battle tank operated by the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade in the Pokrovsk direction.
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) October 27, 2024
The tank is equipped with added cage armor, as well as Kontakt and ARAT ERA. pic.twitter.com/mHyKk1xNRY
The Ukrainian crews repeatedly highlighted the Abrams’ accuracy and survivability.
“What are the biggest advantages of the Abrams?” Kent was asked.
“Accuracy.”
Its biggest disadvantage, he said, is equally obvious on a modern battlefield: “It’s very tall — and very large — so it’s hard to conceal.”
A video showing a U.S.-supplied Abrams under attack from Russian FPV drones:
— PS01 □ (@PStyle0ne1) July 7, 2024
Kent described surviving an engagement in which his tank was struck repeatedly while on the move.
“More than 20 drones hit me,” he said of one operation into Pokrovsk.
He attributed the Abrams’ survival to the combination of its armor and additional anti-drone protection fitted to the vehicle.
“All of it together is effective,” he said.
He pointed to fairly basic modifications including rubber strips and a foldable wire cage mounted on the turret, as additional layers of protection against drone attacks.
“A drone doesn’t hit the actual penetrating element directly — it just can’t reach it,” he explained. “It hits the rubber, and then the blast wave travels from there.”
Even with their tanks festooned with explosive reactive armor (ERA) bricks, the crews acknowledge that such protection has limits.
US-supplied M1A1 Abrams tank in service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with added Kontakt-1 ERA on the frontal hull and standard ARAT ERA on the sides. pic.twitter.com/PC2kDfxefO
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) May 21, 2024
Kent also noted that the Abrams was still missing the ‘hedgehog’-type protective coverings that have been seen on Russian tanks.
“They also protect very well. An effective thing,” he said.
For now, the drone threat has led the regiment to keep its Abrams out of combat, as we will return to later.
The crews’ assessment of the Abrams included praise for its mobility, roomy interior, gun, and fire-control system.
Kubik said he had personally driven an Abrams to 50 miles per hour cross-country.
“The engine is an absolute beast,” he added.
The tank can also rapidly perform a pivot turn, which the crews consider particularly useful when maneuvering in confined spaces. Despite its prodiguous weight, it only rarely becomes bogged down after the kind of very heavy snow-melt that effects all vehicles on the battlefield.
Loading a 120mm M1028 canister cartridge into an M1A1 AIM Abrams main battle tank of the tank battalion of the 425th Assault Regiment. pic.twitter.com/tMd8QcROQe
— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱
Its disadvantages include its demanding maintenance requirements. The running gear was described as particularly sensitive, with crews inspecting, lubricating, and replacing components after every sortie.
Fuel consumption is another major burden. The crew cited roughly 400 to 700 liters (106 to 185 gallons) per 100 kilometers (62 miles) depending on terrain and operating conditions.
“On asphalt it burns about 400 liters,” one said. In boggy terrain, consumption can reach “700 liters or more.”
The Abrams thirsty gas turbine engine and extreme logistical demands have always been a criticism of the platform.
The crews said the vehicle’s ability to operate on different fuels is useful, although diesel provides the best engine-hour performance in their experience. Prior to delivery, the gas turbine engines of the tanks were reconfigured to use diesel fuel instead of the standard JP-8 aviation kerosene, according to earlier reports.
They also praised the Abrams’ protected ammunition storage and crew space compared with Soviet-designed tanks.
The version operated by the Ukrainians is an M1A1 rather than the latest Abrams configuration, with less sophisticated electronics than newer variants. It also lacks the classified armor found on its U.S. Army counterpart.
“For me — as a tanker — this configuration, what we have right now, is more than enough,” Kubik said. “The sight is absolutely excellent. The gun is also great.”
— MAKS 26
The interview ultimately presents a more complicated picture than the declaration that tanks are obsolete on the Ukrainian battlefield.
At the time of writing, at least 25 Abrams have been confirmed visually to have been destroyed, damaged, or abandoned in Ukrainian service. This is from a total of 31 provided by the United States and 49 from Australia.
“For now, we’re not using them further — there’s no way to,” Kubik said. “The enemy has developed their drone component very heavily, and for now we don’t have the means to counter that.”
While tanks remain exceptionally powerful direct-fire and protected mobility platforms, the proliferation of inexpensive uncrewed aircraft has made operating them increasingly difficult.
M1A1 AIM Abrams tanks of the 425th Assault Regiment
— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱
The reinforced upper glacis and turret roofs are clearly visible. pic.twitter.com/Sn9h8OWZ9P
“If someone had told me, as a tanker, back in 2022: ‘Take this — we’re giving you an Abrams, we’ll give you time to train and you’ll fight in it,’” Kubik said, “I would never have climbed out of it.”
“I’d only be saying: ‘Bring me shells. I’ll drive non-stop wherever needed, arrive and work.’”
As it stands, reconnaissance drones can find the Abrams, FPV drones can attack it, and persistent surveillance makes concealment difficult. Experience has shown that without more effective counter-drone capabilities, even a heavily protected tank can eventually be overwhelmed.
But Kubik believes that will change.
“The day will come when one of our bright minds figures out some excellent solution against drones — and we’ll start using them again.”
Asked whether the era of tanks is over, his answer was unequivocal.
“It’s not over … They’re just waiting it out for now, biding their time. Writing off tanks — in my opinion — is still too early.”
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
The post How Russian Drones Forced Ukraine To Park Its M1 Abrams Tanks appeared first on TWZ.
Today, host Michael Fox speaks with Fara Dabhoiwala. He is a professor of History at Princeton University. And he’s the author of the book, What is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea.
That book was published in 2025 by Penguin Random House and Harvard University Press. His book, in many ways, challenges the status quo about our understanding of free speech.
Professor Dabhoiwala has a wealth of knowledge on the subject of free speech and he appeared throughout this podcast series. But there were many questions we weren’t able to fit into the series, in particular about the beginnings of what we understand as free speech in the United States, and the difference between free speech in the US and abroad.
So today, we’re bringing you Michael’s conversation with him in its entirety. They spoke last fall.
This is the first bonus episode of The Battle for Free Speech.
The Battle for Free Speech Podcast is a production of The Real News Network.
Hosted by Michael Fox and Marc Steiner.
Guests:
Resources:
Many thanks to everyone who has supported this show.
Follow The Battle For Free Speech on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Support Michael Fox’s reporting at patreon.com/mfox. Never miss an episode — sign up for The Real News newsletter at therealnews.com.
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Michael Fox:
Hi folks. I’m your co-host, Michael Fox, and this is The Battle for Free Speech. So as promised, this is the first of a number of bonus episodes we’ll be rolling out in the coming weeks. Today, I speak with Fara Dabhoiwala. He’s a professor of history at Princeton University, and he’s the author of the book, What Is Free Speech: The History of a Dangerous Idea. That book was published last year by Penguin Random House and Harvard University Press. And if you’ve listened to this podcast series, you have heard his voice before because I go to him for analysis and insight in numerous episodes. That’s because he’s a wealth of knowledge on this subject, but also because his book in many ways challenges the status quo about our understanding of free speech. In this podcast series, I feel like I was able to only just barely scratch the surface on so many questions, particularly about the beginnings of what we understand as free speech in the United States and elsewhere, and also the difference between free speech in the United States and abroad.
So today I’m bringing you my conversation with him in its entirety. I know you will appreciate it.
Well, Fara, I just want to start off. Thank you so much, so much for your time and for being here.
Fara Dabhoiwala:
A pleasure to talk to you, Mike.
Michael Fox:
Fara, can you start with by just introducing yourself and tell me a little bit about why this became such an interest for you, why you wrote this book?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
Well, I’m a historian at Princeton, but I used to teach at Oxford University in England. And more than 10 years ago now, I published a different book on the history of Western attitudes to sex and what I call the sexual revolution of the 18th century. And that was a very popular book and I went around the world talking about it. And in the course of that, almost immediately, I was censored in various ways. I was deplatformed, I got into trouble for saying things on the radio, and then it all culminated in my book being translated into Chinese. And when it was translated into Chinese, it was censored. And then I went to China and traveled around talking about it. And at that point, my interest shifted from my own experience of being silenced to the extraordinary things that were happening in China already 10 years ago, which was, as a historian, I realized every single apparatus of censorship ever invented in the history of the world was now simultaneously being deployed to muzzle free speech in China, as well as some totally new ones that the Communist Party had developed to deal with the internet.
And of course, 10 years ago, everyone still generally believed the internet was a technology of freedom that would set people free. And before long, surely the Chinese would also experience it that way. And my experience traveling around taught me that actually that was a very naive idea and the opposite was happening. So I came back from that trip really shocked by the way in which a modern dictatorship like China can operate to muzzle free speech and silence dissent at every level, believing myself in free speech and starting to think, well, why do we have such different views about this? Where does first of all, this Western belief in free speech come from? And given that we all believe in it, and I do very strongly myself, why can we never agree on what it means? I mean, within our cultures, we’re fighting about that all the time and across cultures now, this is a really important political transnational problem in the world, but it’s not just a political series of questions and problems.
It’s also a historical problem because people didn’t always believe in free speech. Anyway, so that’s where I started. I though in 2015, oh my goodness, it’s peak free speech time now. I should hurry up and write this book before the moment passes. And sadly, the moment has not passed. It’s just got worse and worse. But I can explain why that is, which is part of the interest of the subject.
Michael Fox:
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was going to ask you. How did we get into this mess? And obviously through reading your book, I’m just fascinated by the Cato letters and all this, but if you could give me a little bit of how do we get to this point?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
Well, it’s taken us 300 years to get to this point because the modern idea of free speech really is invented about 300 years ago. But the reason it’s such a hot topic right now, let me just deal with that. The reason it’s such a hot topic right now is because we’re living through a giant communications revolution. I mean, the internet has completely transformed how humans communicate at every level about every subject. And every time that’s happened in the past, in the 18th century with print, in the 19th century and the 20th century with new forms of print and the telegraph and broadcasting and all the rest of it, every time there’s been a new communications revolution, people have needed to think about free speech harder and in different ways. And so that’s part of what’s happening right now. Do you want to come back to me about the history?
Michael Fox:
Yes. Yeah, yeah. Let’s dive all the way back in the history and we’ll bring it up to the present. Talk to me about those beginnings of what free speech meant in those days.
Fara Dabhoiwala:
Yeah. So really the first thing you need to understand about free speech is it’s on the one hand, a very old idea. There are various forms of freedom of expression that go right back to the classical period. On the other hand, our current sense of it is really quite recent because older ideas of free speech are always very restricted. They had to do with speech in an emergency, the idea of scholars communicating peacefully amongst themselves. But what’s always lacking in all those earlier notions is a notion of political free speech, that everyone has the right to speak out on matters of public concern. That’s really the core of our modern idea. One reason that’s lacking before the 18th century is that people have a very sophisticated understanding of what words really are. That’s to say words are not different from actions. Words are a type of action in the world.
