Timeline
Every post and feed across this instance
-
Nathalie Sonnac : « Face aux géants de l'IA, les médias doivent contre-attaquer collectivement »
Depuis le déploiement des aperçus IA de Google en juillet, le modèle économique des éditeurs de presse en ligne est frontalement remis en cause. Nathalie Sonnac, spécialiste de l’économie des médias, analyse ce tournant. -
Euro numérique : quels garde-fous contre une monnaie programmable ?
L’essentiel à retenir
- L’euro numérique n’est toujours pas adopté : le Parlement a seulement ouvert les négociations avec le Conseil, et une réunion du 21 septembre préparait encore le troisième trilogue. Pendant que le cadre politique reste en négociation, la BCE avance déjà sur le pilote et le rulebook : le fonctionnement de l’euro numérique se précise avant que la loi soit figée.
- La proposition de règlement interdit explicitement la « monnaie programmable », mais autorise les paiements conditionnels et prévoit que l’infrastructure puisse réserver des fonds pour les exécuter. La frontière est juridique plus que technique : des effets fonctionnellement proches d’une restriction d’usage peuvent passer par la transaction sans être attachés aux euros eux-mêmes.
- Le rulebook prévoit déjà plafonds, waterfall, règles automatisées et scoring antifraude central pour les paiements en ligne. Cela ne crée pas une monnaie programmable, mais installe des briques techniques (règles paramétrables, réservation de fonds, scoring, métadonnées) qui pourraient servir à des usages plus intrusifs si le droit venait à évoluer.
- Les garde-fous n’ont pas tous la même solidité. Les paramètres techniques sont les plus faciles à faire évoluer ; l’interdiction de la monnaie programmable exige un changement législatif. Selon la BCE, franchir le verrou de la fongibilité et du cours légal pourrait aller jusqu’à une révision des traités. Le « jamais programmable » du discours européen repose donc d’abord sur des verrous juridiques et politiques, pas sur une impossibilité technique.
Sommaire
- Programmer le paiement sans programmer l’euro
- La consigne est dans l’infrastructure, pas dans l’euro
- Le scoring est antifraude… uniquement ?
- Des verrous… modifiables à loisir
- Pour faire expirer l’euro, il faudra repasser par la loi
- Derrière le règlement, les traités, l’obstacle en béton
- Identité et données : un verrou supplémentaire ?
- Pékin, vrai laboratoire et faux miroir
- Le vrai sujet : qui pourra changer quoi ?
- FAQ
Pendant que l’euro numérique des banques vient de passer du PowerPoint à la réalité avec le lancement de Pontes [1], sa version destinée au grand public avance à petits pas : toujours en négociation politique, en préparation technique et en attente de son véritable feu vert.
Le 9 juillet 2026, le Parlement européen a autorisé l’ouverture des négociations avec le Conseil par 416 voix contre 169 et 22 abstentions [2]. Le 21 septembre, un groupe de travail du Conseil se réunissait encore pour « préparer le troisième trilogue » sur le paquet monnaie unique [3], mais, à l’heure où nous mettons cet article en ligne, rien n’a fuité sur le contenu de cette réunion. Pendant ce temps, la BCE avance : trente-six prestataires ont été retenus pour un pilote de douze mois à partir du second semestre 2027 et Francfort vise une éventuelle première émission en 2029 si le règlement est adopté.
Rappelons que l’euro numérique serait une monnaie de banque centrale sous forme numérique, émise par l’Eurosystème, mais distribuée par les banques et prestataires de paiement : l’utilisateur n’aurait donc pas directement un compte à la BCE [3.1]. La différence avec une carte bancaire ordinaire paraît mince au moment de payer, mais, en coulisses, elle est fondamentale : une CB transfère de la monnaie créée et détenue dans le système bancaire commercial, tandis que l’euro numérique ferait circuler directement de la monnaie publique. Surtout, contrairement au billet et comme nous allons le voir, ce « cash numérique », comme aiment à le présenter ses promoteurs, fonctionnerait au sein d’une infrastructure capable d’appliquer automatiquement plafonds, contrôles et règles de paiement. La BCE assure qu’il complétera les espèces plutôt qu’il ne les remplacera et le projet européen prévoit d’ailleurs de protéger leur cours légal [3.2].