Everyone in the past knew this. They also know that words, although often trivial and harmless and fleeting, sometimes can have really potent consequences in the world. And thirdly, they know that sometimes those potent consequences can be dangerous and harmful. And they’re particularly focused on the harm to individuals from lies and slanders and defamation, which is something that everyone sees is a real problem. And people all the time in the pre-modern world are going to court to defend themselves against the bad words, the slanders, the lies of others. And the second way in which they are focused on this is the dangers, the problems of untruth and misinformation and conspiracy theories. Everyone knows in the past, and it’s a documented fact, that first of all, lies and misinformation spread very quickly, much more quickly than the truth, and that they can, if left unchecked, cause riots and political disorder and pogroms and massacres and bloodshed on a horrible scale.
Everyone in the European past knew this. Happens time and again. And so because of these insights into the power of words, they are very keen to control technologies of print when those are invented and they’re keen to regulate speech in all sorts of ways. Okay, so that’s the background. Then what happens in the early 18th century, and it happens first in England, is that for contingent religious and political reasons there the government cannot anymore agree on exactly how to regulate the printing press. There’s been a political and religious revolution. And so the normal forms of prior censorship whereby you go to the church with anything controversial on a spiritual subject and ask them to sign off on it before you print it, that doesn’t work anymore. Anyway, I won’t go into the reasons, but what you get is this explosion of new kinds of printing because now for the first time people are allowed to just put it out there.
You can still be punished and prosecuted if you publish something that is beyond the pale, but still it’s a different form of regulation. And so in London, which is the epicenter of this, you get an explosion of political pamphlets, newspapers, a much more fast-paced, a different kind of media world than has ever existed before. And the reason for this is partly also that this is the first age of permanent political parties. In England, the Wigs and the Tories are constantly, they’re popular parties. They’re appealing to the people. And so they use this new technology right from the outset to start to attack each other. And as part of that, they are constantly shouting back and forth across the partisan landscape that the other side is lying and abusing words and misinforming the public. They on the other hand are trying to tell the truth. Anyway, it’s a situation very analogous, very evocative of our own age.
And in this new landscape, people get addicted to fast-paced news and newspapers and so on. They like it and they celebrate that this has come about because of the liberty of the press. So the liberty of the press comes this new slogan that everyone loves to be in favor of, but that doesn’t mean that anything goes. On the other hand, they can also see actually very sharply, acutely, that this new technology has also made worse all the problems of mass communication that have always existed. I mean, the first law against false news in the English speaking world dates back to 1275. These are not new problems at all. So in the 18th century, people see that, for example, print has only made worse the problem of lies. There’s a great quote by Jonathan Swift, the great writer of the early 18th century, which is basically that truth is slow and lies are false.
It goes like this, falsehood flies and truth comes limping after it like a man who’s though of a good repartee long after the party’s over. It’s still true. And Daniel Defoe, his co-journalist and writer, brilliant novelist as well, complains that newspapers have created an explosion of “false news, forgery, infamy, and absurdity, masquerading as fact.” So everyone who looks into this and understands how the world works knows that this has just made things worse. And the final aspect of that, that all people in the know are aware of is that this new media world is hugely corrupt. It’s not about spreading truth so much about making money. Everyone is trying to make money out of the print revolution. It’s hard to do, many newspapers go under, but everyone wants to make it big. They’re always primarily concerned with selling advertising, getting sales, and above all, getting sponsorship by a politician.
And so the world of journalism is hugely corrupt. People are writing for money. Newspapers are being bought and sold all the time, and this is not a neutral marketplace of ideas at all on the contrary. So in this world, liberty speech, everyone agrees is great, but because of all these problems, they also agree that liberty speech is easily abused and they call that licentiousness. Licentience is bad, liberty is good. But the problem with this balancing model of saying liberty speech is good as far as it goes, but you shouldn’t abuse it, is that everyone can also see this lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. It’s a subjective judgment. And that’s why no one is able to put forward a really cogent theory of free speech. Everyone can see that, for example, opposition politicians are always banging on about freedom of speech and all for it and maximally for it.
And then the moment they get into power, they start censoring their opponents as heavily as they can. So there’s no worked out theory of free speech. And into this moment come these two journalists called John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon who put forward the first much more hard-edged theory of free speech in which they describe what we might call the origins of the absolutist view of free speech. And their argument, which they put forward in an anonymous newspaper column called Cato’s Letters, which is immensely successful and has a very long afterlife, is that liberty of speech is the foundation of all liberty and that governors are always trying to abuse power and aggregate more power to themselves. Governors are in fact always trying to turn into tyrants. On the other hand, the people are always noble and virtuous and able to see that. And so you should allow the people maximum freedom of expression in order that they can keep a check on their tyrants, their governors, and call them to account.
And so they claim this, they claim that liberty’s speech is the foundation of all liberty because the moment you see it being reduced even a tiny bit, then you know you’re on a slippery slide to tyranny because that’s the first thing that tyrannical governors try to do. Now, everyone has always known that Cater’s letters is a tremendously influential text in the history of free speech. Cater’s letters is this not just about free speech, it’s a series of essays putting forward simple understandings of important Republican thinkers like Locke and Machiavelli. And in the Americas, in North America, it becomes the most important political text for the Patriot movement in the middle and later 18th century. So the founders of the United States take this as gospel truth and they import these slogans from Katie’s letters into the Declarations of Rights about free speech in 1776 and then into the First Amendment.
So it has a very long afterlife. It’s very powerful. Everyone’s always known about this, but when I started reading it, two things revealed themselves to me that no one had ever really noticed before, and they’re really quite astonishing. The first is this is a theory full of holes. This is not a coherent, sincere doctrine of free speech. It’s in fact an attempt to justify the practices of these two hack journalists themselves in attacking the government and calling for the lynching of stock market profiteers and the overthrow of the current administration. They are justifying themselves by saying, “Well, of course, freedom of speech can never be abridged and there’s no such thing as liable.” That’s another thing they try and claim that if you attack someone and you spread lies about them, then the people will just see that they’re lies and that will just have no effect at all.
On the other hand, if you criticize someone and it’s true, then it’ll stick. And so really there’s no such thing as liable. It’s a very dodgy argument, but they make it with great passion. So the first thing is they don’t pay attention to any of those things that everyone else around them notices, that this is a deeply corrupt media world, that the newspapers themselves are writing and the journalists are writing for money, that the people don’t always agree on everything, that truth is difficult to establish, and that lies can spread dangerously if you allow them to. None of those things are there at all. So it’s full of holes. The second thing, even more remarkably, that I discovered is that they themselves are not writing in good faith. They’re not just writing to defend themselves. They are deeply, deeply complicit in this corruption and political partisanship of the age.
They are writing basically to be noticed by the government and then to be paid off by the government. And the lead author, Thomas Gordon, he does exactly that. He writes Cater’s letters about the people are always right, the people should never be suppressed. And then the government reaches out to him and say, “Hey, you are quite a good writer, but why are you wasting your time with this muckraking rabble-rousing stuff? Why don’t you come work for us?” And he says, “Oh yes, that sounds quite interesting. Thank you so much.” And he starts writing simultaneously for the government press, exactly the opposite. The governors know what they’re doing. People are often being misled by dangerous hack journalists. Misinformation is rife. And then finally he jumps ship and they shut down Cater’s letters and he makes a deal with the government and he becomes the prime minister’s chief propagandist.
He goes rich and famous over the next 20 years as a spin doctor on the establishment side. So anyway, these were remarkable discoveries and they really also I think are important, not just historically, but in showing up that from the outset, theories of free speech are very difficult to make watertight. They often are concocted in bad faith, and yet what lasts is powerful rhetoric. And so over time, no one knows about Thomas Gordon’s own corruption, but his text lives on and it’s very powerfully still read as an epitome of wisdom and truth and foundation for why we should think of free speech in a particular way.
Michael Fox:
Why has this concept, this absolutist concept and these concepts of free speech at all costs, particularly in the United States, why has this remained so powerful over the centuries up until today?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
Well, one of the revelations of my book is that actually Americans didn’t always think exactly as they do now about free speech, that for most of American history, actually from 1789 all the way to the 1960s, Americans had views that were quite similar to those in the rest of the world, a more balanced understanding of free speech as a matter of both of rights and of responsibilities as something that required attending to the public good, something that required looking at the role of the mass media, et cetera, et cetera. And it’s only because of the Cold War really that they diverged into a more hard line libertarian outlook, the results of which we’re living through today. But more fundamentally, I think the reason that these slogans are so attractive is that everyone wants simplicity and everyone likes the idea that the rules of free speech should be simple and straightforward.
And everyone can also see that if you take a balancing approach that on the one hand talks about this as a right and on the other hand talks about the possible harms and thinks about the public good and gives powers to regulate and so on, that this can lead to all sorts of serious problems of subjective interpretation, of censorship on grounds that we don’t agree with. That creates all sorts of problems that you can see playing out in countries around the world that take that approach. If you look at Britain, for example, right now, it’s a mess.
So that’s not a good solution. It’s not a perfect solution either. I happen to think that that approach is more intellectually justified, but I don’t think that it is problem free at all. And so the alternative of just saying, “Well, this is a simple matter. We just need to make the rules as simple and as hard edged as possible has an obvious intellectual appeal.” I think there’s also a really interesting psychology here, which I experienced myself when I was censored in trivial ways at the start of this project, which is no one likes to be told that they can’t say something. No one likes to be told to shut up. So the reverse psychology here, again, makes this a wonderful slogan to appeal to. If you feel censored, you feel aggrieved in a way that other rights maybe don’t quite have that immediate emotional purchase.
Michael Fox:
I thought one of the themes, the essential themes of your book, which I found fascinating, is that freedom of expression, freedom of speech isn’t just about the words that are used, the individuals that are speaking, but it’s also about power, the different groups and structures and systems that exist in order for some people to be able to speak and others not to speak. Can you speak a little bit about that?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
So another problem with laws about free speech is that if you think about communication and free speech in a sophisticated way, you need to acknowledge that speech is always exquisitely contextual. It’s never just about the words, the action in the world. Voltaire once said, “I write in order to act.” Let me just remind people, this is an action in the world, but the outcome of that action, the impact in the world is different, not just according to the words, but according to who is speaking, who is the audience, what is the context, what is the intention, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Me saying something to you in a bar in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere is a completely different speech act, even if I use the same words as the president of the United States standing up and broadcasting this around the world repeatedly over and over again.
Just to take a trivial example, and that’s a problem, this exquisite contextual understanding of what’s happening when someone says something. We can navigate that in real life. We can navigate that face-to-face pretty well. We know when someone’s joking or when they’re saying something seriously, we know if we’re aligned in our understanding of what this conversation is about. When we’re not, that’s when miscommunication occurs. Online miscommunication is much easier than face-to-face. The larger the setting number of people involved, the greater the problems of miscommunication. But basically we know this is a matter of judgment on all sorts of levels. And the problem is laws are predicated pretty much on the opposite set of principles. That is to say consistency, transparency, everyone has the right to be treated the same. And if you think that for the same action, and if you think that the action is basically saying X, Y, Z, then it doesn’t seem right that people should be treated differently or that these other contextual elements should be brought into the frame.
And again, then you come into the problem that it becomes very subjective to judge exactly what’s happening, what the effects are. Anyway, so that’s the problem with laws, but it also points to the complication of the real issues, right? Free speech is a great noble ideal, but communication is really quite a complicated thing. And if we don’t attend to that, if we just push it all aside as American free speech jurisprudence increasingly does for the sake of simplicity, then we’re throwing out with the bath water, we’re throwing out also the baby, which is the fact that speech is an action and it’s an action that can cause harm. Now we need to take a minimalist approach to making laws. We need to take a maximalist approach to rights, but still there is something called truth. Sometimes the truth is very important. There are ways in which communication can cause harm.
We’ve known this throughout history, see it time and again. If we just ignore that completely, we’re opening up a whole set of different problems, which is where the absolutist doctrine leads us.
Michael Fox:
This is the thing for me that I find shocking, surprising, is that every time we’re talking about free speech or people are speaking about free speech, it’s as if this question of hate speech, truth, fake news, disinformation, intentional disinformation, particularly in the United States, it’s like this huge elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. It’s just there and then people go, “Oh yeah, well there’s a…” And then we end up in this same cycle where then obviously, as you’ve mentioned, that’s the stuff that goes viral, right? It’s the lies, disinformation. This is why Brazil has really cracked down hard on that, particularly around the election time and why the United States is of course calling Supreme Court justice censorship judges and things like that. Where does fake news fit into this question of free speech or where should it fit into this question of free speech or how are some countries handling this vis-a-vis how the United States is handling in a different way?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
Yeah. So one of the problems with free speech and one of the reasons why we’re in such a mess today is that our approach to it is really way too simplistic. There’s a reason why, because everyone wants the rules to be simple and just to be about individual rights, but it’s not enough. And so one thing we might start by acknowledging is that free speech can be many different things. There are many different forms of free speech. For example, free speech for writers of fiction or artists or comedians is one thing, and free speech in the political sphere is another thing because for artists and comedians, the aim of their freedom of expression is to amuse people, to make them laugh or to enlighten them, to spin worlds that will blow their minds. But in doing so, the literal truth is actually not really that important.
The literal truth is something that you play with in art and comedy, and rightly so. So we need to think about what the free speech is for. Now, in the case of democratic discourse of citizens trying to deliberate around the public good and about politics more generally, truth is actually very important. And the foundation of our democratic discourse has always been that we deliberate in good faith and that we don’t spread lies and misinformation because that way we are going to end up with a corrupted public sphere. So there, if we’re talking about freedom of speech, we do need to have truth somewhere in our sights as part of the aim and the purpose of the speech. Now, already in the 19th century, people started to see, here’s another way in which our notions of free speech are too simplistic. They started to see that thinking about free speech just in terms of the rights of the individual on the one hand and the powers of the state and the government on the other hand was not sufficient.
Why is it not sufficient? Because if you’re thinking about the sphere of political discourse, the marketplace of ideas, if you like, then what also is very important and shapes that whole sphere is the power of the media, the power of the mass media, the power of the private media. And already in the 19th century and into the 20th century, people who thought about this in sophisticated ways, including in the United States, focused on that as a real problem because from early on, people could see that the incentives, the motives, the aims of the mass media, not primarily to educate the public or to advance truth, they are on the contrary to sell advertising and to increase the power and the wealth of their owners. So out of that comes a very powerful socialist and communist critique, but also conservative and across the political spectrum, people can see this as a problem.
And so if you fast forward to the 1930s and 40s, this is something that Roosevelt and the administrations and indeed the Supreme Court of that era are very highly focused on. If you read First Amendment jurisprudence of that era, it’s full of people saying, “Well, it’s completely insufficient to think of this in simplistic way of just about individuals versus government. The real problem of our age is how to tackle the power of the mass media.” And out of that comes an attempt to reconsider free speech as also a matter of the public good, and indeed as people conceptualize it at the time of the right to truthful information on the part of citizens. This is also, of course, a time where people everywhere are thinking about this against the backdrop of The 1930s in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and they can see how powerful propaganda is and that vehicles of mass communication are not neutral.
They are instruments of power. Anyway, so out of that comes a jurisprudence, which feeds into, for example, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which after all an American document drawn up under Eleanor Roosevelt. If you look at that document’s definition of freedom of expression, it channels what is then the mainstream American and European view, which is on the one hand, freedom of expression is a right. On the other hand, it can never be abused to harm the rights of others. So it’s a balance between rights and responsibilities, and it includes the right to truthful information. And out of that also came a huge effort to impose on or remind the mass media of the age of their responsibilities. So out of that come ways of rethinking what mass media could be, public broadcasting, subscription models, all sorts of ways in which we might have a better alignment between the incentives of the media and the incentives and the needs of the public, but also journalism school, the professionalization, especially in America, and the taken seriously by news organizations of their responsibilities, fact checking, making sure that you’re not telling lies to the public and correcting things as necessary.
It’s hard. It takes a lot of money, it takes a lot of effort, but people generally in what we now disdainfully call the legacy media were very heavily invested in that project because they saw what the stakes were. The stakes were a healthy public sphere with truthful information. I’m afraid what’s happened in the internet revolution and the communications revolution of our own time is that model has been destroyed by a new ecosystem where these things are simply not attended to at all. And we as a public have lost sight of the fact that we used always, including in the United States, to regulate mass media in the public interest for the public good for precisely this reason. That happened to broadcasting, it happened to television, the FCC was set up for that purpose. All markets, even in the United States are regulated. Again, this doesn’t mean by the government, precisely regulated at arm’s length by non-governmental organizations that are supposed to be nonpartisan or at the very least bipartisan, the FTC, the FCC.
All that is now under assault by right-wing authoritarians whose project is made easier by the fact that our public discourse is now being overwhelmed by greedy social media companies that take no account at all of the public good insofar as it contravenes their profits.
Michael Fox:
You mentioned as well this weaponization of the discourse of free speech. Everyone should have it, but then how it’s used over time is usually the powerful and eliminating free speech from folks that are marginalized or minorities. And I think we’re at this even hyper moment because social media has this image of appearing as though anyone can say whatever you want to, but you still have the algorithms. It’s controlled by some people and not by others. So how dangerous is this moment? And if you could just speak for a moment about this use, this weaponization of the discourse of free speech, either in the past or currently still.
Fara Dabhoiwala:
Well, sadly, free speech has always been a weaponized slogan. It was a weaponized slogan at the outset in the early 18th century and that has never gone away. We see that today. I mean, the worst senses are often the people shouting most loudly that they ask for free speech. Trump is a great example of that. The moment that we’re in is really very dangerous political moment because of the ways in which social media. Social media is really an old-fashioned anachronistic term for the mass media of our age. It’s not social, it’s political discourse and every other kind of discourse.
The difficulty with that is really manifold. One is, as that nomenclature already indicates, we’ve now shifted to a moment where all discourse happens in the same medium, on the same level. So pictures of cats, jokes, serious political debate all happening in the same sewer, and that muddles the rules and how the audience understands what’s going on. And it makes it much easier for untruth to spread, for sloganeering to take over from fact-based, evidence-based argument. So that’s one intrinsic difficulty with the medium. But the deeper problem is that these social media companies to begin with had some sense of the public good and of moderation and of applying standards of truth, for example, and not allowing someone who’s just attempted a coup against the elected president of the United States as Trump tried to do and whipped up people on social media to attack the capital.
It seems a long time ago, but that could get you banned on de-platformed and rightly so. In the political moment that we are in now, of course, all of these companies are rolling all that back and hiding behind the slogan of free speech to moderate as little as possible because again, it’s politically inconvenient. It’s also expensive. They never put a huge amount of effort into it. They always try to get away with as little as possible. And finally, it plays into a political discourse which is increasingly dominated by populist rabble rousing. There’s an understanding that this is good politics on the part of right-wing politicians that chimes with good business model of just allowing anything to go. And at the heart of this, in terms of the technologies, as it were, of our mass communication now, first of all, these media companies, the online media companies are the most powerful publishers the world has ever seen, but they’re not treated as publishers.
No one thinks of them as publishers. Governments fail to think of them as publishers. We as citizens are no better. They are publishers. The reason that’s important is that it focuses on two things. First of all, that they are constantly censoring discourse. Their algorithms amplify certain voices and certain messages and they suppress and silence others. That’s what publishers do. They make judgements automatically or otherwise about what they want people to see. So in that sense, they are deeply influential on public discourse. They also, of course, when it suits them, don’t stand up for free speech. When they are issued with a take down notice by an unsavory overseas government, they obey the law. So what can they do? They say, “We’re just trying to obey the law.” I would feel slightly less contemptuous of them if they did sometimes stand up for what we would think of as real free speech in countries under unsavory regimes, but they don’t.
Michael Fox:
Or just the situation in the United States and students protesting at universities and university freedoms and things like that. Oliver Wendell Holmes, I wanted to touch very briefly on his marketplace of ideas because I feel like this is this mythic idea, this concept that people bring up again and again every place and how everyone uses this as the reason why free speech works in the United States. What’s your analysis of that today? What do people actually have to understand about this idea and what it means for us today?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
It’s a wonderful ideal and he’s a wonderfully readable writer of opinions, Holmes. One of the interesting things about Holmes that I discovered was that he was too high-minded to read newspapers. He didn’t really engage in the mass media of his age. And so he was able to take this Olympian view of the marketplace of ideas and how it might work. I think he also, to be fair to him, he wasn’t sure this would work out, but he was willing to let the experiment run out. It’s a noble American ideal. They’re always saying it’s an experiment. Oh, well, it’s slightly annoying to an outsider. Slavery, oh, it’s just an experiment. Oh, genocide of the unions. Oh, we’re just doing an experiment here. Anyway, back to your question, a marketplace of ideas is a fantastic ideal, but think about what it really means. It would mean that each of us is independently able to walk around a marketplace where all ideas are given equal weight and airing, that we are all equally reasonable in our approach, and that we’re equally able to judge truth against falsehood somehow intrinsically, and that we’re all doing so in good faith and that all the arguments being put to us are being put in good faith and in reasoned ways.
That’s absolutely the opposite. And we could go on. There are many other ways in which we could flesh out this as an ideal. It’s actually the opposite of the kind of shit-filled sewer of public discourse through which we have to wade every day with our very different levels of understanding of things, our very different perspectives and backgrounds and abilities to judge the truth. No one has an intrinsic ability to judge the truth. That’s a presumption that is there in many free speech doctrines, but it’s actually conclusively debunked by history and by science. What we require is attention to how as a society might create a better marketplace of ideas. And I’m afraid just throwing everything into the jumble of social media and allowing private companies basically to determine how they can best keep people hooked on their platforms is not the best way of creating, especially a political sphere of debate.
Michael Fox:
Yeah. Would you say that there’s a battle today over the definition of free speech, the absolutism versus a more balanced approach or at least going back to what we understood, say free speech in the 1960s where people can get out and protest and now kind of a free for all of absolutism?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
I mean, free speech has always been about power, both in the theory and in practice. We see that today, what voices are silenced or elevated is about power. It’s a noble ideal because everyone can appeal to it and throughout history, as my book shows, those without power and those who attempted to be silenced have also appealed to it from abolitionists and early feminists onwards into the present day. So that’s the good side of why it’s a dangerous idea. And we should all be shouting from the rooftops that right now free speech rights are being trampled upon. The First Amendment is being completely disregarded in the United States and the rest of it. But I think that the real global battle here is about how to deal with the communications revolution that we’re living through and how to deal with the power of media companies, the unfettered transnational power basically of American media companies.
And I think that the minimalist approach that the Europeans have taken to this is really an encouraging way forward. Again, it’s being faced by massive amounts of corporate and political opposition from the United States. It’s always in danger of being watered down. Nonetheless, what they have said and what the Brazilians are also trying to do is basically to ask these companies, it’s not censorship, it’s to ask these companies to be transparent upfront about their moderating practices. They are publishers, they’re constantly censoring. Tell us what the rules are, A, secondly, apply those rules consistently and fairly. Thirdly, show us the public that you are doing that consistently and fairly. Report back, commensurate with the power. The Europeans have this in their legislation. I don’t know if the Brazilians do, but proportionate to the power of your platform, you have a greater obligation because you have greater power, you have a greater obligation to report on how these rules are being followed.
And that’s not imposing any kind of censorship from the outside. It’s just asking them to be transparent about what they’re doing. I would go further as a citizen and require them to uphold standards of truth in political discourse and to do more about curbing misinformation and so on. But as a first step, we really do need to tackle the power in our societies. Americans are very bad at tackling corporate power of any kind. The First Amendment has always been weaponized by corporations and by people with money to claim that money equals speech and corporate power should never be limited. But even Americans, I hope, will see and try and do something about this big problem of our time.
Michael Fox:
Fara, last question is, could you just speak a little bit about what free speech meant for the abolitionist movement back in the 1800s?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
Frederick Douglass once said, I think something like the Civil War would never have happened if American politicians had taken government had taken the First Amendment as seriously as it took the rights of states. And by that, he was alluding to the fact that abolitionists before the Civil War were routinely appealing to their right of freedom of expression to make their case. And they were met with violence both in the north and the south and by the presumption that what they were saying was completely beyond the pale was dangerous and harmful and couldn’t be allowed. It’s a good example of how our understanding of the First Amendment has evolved, our understanding of harm has evolved. When I say that harmful speech is something that societies should be allowed to take a view on and potentially to regulate public discourse about, I don’t mean that those things are set in stone and they’re always self-evident.
I mean that instead of shouting about censorship and free speech, we should be having a discussion about what is harmful and as a society trying to take a view on that and that view will evolve. So abolitionists are shut up violently and otherwise and out of that develop even stronger passionate view that they have a right to speak out. The same is true of early feminists who are told. Actually this comes out of the abolitionist movement. First American feminists are told when they are leading the campaign for abolition that they may not sit with men or address men on equal terms and out of that develop the view that actually there’s something wrong here. Their voices deserve to be heard. And so the early women’s movement starts not primarily as a campaign for the vote, but simply for the most basic right of all, which is to speak out and be heard by the public.
Michael Fox:
Fara, is the United States really such an outlier in the world in terms of its understanding, absolutist understanding of free speech?
Fara Dabhoiwala:
It’s an outlier at the moment in the jurisprudence of free speech in the way that the laws are drawn up. I don’t think it’s an outlier in the sense that actually even absolutists or self-proclaimed absolutists are always drawing limits and balancing harms against rights. The Supreme Court does that all the time, even when it’s supposedly not. So in that sense, not. But I think the difficulty that United States has is that it has a very ancient constitution. It’s a bit like having a very ancient car. You can be proud of it, but it’s not necessarily roadworthy in the 21st century. And there are very few citizens’ rights in that. Indeed, even the First Amendment is not a right of citizens. It’s another big flaw that Americans tend to overlook. It’s only a prohibition on the government censoring anything. In the private sphere, people get sacked and fired all the time for expressing their views, political or otherwise.
So it’s not a right of citizens. But the fact that there are very few other rights in the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution and that this one happens to be named first, and because we all love free speech, of course, it’s given it this elevated popular kind of supremacy, which means it’s the ultimate legal Trump card. There’s nothing that can trump the First Amendment. So that’s why it’s especially been weaponized by anti-regulation corporate forces, by people who want more money in politics and all sorts of ways, because there’s no legal comeback against it. Once you can define something as free speech in an American courtroom, you’re home and dry. And that’s not necessarily the best way of balancing the right free speech, which is a great thing against other important rights and indeed the common good.
Michael Fox:
Fara, thank you so much. I really, really appreciate your time. This has been fantastic.
Fara Dabhoiwala:
It’s great to talk to you, Mike. Thank you.
Michael Fox:
Hi folks. I hope you enjoyed our conversation. As I mentioned before, this is the first bonus episode of this series. There are more on the way. Please watch out for those in your feed. This is the battle for free speech. This podcast is co-hosted by myself and Marc Steiner. This show is produced by The Real News. You can find out more about my work and this show on my Patreon. That’s patreon.com/mfox. And as always, please make sure to sign up for the Real News Network’s newsletter so you never miss an episode. You can find that at therealnews.com. Thanks so much again for listening to this podcast. See you next time.
A 24-year-old man from the African country of Benin is being held in pretrial detention on suspicion of dragging a 27-year-old woman off a sidewalk and raping her in a bush in a small Mecklenburg–Western Pomeranian town. The police are now only reporting the incident four weeks after the initial assault.
Notably, the eastern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania has the lowest number of refugees of any German state and, in per capita terms, is the third-lowest.
Police and prosecutors say the attack happened about 2:30 p.m. on Aug. 9, a Sunday, on Mühlenstrasse in Friedland, a town of about 6,000 people in the Mecklenburg Lake District. According to an initial account, the suspect pulled the German woman from the street into bushes beside a building and raped her there. The woman was later found injured.
A detailed description of the attacker quickly pointed investigators toward a specific suspect, the regional newspaper Nordkurier and public broadcaster NDR reported. Neubrandenburg criminal police detained the man in Friedland the following evening, Aug. 10. A local court later ordered him held in pretrial detention at the request of the Neubrandenburg prosecutor’s office.
Authorities did not publicly describe the case when the woman was first raped. Asked later by Nordkurier, investigators said they withheld an appeal for witnesses so they would not compromise the search or an imminent arrest.
A police spokeswoman also told Bild: “In order not to jeopardize a possible arrest, no public appeal for witnesses was issued.”
Interviews and forensic work in the hours after the report strengthened suspicion against the Beninese national, authorities said. T-Online reported that investigators believe the 24-year-old did not try to leave town because he did not think he would be identified.
Police said the suspect had previously been in the neighboring Vorpommern-Greifswald district. He had been seen several times in Friedland and around a communal shelter there, although he did not live at the facility. Why he kept returning is still under investigation.
His asylum application in Germany was rejected. He has challenged that decision in court, and because those proceedings are pending, he was legally allowed to remain in the country at the time of his arrest, police said. A final ruling on asylum or possible deportation would come only after that case is finished.
Police have declined to give a fuller account of the assault, citing victim protection. The rape investigation continues.
Last year, the German Interior Ministry reported that foreigners were responsible for 53 percent of gang rapes in Germany, reaching the highest total on record. They are also responsible for 39.1 percent of all sexual crimes.
The post In German state with fewest refugees, African migrant arrested for dragging 24-year-old woman into bush and raping her appeared first on Remix News.
Italian police are investigating an alleged attempted sexual assault involving a French volleyball player and a Moroccan footballer during the Mediterranean Games in Taranto, Italy.
The incident is reported to have taken place on the night of Aug. 30–31 aboard the cruise ship serving as the athletes’ village. According to an initial reconstruction, the French athlete rejected a sexual approach by the alleged attacker, who would not stop and kept insisting. She began calling for help, which helped draw the attention of onboard staff. Emergency doctors from 118 and police officers responded at the scene.
The athlete was taken to hospital for checks and did not suffer any injuries. After the medical examination, she returned to the athletes’ village.
Investigators have identified the alleged attacker as a Moroccan footballer. He had already returned to Morocco with his national delegation after completing his tournament commitments. Authorities said there were no grounds for a precautionary measure or police arrest, and he was allowed to board the long-scheduled return flight with his group.
An Italian police squad, led by director Antonio Serpico, is interviewing witnesses and reviewing footage from the ship’s internal cameras, particularly those installed near the pool area. Officials say they have already gathered information that may help reconstruct what happened that night. The footballer’s departure has not halted the investigation, according to Italian newspaper La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno.
Mediterranean Games general director Carlo Molfetta said: “We are closely monitoring the development of investigations by the competent authorities to determine any responsibility for what happened. The investigations are using images from the cameras present on the village ship, which number as many as 1,200. For our part, I can only reiterate my full cooperation with the investigators’ work.”
No formal action has been taken against the identified athlete at this stage. Investigators say they are continuing to examine the circumstances and verify the French athlete’s account.
The post Mediterranean Games: French volleyball player allegedly sexually assaulted by Moroccan football player on cruise ship appeared first on Remix News.
Just months after opening as a centerpiece for the waterfront revival of Hamburg-Harburg’s Inner Harbor, the trendy design hotel “The Niu Quay” is closing its doors to commercial guests. Hamburg municipal authorities have agreed to lease the property to accommodate approximately 340 incoming refugees, drawing sharp backlash from neighborhood representatives who point to the tens of millions in recent investments made to revitalize the district.
The decision comes directly on the heels of the city’s pledged commitment to dial back its reliance on expensive, short-term hotel leases for asylum seekers. The municipal housing agency, Fördern & Wohnen, signed an initial lease for 340 places at the hotel, running through the end of 2026.
While initial local reports suggested a multi-year takeover, the Social Affairs Authority clarified that the property will undergo a gradual phase-out beginning in January 2027, with the facility scheduled to fully return to standard hotel operations by mid-2027.
Local leaders and business advocates have reacted with frustration to the sudden shift in strategy.
Dirk Kannengiesser, chairman of the FDP parliamentary group Harburg, said, “Investors are investing millions, and restaurants and businesses are supposed to provide a boost. Then, in the short term, a key component of this concept is taken away from its actual function.”
Upward of €60 million in combined public and private capital was recently channeled into transforming the surrounding neighborhood, with the hotel meant to serve as an anchor for local commerce, dining, and tourism.
Opposition representatives voiced strong concern over the mixed signals sent by municipal leadership, questioning how the Senate can publicly commit to curbing hotel housing expenditures while simultaneously locking down a brand-new facility. Business owners in the district worry that removing a key commercial hub threatens the long-term economic momentum of the harbor’s revitalization plan.
According to municipal statistics, roughly 3,800 refugees currently reside across initial reception centers and state-run housing in Harburg. The area’s overall housing capacity is projected to shrink in the coming months as several major sites close down, including a large facility on Schlachthofstrasse this autumn, followed by additional location shutdowns next year.
“The Senate cannot announce the reduction of expensive hotel accommodation and at the same time completely tie up a newly opened hotel for years<‘ said Kannengiesser.
Since Hamburg’s public housing facilities are operating at a staggering 102.8 percent capacity, city officials maintain that temporary commercial leases remain an unavoidable safety valve. When large-scale centers close before replacement infrastructure becomes available, short-term options, including hotel rooms, are brought online to fill the void.
The financial terms of the lease have further fueled local controversy. While municipal negotiators state that they consistently push for below-market rates when securing temporary housing, reports indicate that the city may be paying premium pricing for the newly constructed rooms. The Social Affairs Authority declined to comment on specific contractual terms.
Figures from the prior year show that hotel housing in Hamburg averaged approximately €82 per person per day. While city authorities report that overall reliance on hotel placements is dropping, with about 1,000 hotel shelter slots set to be phased out over the course of the year.
As Remix News has previously reported, Hamburg spends hundreds of millions of taxpayer euros to house migrants in the city. Hamburg and Berlin combined spend €4 billion a year.
The post Germany: Outrage after plan to house 340 migrants in trendy design hotel in Hamburg appeared first on Remix News.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) was criticized by some for wearing a hijab while visiting an Islamic center last weekend, drawing split coverage across the political spectrum.
The Criticism: Several influencers on X made remarks about the visit. End Wokeness (Right bias) said "Feminist icon' NY Governor Hochul just put on a hijab for Muslim men." Swimmer and women's sports activist Riley Gaines said "A self-described feminist voluntarily wearing a hijab to not offend/arouse Muslim men." Matt Van Swol wrote "New York forgot" and posted a picture of the September 11 terror attack in New York City. President Donald Trump on Truth Social said "Kathy Hochul, considered the Worst Governor in the Country, in a recent picture working hard to get the Arab Vote, even though they can't stand her! Congestion Pricing in Manhattan is hurting her with everybody, but especially the people for whom she wears the hijab. The whole thing is CRAZY!"
'The Silliest Issue': Opinion writer for HuffPost (Left) Ron Dicker highlighted the "Right-wing personalities from media and politics accus[ing] the governor of subjugating herself and 'bowing down to the third world.'" The article also mentioned that "Hochul faced similar criticism last year when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mocked her for wearing a headscarf to the funeral of a Muslim police officer." According to Dicker, Hochul was "politely adhering to custom in a place related to religious worship," adding however, that "some in the MAGAsphere saw it differently. Hochul "took a beating" over what Dicker called "the silliest issue."
'Working Hard To Get The Arab Vote': Blaze Media (Right) highlighted Hochul's response, saying "Trump's hijab jab sends Hochul into a rage," adding that she "is lashing out at the president and accusing him of Islamophobia."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
Haitian immigrant, Pierre Damas Bel, 20, died in an apparent suicide on Monday after losing temporary protected status (TPS) in July, according to his family. Many outlets focused on Bel's character and the impact of President Trump's immigration policies, however outlets on the right split in their coverage.
The Details: Bel reportedly parked his vehicle on the right shoulder of Interstate 70 before walking into oncoming traffic, according to Ohio State Highway Patrol. Bel's father told outlets that his son had become "distraught" after weeks of wearing an ankle monitor in accordance with a recent immigration policy and that he'd also faced bullying due to the device. In a recent Instagram post, Bel wrote, "I came to this country to pursue my education. I didn't come here to commit a crime or hurt anyone."
For Context: ICE confirmed that Bel entered the US legally in 2024 under a now-defunct Biden-era policy. In July, the Trump administration ended TPS for Haitian immigrants. Despite there being over 330,000 Haitian immigrants in the US, only those living in Springfield – roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants – were required to wear an ankle monitoring device.
A Stand-Out Student: Outlets on the left emphasized Bel's character and that he felt "shame" and "humiliation" leading up to his death. The New York Times (Lean Left bias), CNN (Lean Left), CBS News (Lean Left), Washington Post (Lean Left) and more reported that Bel was an "outstanding student," a soccer player, that he enjoyed being part of his high school's JROTC program and that he was excited to study neuroscience in college this fall. The Times cited commendations from Bel's father, his former classmates and former teachers. It also quoted a leader from the Haitian Bridge Alliance who called Bel's death "one of the most tragic outcomes of the Trump cruel and inhumane attacks on the Haitian community."
Local Coverage: Dayton Daily News (Center) had several articles about Bel. One included quotes from Bel's father who said his son "felt like he was treated like an animal." It also reported that many Haitian immigrants claimed their devices caused physical pain, swelling and blisters, or made it difficult to maintain employment. Another Dayton Daily News article said Bel entered the US "hoping to build a better life in America" and that he "left a mark" on the community. It noted some Haitian immigrant advocacy groups have blamed Bel's death on ICE and the Trump administration.
Split on the Right: Outlets on the right split in their coverage. Fox News (Right) and The Post Millennial (Right) shared Bel's academic accolades and praise from his former managers and teammates. The Post Millennial noted Bel had asked to record his ankle monitor to show people he wasn't a criminal, however he was not permitted. The Washington Times (Lean Right) wrote that Bel "quickly became a rallying point for immigration groups, which portrayed him as a martyr to President Trump's mass deportation campaign." It also noted Haitian immigration "surged" under the Biden administration and that Trump claimed they were eating pets "with scant evidence to back it up."
Conversely, Breitbart (Right) wrote that Bel's death was overshadowing the death of a highway trooper at the hands of a Haitian immigrant in July. Breitbart reported that "Hundreds of Americans have reportedly been killed by the migrant truckers" and "Many more Americans have been killed by migrant criminals and drunks during the last thirty years." Brianna Lyman of The Federalist (Right) referenced a strangling by an unauthorized immigrant in Massachusetts last week and told CNN "it's kind of insulting that we're talking about this immigrant instead."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
Several outlets in the center and on the left analyzed food recalls in the US recently. How might this relate to the "MAHA" movement, and how legitimate are public concerns?
Numbers Don't 'Tell the Full Story': WBAL 11 (Center bias) cited a recent trend in "high profile" cases like cyclosporiasis, which reportedly infected more than 28,000 people as of mid-August. The outlet gave voice to Consumer Watchdog Director for the US Public Interest Research Group Taylor Murray, who said, "Does it mean that there's more enforcement, or that there's more hazardous food?... We don't know the answer to that."
RELATED: RFK Jr. Urges Healthier Diet, Politico Says Cyclospora Outbreak Hinders Effort | AllSides
WBAL 11 highlighted roughly 162 food recalls during the first half of 2026, compared to 320 for all of 2025, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA), but it noted that the FDA does not post every recall.
It also highlighted an increase in active investigations into foodborne illness outbreaks over the summer, compared to recent years, but quoted Murray who cautioned, "You can't go around living your life thinking that there's some kind of bacteria boogeyman in your refrigerator all the time."
A USA Today (Lean Left) analysis agreed, "Are food recalls actually becoming more common? It might feel that way, but statistically speaking, not really." It noted, "On average, the FDA has classified 126 food recalls per month during the current Trump administration so far, vs. 135 during the Biden administration and 164 during the first Trump administration."
RELATED: The Insight: Is America Getting Healthier? | AllSides
However, the outlet criticized that the Trump administration's federal workforce cuts "reduced surveillance to just two pathogens." It gave voice to environmental health expert Robert Custard, who said, "The number of recalls does not necessarily correlate with the level of surveillance… [but] when you do less testing, you're going to find less problems. When you find less problems, you end up with fewer recalls."
Recalls 'Skyrocketing': The New Republic (Left) more assertively stated, "Obviously, there has been a sharp increase in the number of recalls. It's not immediately clear whether this can be attributed to increased enforcement or more hazardous food – but the rapidly rising rate of recalls makes you wonder: Is this what making America healthy again looks like?" The outlet criticized the 46 total food and drug recalls in August 2026 – "a notable increase from August 2025 when just 26 products were recalled… and from August 2024 when 24 products were recalled."
The Washington Post (Lean Left) contended, "It's difficult to lay the outbreaks at the feet of any one agency or presidency. But what surely isn't helping: the Trump administration's slash-and-burn approach to the regulatory bodies meant to safeguard Americans." The outlet highlighted the administration's cuts to both the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), resulting in food safety check suspensions – including for the Cyclospora parasite. However, it did not solely blame the administration, pointing to "Big Food" as the greater enemy of its story and stating, "In naming [Health Secretary Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] to his cabinet, Trump elevated a longtime foe of Big Food—and crystallized such opposition as a mainstream conservative position."
Outlets on the right scarcely covered this story, but One America News Network (Right) reported on an early-August recall for nearly 30,000 pounds imported beef that failed to undergo mandatory federal reinspection. The outlet criticized, "By bypassing this protocol, the affected beef poses potential undisclosed health risks, though federal authorities confirmed that there have been no documented reports of adverse reactions or illnesses linked to its consumption so far."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary. (Images via WBAL 11)
While the country queues for petrol, import licences are being given to the network behind Mongolia’s largest corporate fraud. Mongolia spent August rationing petrol, as the country faces an ‘unprecedented’ fuel crisis. In response, the Government has made importing fuel more profitable, and has sped up the process for issuing new licences.[1]
By opening the gates, the government has allowed existing networks to exploit the crisis, including the one connected to Jononbayar Erdenesuren, the disgraced Mongolian businessman reportedly as being allegedly responsible for the $1.1 bn fraud scheme operated through Lex Oil, the fuel importer that was run by his aunt.[2]
Mongolia is heavily reliant on foreign oil, primarily from Russia. To import it, businesses need an ‘all-types fuel import licence’, issued by the Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources, which decides through paperwork checks.[3] Foreign businesses cannot import directly — they must sell through a Mongolian-licensed entity.[4]
Some 164 companies hold an import licence. Of these, 34 have been granted since 2025.[5] The number of companies licensed to import fuel has more than doubled in under five years.[6]
They have also become considerably more valuable. Duty and excise on fuel have been zeroed, importers offered preferential loans and subsidised storage for reserves, and the customs service has been told to expedite clearance of petrol consignments.[7]
A number of companies granted all-types fuel import licences in 2025 and 2026 are connected to Jononbayar Erdenesuren and the Lex Oil network behind his $1.1bn scheme. That scheme was executed through the very exploitation of import licences.
None of these importers are required to disclose the amount of oil they import. Only 11 of the 164 licence holders imported fuel in the first days of August. When asked which 11, and how much each imported, the Customs General Administration refused to answer, citing customs law.
Lex Oil’s network is growing
Since 2025, two former Lex Oil CEOs have taken positions in dormant companies that then received fuel licences. In one case, the licence was obtained the same day the shareholding was registered.
Following five years of inactivity,[8] Standard Oil Gas appointed a new Director, Erdenebat Indra, in December 2025. Indra ran Lex Oil from January 2019 until February 2024 – nearly the whole period in which the losses accrued.[9] Six weeks later, Standard Oil was granted an import licence. Indra became a shareholder that same day.[10]
The pattern was replicated by Indra’s successor at Lex Oil, Banzragch Batdavaa.[11] Batdavaa bought into Best Dragon, a company with no prior fuel operations, in July 2025. It was granted import permits just two months later.[12] Batdavaa remains in business with both Mongolian and offshore entities linked to the scheme,[13] amongst them two Dubai entities – Peak Solutions (co-managed with Jononbayar’s mother)[14], and his own APEXPP commodities.[15]
Two other companies, granted licences in the spring of 2025, were already owned by individuals in the network. Tod Oil received its first licence in April 2025, although the company was incorporated six years earlier by entities closely tied to Jononbayar.[16] Its founder, Tod Petroleum, was co-founded by Lex Oil and former VS Oil CEO Bataa Anarchuluu.[17] Bataa continues to operate within the network, serving as the Executive Director of the helicopter business linked to both the scheme and the son of former Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene.[18]
Another, Apex Petroleum, was incorporated in October 2024 – the month the $1.1bn provision was made public.[19] Three of the five founding shareholders had previously founded businesses with Jononbayar himself.[20] These three include Mönkhjargal Javkhlan (son of a licensed importer linked to the Government)[21] and Jononbayar’s rumoured mistress, Yalaltbayar Khongorzul.[22]
Three further entities — ABR Eco Trans, Petro Spark and Standard Energy and Oil — have links to Jononbayar’s network. ABR was incorporated in October 2024 and licensed to import fuel in April 2025.[23] It has since taken on the founder of BID Energy, Bold Luvsandagva, as its shareholder and executive director.[24] In February 2026, ABR moved into the same unit BID Energy had occupied until that December.[25] BID Energy is Indra's other licensed importer. It was granted import licences in 2024, 11 weeks after Indra left Lex Oil.[26] Indra bought into the company and is now its ultimate beneficial owner.[27]
Another, Petro Spark, was licensed on the same day as Apex Petroleum.[28] Its owner, Yadamsüren Dorjchanga, holds a network of businesses with Yondon Uuganbayar.[29] Uuganbayar bought shares in Jononbayar’s family’s meat business, Erdenet Makh Market, two weeks after the Lex Oil scheme was disclosed in October 2024.[30]
The seventh company, Standard Energy and Oil, was licensed in 2025.[31] In May 2026, it was taken over by N. Monsor.[32] Monsor is a reported close contact of Jononbayar.[33] He was director of a Mongolian company, Sky Professional Logistics,[34] when it received over $7.5 million from an offshore entity called Class Trading Limited,[35] and distributed it the same day among nine recipients. These included Jocondy, a company owned by Jononbayar’s aunt, the founder of Lex Oil.[36] Jocondy was reportedly directed by Jononbayar at the time.[37] It is reported that Jononbayar had previously made transfers into Class Trading.[38]
These are not the network's first import licences. Nine companies linked to Jononbayar, the first being Lex Oil itself in 2019, were granted import licences before 2025,[39] meaning at least 16 of the 164 importers are connected to his network.
New Licences, Existing Networks
Even outside that seven, what distinguishes a successful candidate is often the individual owner, as opposed to the company profile. One grantee, TES Petroleum Trade,[40] is owned by the reported son of Baagaa Battömör,[41] a sitting MP who had previously run both Mongolia’s tax and customs administrations.[42] Two licences went to companies owned separately by partners in an existing fuel business.[43] Four more went to Chinese-controlled businesses, two of them on the same day. None was set up as a fuel business, and three were still unregistered for fuel activity when they were licensed.[44]
Of the 34 companies granted import licences by the Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources in 2025 and 2026, 14 had been incorporated less than two years before the award.[45] Eight more of the organisations granted licences changed hands shortly before they were licensed.[46]
The Government’s Response
On 17 August, the Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources warned that importers who failed to keep filling stations supplied could lose their licences. The Minister admitted that some importers were holding stock and not selling it.
Revoking a licence removes a registration but has no bearing on the individuals behind the businesses. With fewer regulatory checks, and more demand than ever, the doors are being left open to actors who previously exploited Mongolia’s fuel import regulations.
Mongolia scored 31 out of 100 on Transparency International's 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking 124th of 182 countries, its worst score on record. In September 2025 the US State Department reported that businesses in Mongolia face "substantial and unpredictable regulatory burdens at every level", with officials across ministries and agencies routinely contravening existing law and regulation. Unless the country creates laws transparently and implements them predictably, it warned, "investors may find Mongolia too risky and opt for more competitive countries."[47]
The victim of Jononbayar’s fraud scheme, Trafigura, used to be one of the most important importers of oil into Mongolia.[48] The fraud orchestrated by the playboy,[49] which personally enriched both himself and his family,[50] put that to an end. Now, the individuals involved are being allowed back in to exploit the crisis at the expense of ordinary Mongolians.
The crisis was a chance to show that direction had changed. Instead, the Government zeroed duty, offered importers preferential loans and subsidised storage, and issued 34 new licences — leaving at least 16 of the 164 with one network. Now agents known to have exploited the same system previously, are being allowed in again.
Photo by Zbynek Burival on Unsplash
[1] Government’s announcement that fuel import licence applications should be processed quickly and the licences granted, reported: https://ikon.mn/n/3pep and https://sonin.mn/newsDetail/18284
[2] Lex-Oil LLC granted fuel import licence in 2019: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5623979. Owned through his aunt, Dorjgochoo Erdenetul.
[3] In order to gain these, an applicant must produce its registration documents, prove membership of the relevant professional association, and file its contract with the fuel supplier in original: https://legalinfo.mn/mn/detail?lawId=208190
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-02/trafigura-mongolia-oil-fraud-how-trader-faces-1-billion-loss
[5] Data as of 20 August, taken from https://license.mn/ (official electronic licence system)
[6] 80 companies Eighty companies held a licence to import fuel into Mongolia on 1 January 2022, recorded in the Ministry of Mining and Heavy Industry's register of petroleum products special licences, 22 March 2022: https://mmhi.gov.mn/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ГТБ-тусгай-зөвшөөрлийн-жагсаалт-2022.03.22.pdf. 164 currently hold licences, per license.mn, the Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources official register, as of September 2026: https://license.mn/.
[7] Tax and lending measures: https://mmhi.gov.mn/2026/08/06/. Expedited customs clearance: E. Oyun-Erdene, GoGo.mn, 17 August 2026, https://cmsm.mongolcontent.mn/r/6k9g8
[8] Standard Oil Gas LLC’s fuel import licence expired in 2020, and it recorded no other activity in the intervening period: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6120954
[9] CEO of Lex Oil 2019-224: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5623979
[10] 6 February 2026: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6120954
[11] Batdavaa sat as Executive Director of Lex Oil from Feb-April 2014: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5623979
[12] Best Dragon, incorporated 2020, dormant until 2025 when ownership was transferred to Batdavaa. Fuel import licence granted 26 September 2025: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6574246
[13] B.Batdavaa is currently a shareholder of Diamond Oil and Energy alongside Oyunbileg Sainbileg https://opendatalab.mn/search/6552544. Sainbeleg is known to a key actor alongside Jononbayer, and remains director of one of the family’s companies, Zuunnaim Oil: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5272378
[14] Cedar Rose UAE corporate data accessed via Sayari, 21 August 2026: PEAK SOLUTION DMCC, commercial register DMCC194234, licence DMCC-855346, incorporated 5 August 2022;
[15] Offshore link reported in https://www.eureporter.co/world/mongolia/2026/08/13/the-helicopter-that-helped-topple-mongolias-prime-minister-linked-to-lex-oil-scheme/, Batdaava’s Linkedin states him as CEO of APEXPP Commodities: www.linkedin.com/in/batdavaa-banzragch-46120115a
[16] Tod Oil, incorporated 2019 by Tod Petroleum, granted licence 23 April 2025: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6415636
[17] Tod Petroleum, founded Lex Oil and Bataa Anarchuluu https://opendatalab.mn/search/6104894. Bataa served as VS Oil CEO https://www.opendatalab.mn/search/6225578.
[18] Listed as UBO of Alpha Aurora Aviation: https://www.opendatalab.mn/search/8376344
[19] Apex Petroleum was incorporated 17 October 2024 (https://opendatalab.mn/search/7078633). Trafigura’s statement on losses 30 October 2024: https://www.trafigura.com/news-and-insights/press-releases/2024/statement-re-trafiguras-petroleum-products-business-in-mongolia/
[20] Three founders: Bayardalai Erdenezaya (founded Kem Tek with Jononbayar in 2016, and Commodity Trans with his mother in 2019); Mönkhjargal Javkhlan (registered at the same two businesses, alongside Diamond Oil and Energy), Yalaltbayar Khongorzul (co-founded Khongorfinance with Jononbayar in 2015),
[21] Reported to be the brother in-law and former campaign manager for the Minister of Economic Development: https://ergelt.mn/news/22/singile/40012
[22] Archived article: https://web.archive.org/web/20241113103634/https://www.reelnews.mn/a/1225 and X: https://x.com/miigaasbntv/status/1852208500715459004
[23] ABR Eco Trans LLC, incorporated 15 October 2024; wholesale permit 0016 from 20 March 2025 and all-types fuel import licence 0015 from 25 April 2025; https://opendatalab.mn/search/7077609
[24] Luvsandagva registered as ABR shareholder and joint beneficial owner on 24 November 2025 and as executive director on 29 January 2026; he founded BID Energy on 13 December 2023 with Baterdene Lkhagvadulam and was its first executive director: https://opendatalab.mn/search/7077609 and https://opendatalab.mn/search/8454485
[25] BID Energy moved from Bayanzürkh, 3rd khoroo, 12th microdistrict, Tsendgüni 30b, unit 53 on 1 December 2025; ABR moved into that unit on 2 February 2026, from Tokio 24a, unit 134 in the same microdistrict: https://opendatalab.mn/search/8454485 and https://opendatalab.mn/search/7077609
[26] BID Energy LLC, import licence 0015 granted 24 April 2024; https://opendatalab.mn/search/8454485. Indra was executive director of Lex Oil from January 2019 to February 2024: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5623979.
[27] Indra registered as BID Energy shareholder and executive director on 16 August 2024 and as sole ultimate beneficial owner on 1 December 2025: https://opendatalab.mn/search/8454485
[28] Petro Spark LLC, incorporated 8 May 2024, sole shareholder and beneficial owner Yadamsüren Dorjchanga; import licence 19 May 2025, the same date as Apex Petroleum: https://opendatalab.mn/search/7025169
[29] Joint holdings with Yondon Uuganbayar: Mongolian Truck Union Group LLC, https://opendatalab.mn/search/6840175; Novel Development Union LLC: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6894402; and the Gobi Genetics, https://opendatalab.mn/search/3646203
[30] Uuganbayar owns Mon Beef Cattle: https://opendatalab.mn/search/8324328 . Mon Beef Cattle acquired Erdenet Makh Market LLC, from Dorjgochoo Erdenetuyaa 24 October 2024, days before the scheme was disclosed.
[31] Standard Energy and Oil, received wholesale permit in June, the import licence that September: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6754244
[32] Monsor became the director of Standard Energy and Oil on 5 May 2026. It was acquired the same day by an investment fund, then owned by Dorj Enkhtuya (renamed KK Real Estate private fund two days later): https://opendatalab.mn/search/6607829. Mansor was the previous manager of that fund, and founded it himself through another vehicle he still owns and manages, Ulaanbaatar Asset Management: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5493498 . He became the CEO of Standard Energy and Oil on the day it was taken over by KK Real Estate.
[33] Reported in https://www.livetv.mn/p/11193/ and in https://www.polit.mn/a/69636
[34] Monsor is reported to have run Sky Professional Logistics: https://www.livetv.mn/p/11193. Court records state the executive director of Sky Professional Logistics concluded a wagon-transport agreement with the head of Ulaanbaatar Railway on 28 July 2017, naming him as Н.Монсов: https://shuukh.mn/single_case/19024
[35] Reporting states that US$7,545,900 was transferred from Class Trading Limited to Sky Professional Logistics on 8 August 2017 https://gogo.mn/r/5292y. Class Trading Limited was incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands and registered a Hong Kong place of business on 13 May 2015: Hong Kong Companies Registry, Company Particulars, BRN 64752427.
[36] Jocondy was founded by Dorjgochoo Erdenetuul, https://opendatalab.mn/search/5247632. She is Jononbayar's maternal aunt and the owner of Lex Oil LLC: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5623979 and https://zuv.mn/n/16a3.
[37] Reporting records US$612,400 paid to Jocondy and describes Jononbayar as its director at the time: https://gogo.mn/r/5292y and https://dardas.mn/news/view/2970
[38] Reported that Jononbayar sent $500,000 to Class Trading in 2014: https://dardas.mn/news/view/2970
[39] 2019: Lex Oil, 2019 https://opendatalab.mn/search/5623979,Tod Petroleum, https://opendatalab.mn/search/6104894. 2020: ICIC, https://opendatalab.mn/search/5288193 VS Oil, https://opendatalab.mn/search/6225578, Zuunnaim Oil https://opendatalab.mn/search/5272378. 2022: Argal Oil https://opendatalab.mn/search/6309011. 2023: Alpha Aviation Fuel https://opendatalab.mn/search/8403473. 2024: BID Energy https://opendatalab.mn/search/8454485 · Interasia Energy Mongolia, 2024 https://opendatalab.mn/search/6902987. Register of all 164 holders: https://opendatalab.mn/licences/15
[40] Tes Petroleum Trade, licenced 21 February 2025: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6373135
[41] Paternity reported in: https://ergelt.mn/news/22/single/40012
[42] Battömör has sat in the State great Khural since 2016, he was deputy head, then head of the State Customs General Administration from 2008-11 and Head of the Tax General Administration from 2011-13: https://www.24tsag.mn/a/227052
[43] Greenjob, owned by Batsukh Baigalmaa, granted licence in October 2025: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5645867; and Gobi Petroleum GPT, owned by Onurbat Ragchaa, granted a licence September 2025: https://opendatalab.mn/search/7121913. Together they are exclusive owners and directors of Green Oil Trade since incorporation in 2020: https://opendatalab.mn/search/6528716
[44] Tana Khiimori Oil - received import licence 11 August 2025, First registered for fuel-related activities 15 August 2025
: https://opendatalab.mn/search/7080033; Talnutgiin Ayalal - received import licence 11 August 2025, First registered for fuel-related activities 15 August 2025: https://opendatalab.mn/search/5887488;
Achit Güür MS - received import licence 14 Jan 2026, Remains unregistered for any kind of fuel-related activity (registration codes are for freight, agriculture, tourism and motor vehicle sales): https://opendatalab.mn/search/6891802; Söüd Mont Forest - received import licence 11 December 2025, Registered for fuel wholesaling 6 December 2025, (previous registration codes are for motor vehicles, freight, automotive sales and machinery), https://opendatalab.mn/search/7058649.
[45] Data as of 20 August, taken from https://licence.mn/ (official electronic licence system)
[46] Data as of https://licence.mn/ checked against https://opendatalab.mn/search/[registration number]. “Changed hands” to mean change of shareholder, director or beneficial owner within twelve months on either side of grant.
[47] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/638719_2025-Mongolia-Investment-Climate-Statement.pdf
[48] Trafigura supplied around a third of the region’s oil products, particularly diesel: https://eulerpool.com/news/markets/trafigura-in-crisis-mongolian-oil-credit-causes-million-loss; deals undertaken through the scheme said to account for around 80% of Mongolia's imported oil products: https://eguur.mn/556936/
[49] Jononbayar known for “parties he threw for friends and contacts” per Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-02/trafigura-mongolia-oil-fraud-how-trader-faces-1-billion-loss; reported to have thrown some of the “most expensive parties in Mongolia” https://eguur.mn/556936/
[50] https://zuv.mn/n/16a3; https://itoim.mn/a/2024/07/22/news-break/ugg
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director
UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER, 7, 2026
«The Iranian judiciary has released the initial findings of an investigation showing that weapons used in a US bombing attack earlier this week on a wedding ceremony in the south of the country were American-made», Iranian Press TV Reported yesterday.
The head of the Iranian judiciary’s local branch in the southern province of Hormozgan said on Saturday that projectile fragments scattered around the site of a wedding ceremony on September 1, killing five people including a children, had been examined as part of the investigation, showing they were manufactured by US company Raytheon.
“The nature of the weapons used in the terrorist attack on civilian gatherings in Kohestak, Sirik, has been fully documented using advanced technical analysis tools and image data processing,” said Mojtaba Ghahremani.
Ghahremani said investigators had carried out a meticulous examination of the inscriptions, barcodes, and other details engraved on the projectile remains, leaving no doubt that the munitions belong to the US military.
He said the type of military thermal battery used in the ammunition revealed that it is from a series of high-voltage batteries used exclusively in the flight guidance systems of precision-guided bombs operated by US military forces.
The official said a military identification code, CAGE Code: 96214, registered on the projectile fragments directly links it to the weapons company Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a major US defense contractor and industrial corporation that manufactures weapons as well as military and commercial electronics.
Much more important than official release is the image and the video from wreckage that at first had induced the experts to identify the weapon as am AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile (read below).
On the tiny identification plate there is in fact the writing AGM – I 154 C-I which corresponds to the glide-bomb AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) produced by Raytheon under the stamp NAVAIR which is the matrix of the American weapons used in the joint activity formed by the US Navy and US Air Force.
The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) is a glide bomb that resulted from a joint venture between the United States Navy and Air Force to deploy a standardized medium-range precision-guided weapon, especially for engagement of defended targets from outside the range of standard anti-aircraft defenses, thereby increasing aircraft survivability and minimizing friendly losses.
It is intended to be used against soft targets such as parked aircraft, trucks, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and surface-to-air missile sites (SAMs). Prior to launch, it is given a destination through either a predesignated waypoint or a point marked through a targeting pod. It glides, using two wings that pop out for added lift, to the marked destination and dispenses submunitions in a short, roughly linear pattern.
The designation of the Joint Standoff Weapon as an “air-to-ground missile” is a misnomer, as it is an unpowered bomb with guidance avionics, similar to the older GBU-15.
But in this specific case, a more sophisticated weapon was used for the attack on the wedding ceremony…
The AGM-154C uses an Imaging Infrared (IIR) terminal seeker with autonomous guidance. The AGM-154C carries the BROACH warhead. This two stage 225 kg (500 lb) warhead is made up from a WDU-44 shaped augmenting warhead and a WDU-45 follow through bomb. The weapon is designed to attack hardened targets. It entered service with the US Navy in February 2005.
The use of this projectile minimally mitigates the implications of the attack ordered by the US Navy by US President Donald Trump; in fact, autonomous guidance oriented by the target’s heat source implies the possibility of an error that the SALM-ER guided cruise missile does not allow.
Below is a live-fire video released by the Royal Australian Air Force demonstrating the actual use of an AGM 154-C glide bomb
But at the same time, it appears to be a completely disproportionate weapon to hit a transmission tower, which, according to leaks from US officials, was the target of the attack (read detaisl below).
Therefore, the hypothesis of a targeted bombing to destroy a civilian home, as on Qeshm Island, remains valid.
This is why Iran has filed an international complaint for war crimes…
Iran’s Red Crescent Society (IRCS) has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate a US missile attack on a wedding reception in the country’s southern province of Hormozgan, which killed at least five people and wounded 68 others.
The deadly incident occurred when shrapnel from a US attack struck a residential building where a wedding reception was being held in the city of Kouhestak, in Hormozgan’s Sirik County on Tuesday.
In a letter to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, the IRCS said the attack raised serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warranted an independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigation.
“Given the reported civilian character of the location as the venue of a family wedding ceremony, as well as the presence of civilians at the site, the incident raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warrants an independent, impartial, thorough, and effective investigation,” the organization said.
The IRCS said preliminary information initially indicated that four people had been killed and 67 others wounded. Iranian health officials later raised the toll to at least five fatalities and 68 injuries, with a child among those killed.
The IRCS warned that the number of casualties could rise because some of those wounded were in critical condition.
FIRST POSTED ON GOSPA NEWS ON SEPTEMBER, 4, AT 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
A US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has been identified among the wreckage following the American strike on a wedding ceremony in Sirik, southern Iran, late Tuesday, adding further evidence of the US military’s role in the attack that killed and wounded civilians.
Weapons analyst Trevor Ball identified the remnants as belonging to the SLAM-ER, a precision-guided, air-launched cruise missile manufactured by Boeing, according OsintWarfare which posted on X the first video of wreckage and was quoted by Al Mayaeedn English Lebanese TV.
Boeing describes the SLAM-ER as being the most accurate air-launched munition in the US Navy’s arsenal;
Trevor Ball, a former US Army explosive ordnance disposal technician who now works as a weapons technical analyst for Armament Research Services, was among the experts asked by Reuters to examine the photographs and video.
“The damage seen appears to be from a munition which detonated on contact with the roof, or just above the roof,”he said, adding it was apparently a direct hit.
VIDEO LEGEND:
1st footage – The US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has among the wreckage following the American strike on the wedding cerimony
2nd footage – Children’s slippers lie scattered in the aftermath of the US aggression at a wedding in Sirik, where civilians, including children, were killed and dozens more were injured. Footage from the scene shows slippers belonging to women and children amid the destruction.
After this initial analysis, both Iranian and international sources tried to identify the weapon, with some ballistics experts even launching the bizarre hypothesis that it was a ricochet shot, a hypothesis considered unlikely by most, however.
But one thing seems certain…
«A US munition struck a home hosting a wedding celebration in southern Iran directly, rather than ricocheting from another target, weapons experts who reviewed images and video verified by Reuters revealed» Al Mayadeen reported.
The strike in the small town of Kuhestak on Tuesday killed five people and injured at least 70 others.
So on Thursday, US Vice President JD Vance he was induced to declare that Washington was investigating the incident, despite the initially Pentagon deny of any responsibility…
“We’re investigating it because obviously we care. We want to know,”Vance said during a White House press briefing.
«Four military weapons experts who checked visual material told Reuters that the damage was consistent with a direct strike rather than secondary damage caused by a munition ricocheting from another target. Three of the experts stressed that the weapon was likely American rather than a misfired Iranian air defense missile» Al Mayadeen added many hours after its and our first articles posted on September 4, at 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
Two US officials, speaking anonymously, said the US military had conducted strikes near Kuhestak on Sept. 1, with the town’s telecommunications tower as a specific target.
Satellite imagery places the tower about 135 meters from the wedding site. Iranian media reported that the tower was struck at about 9:30 pm local time.
But the same expert Trevor Ball debunked US Official speculation…
“The visible blast damage could not result from fragments from the nearby strike on the communications tower striking the area,” he stressed.
AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile is a weapon designed for precise strikes and can be retargeted during flight by a human operator.
Therefore, if it were confirmed that this very powerful rocket, the wreckage of which was found on site, was used, the issue would take on an unprecedented gravity.
Boeing describes the SLAM-ER as being the most accurate air-launched munition in the US Navy’s arsenal; therefore, it can be inferred that it was deliberate, adding to a long list of US strikes on civilian gatherings in West Asia that we summarized in a Gospa News exclusive investigation, focused above all on the previous massacres in Minab school and island of Qeshm, where Trump’s Military used a bunker-bomb of 1ton.
Which is the Trump’s goal of these henoisou war crimes even vs children?
Simple: Terrorize the Iranian population by fomenting a revolution, as attempted in January 2026 by the counter-strategies of the CIA (USA) and MOSSAD (Israel), through the infiltration of well-trained ISIS jihadist mercenaries who used Israeli projectiles, leaving clear evidence of the plot.
The mad ambition of the Zionist terrorist who leads the United States thanks to the votes of the Zionist Lobby is to split the Iranian authorities, as happened in Venezuela, in order to stage a coup like the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
But in Tehran, there is a very serious religious theocracy, armed above all with hypersonic missiles, and perhaps even nuclear ones, donated by Russia, China, or North Korea…
Speaking about the attack, Head of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council Sheikh Amoli Larijani said, “The crime in Sirik and the killing of unarmed women and children embody the savage nature and deceptive self of the United States, and expose the falsehood and audacity of those who trade in human rights.”
A four-year-old child was among four people laid to rest in the southern Iranian city of Kuhestak on Thursday, as grieving families and residents gathered to bid farewell to loved ones killed in a US attack on the area, Al Matadeen Lebanese TV reported.
The funeral ceremonies in Kuhestak, in Sirik County of Hormozgan Province, began at 4 pm from a street at the city’s entrance, with mourners walking together toward the city’s Martyrs’ Cemetery, where the victims were laid to rest.
The authorities identified the four victims as four-year-old Amirali Karimi, 16-year-old Mohammad Mollahi, 43-year-old Kolthoum Mollahi Nezhadnia, and 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri.
According to the announced figures, the US aggression left 68 people injured, several of whom remain under medical treatment. Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that the death toll from the US aggression targeting the wedding ceremony in Sirik had risen to five.
Iran has called on the UN Security Council to condemn an unprovoked and deadly US attack on a residential home hosting a wedding ceremony in southern Islamic Republic that led to the martyrdom of five civilians, including a four-year-old child, and injured more than 70 others.
Gholamhossein Darzi, the Islamic Republic’s ambassador and chargé d’affaires to the United Nations, made the appeal in a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the president of the Security Council on Wednesday following a new wave of such American strikes targeting southern Iranian cities, which together claimed the lives of at least 18 people and wounded 108 others.
The chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has said that the blood of those killed in a US attack on a wedding ceremony in Kouhestak, Hormozgan Province, “will never go unanswered” and that it will ultimately “catch up with those who ordered and carried out this heinous crime.”, Iranian Press TV wrote.
State media reports debris recovered from a home attacked in southern Iran during a wedding celebration was “most likely” from a US-made, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon – a guided-glide munition, also Al Jazeera reported before the exatly identification as pieces of a US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile
Broadcaster IRIB said images released by US Central Command of attacks in southern Iran showed a F/A-18 Super Hornet loaded with a similar munition.
The targeted house was 200 metres (650 feet) from a communications tower, and the strike could not have been an error given the munition’s accuracy, reports said.
The Sirik strike came amid a renewed wave of US aggression against Iran, with American forces targeting sites across the country’s southern provinces.
Iranian authorities reported attacks on Bandar Abbas, Jask, Minab, Chabahar, Konarak, Lengeh, Qeshm Island, and other areas, including communications and service infrastructure.
The escalation prompted Iran to launch retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military positions across the region, including bases in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Erbil, in which several US troops lost their lifes in the name of Trump’s Zionist.
The heinous Trump’s Military strikes on civilians in Iran caused a genocide of more than 7 thousand people.
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director
RELATED POSTS
The USS Abraham Lincoln on Wednesday docked at a port in eastern Thailand after nine months at sea and reports of deteriorating conditions on board, including mental health concerns among the crew. While some outlets focused on the conditions of the service members and the carrier, others focused on where they'll be staying – near a town known for prostitution.
The Details: About 5,000 US sailors and Marines arrived in Laem Chabang port after 286 days at sea, which included supporting a US naval blockade and combat operations in the Iran war. The carrier will be docked for five days for rest and recuperation, according to Thai officials, before heading back to San Diego. In August, there were reports that the deployment led to morale problems, mental health concerns, supply shortages and two possible suicide attempts. CENTCOM denied these reports and pointed to the Lincoln's 84.4% crew reenlistment rate.
For Context: The Lincoln was deployed in November 2025 and reached the Middle East in January. According to USA Today (Lean Left bias), naval deployments typically run six to nine months, however that can be extended during times of conflict. Democratic lawmakers said the carrier set a modern-day record for consecutive days at sea. It was replaced by the USS George Washington in August.
Ship's Appearance: Outlets on the left generally focused on the conditions aboard the carrier and said that the Trump administration downplayed reports. CNN (Lean Left) and Associated Press (Lean Left) wrote that the ship's hull was "stained by rust" and "due for at least a new paint job" when it came into port. AP quoted an Australian defense expert who said the Lincoln became "a tempting symbol of the U.S. Navy's strategic overstretch and fatigue." Both outlets also included comments from the Trump administration saying that the deployment was "not nearly long enough" to substantiate the reports and from Navy officials who said that's how a ship looks after a long stretch at sea. The New York Post (Right) described the carrier as "battle-worn."
Prostitution Concerns: Other outlets like USA Today, Fox News (Right), The Post and Reuters (Center) focused more heavily on the nearby resort city of Pattaya's reputation for sex tourism and concerns about prostitution. Reuters and Fox covered the story similarly, with both writing that police were cracking down on prostitution and preparing additional patrols ahead of the arrival, which reportedly resulted in over 50 arrests over the weekend.
Economic Boost: Those outlets also reported that the arrival has raised hopes of an economic boost for Pattaya as each service member could spend between 1,000 and 3,000 baht (roughly $30 to $91 USD) per day. AP briefly mentioned the town's reputation, writing, "Once known mostly as a seedy city of bars and massage parlors offering sexual services, the city has in recent years toned down its act to become more of a family destination." It focused more on Pattaya's prospective economic earnings – about 100 million baht or $3 million USD – and included a story about one US sailor's mom coming to visit.
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York City Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels announced a ban on artificial intelligence (AI) use in schools for preschool through eighth-grade students. Outlets across the political spectrum highlighted parents' and educators' growing concerns about the effects of technology use, and particularly AI use, on children.
The Details: This new policy will affect 600,000 students in the district, representing two-thirds of students in the largest school system in the US. The ban applies to "all software that uses student-facing generative AI" for students in eighth grade and below; high school students will be permitted to use AI in limited education settings, such as AI literacy lessons. Students of all grade levels are banned from accessing "companion chatbots," which are designed to provide emotional support, mental health guidance, and simulated friendship.
Key Quotes: Mamdani said, "The tech industry wants us to believe that AI-powered early education is not only inevitable but necessary. We do not see it that way." Samuels added, "We're putting guardrails in place to protect the critical human connection, curiosity, and creativity that help children grow," noting that the New York City school system would not "conflate innovation with more tech."
For Context: The AI Moratorium for NYC Schools Coalition has been advocating for a two-year complete moratorium on AI use in public schools, and Politico (Lean Left bias) wrote that the new policy "may still disappoint" this coalition because it is not aggressive enough. Bloomberg (Center) noted that the US Surgeon General issued a warning in May about the increasing risk of health risks due to excessive, harmful screen use in children and adolescents. In conjunction with the AI ban for younger students, the school system will test five vetted AI pilot programs with a small group of high school students.
How the Media Covered It: Outlets on the right, left, and center echoed the fears of parents and educators when it came to AI use in the classroom. Politico highlighted the bipartisan, nationwide movement "seeking to limit screentime for young children," while Newsmax (Right) highlighted continued confusion about how to restrict AI as it becomes increasingly present. A member of New York City's education oversight panel told Newsmax, "What does that mean in a world where all software at this point is now using generative AI as part of their core features? It remains to be seen."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
The US military is investigating reports from Iranian media and humanitarian groups that it struck a wedding, killing five and injuring over 65 others.
The Details: Around 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, according to The New York Times (Lean Left bias), a family home hosting a wedding in the southern city of Kuhestak was struck. The Times, BBC News (Center), and Associated Press (Lean Left) all reported speaking to weapons experts who believed remains from the weapon recovered after the strike indicated the weapon was American-made. Several outlets reported that 150 yards away from the wedding, the US struck an Iranian communications tower.
Key Statements: US Central Command spokesperson Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins told several outlets, "We are aware of reports, which originated from Iranian state media, and we are looking into them. The US military never targets civilians, unlike the IRGC." Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesman for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accused the US of committing a "war crime." The IRCS wrote to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague and said the strike "warrants an independent, impartial, thorough, and effective investigation."
Wider Context: The strike was part of a wider campaign against "Iranian military targets" in response to Iranian attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The US military said it hit air defenses, radar systems, maritime assets, mine-laying vessels, and communications sites. Tasnim, a self-described "Iranian state media" outlet, reported explosions in several coastal settlements, including Konarak, Bandar Abbas, Jask, Asaluyeh, Ahvaz, and Qeshm Island.
Death Toll: Humanitarian group, the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS), and state media agency IRNA said four were killed. The IRCS said the dead consisted of two adults and two minors. Shortly thereafter, local governor Ahmad Nafisi reportedly told state television that five were killed, a change Associated Press (Lean Left) said came with "no explanation." Most outlets stated the death toll at four, though The New York Times wrote in its headline that it was five. The outlet cited the IRCS for the figure.
How The Media Covered It: Qatari outlet Al Jazeera (Lean Left) was the first major outlet with a Western reach to pick the story up early on Tuesday. The Washington Examiner (Lean Right) was the only outlet from the right that AllSides found to mention the wedding strike in a headline. The New York Times ran a lengthy original report and analysis on the strike that was loaded with emotionalism and sensationalism and largely focused on the viewpoint of Iranian entities and people.
Previously: On February 28, the first day of the US-Israeli war on Iran, a group of 165 Iranians that consisted mostly of school children was killed in an airstrike. The Washington Examiner noted that the US military has still not yet published its investigation results regarding who was culpable. In 2013, the US military struck a wedding procession in Yemen, killing 12 and injuring 15. In 2008, the US military bombed a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing 37, mostly women and children, and injuring 27.
RELATED: Media Bias Alert: Different Truths Emerge on Iran School Bombing | AllSides
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
Login