Surtout, depuis juillet, le projet possède un brouillon de mode d’emploi de 177 pages. Le rulebook v0.91 reste « préliminaire et non contraignant », souligne la BCE, et devra être réécrit après la fin du processus législatif. Il décrit néanmoins déjà les comptes, les flux, les plafonds, le waterfall qui renvoie automatiquement l’excédent d’euros numériques vers un compte bancaire ordinaire, son mécanisme inverse, les interfaces techniques et la gestion centralisée des risques [4]. Le législateur est encore en train de discuter des plans de la maison que les électriciens posent déjà les gaines.
C’est précisément là que le débat sur la monnaie programmable risquerait de virer à la caricature. À question binaire, réponse binaire : la BCE répond « jamais », les critiques répondent « évidemment ». Les textes et le code qui est en train d’être mis en place donnent pourtant une réponse plus nuancée.
Programmer le paiement sans programmer l’euro
Dans la proposition de règlement, la frontière est nette. Une « monnaie programmable » désigne des unités auxquelles sont intrinsèquement attachées des conditions d’utilisation, comme des catégories de biens ou services ou une date de péremption. Ce modèle est interdit. L’article 24 l’énonce en une phrase d’une admirable sobriété : « L’euro numérique n’est pas une monnaie programmable. » [5]
Le diable se cachant dans les détails, la ligne suivante est beaucoup moins souvent citée. Le même article permet en effet à la BCE de fournir dans l’infrastructure les fonctions nécessaires aux « opérations de paiement conditionnelles », y compris la réservation de fonds. Un logiciel pourra ainsi déclencher un paiement lorsque des conditions prédéfinies et acceptées sont réunies : livraison d’un produit, échéance, consommation d’un service, ordre récurrent, voire paiement de machine à machine.
La différence peut paraître byzantine jusqu’à ce qu’on la traduise. Verser 500 euros à quelqu’un en lui interdisant d’acheter autre chose que des soins reviendrait à programmer la monnaie et c’est interdit. Conserver 500 euros dans un dispositif qui ne les verse au professionnel de santé que lorsque la prestation éligible est réalisée revient à programmer le paiement et c’est potentiellement permis. Dans le premier cas, l’utilisateur possède des euros bridés. Dans le second, les euros restent ordinaires jusqu’au moment où une condition déclenche leur transfert. Le résultat pratique peut présenter de troublantes similitudes alors que le mécanisme juridique diffère radicalement.
Sur X, le compte Kruptos a trouvé une formule autrement plus efficace que plusieurs dizaines de pages de droit européen : « La programmabilité réelle passe par les rails, pas par le jeton » [6]. Si la suite de son thread pousse plusieurs affirmations au-delà de ce que démontrent actuellement les documents officiels, la formule tape dans le mille : une monnaie peut rester juridiquement fongible dans une infrastructure capable d’exécuter quantité de règles, jusqu’à l’encadrer très finement.
Le FMI établit d’ailleurs pratiquement la même distinction en termes plus austères : certaines politiques peuvent exploiter la « programmabilité des transactions » sans programmer la CBDC elle-même, précisément parce qu’une monnaie doit rester fongible [7].
La consigne est dans l’infrastructure, pas dans l’euro
Regardons donc les rails, puisqu’ils sont déjà posés.
Le rulebook applique automatiquement un plafond de détention et le waterfall renvoie l’excédent vers le compte bancaire associé, tandis que le reverse waterfall peut y prélever ce qui manque pour réaliser un paiement. Le principe du plafond fait désormais partie des positions institutionnelles : le Conseil prévoit que la BCE fixe les limites à l’intérieur d’un plafond général approuvé par le Conseil et réexaminé au moins tous les deux ans [8]. Le fameux chiffre de 3 000 euros, souvent présenté comme acquis, ne l’est pas encore, à la différence du principe du bouton de réglage.Le scoring est antifraude… uniquement ?
Plus sensible encore : le Risk and Fraud Management component. Pour les paiements entre particuliers et pour le e-commerce, le prestataire de services de paiement (PSP) doit demander un score de risque au service central DESP (Digital Euro Service Platform, plateforme de services de l’euro numérique) et ne peut finaliser la transaction avant de l’avoir reçu. Seule exception, pour les paiements dans les commerces physiques dans lesquels le paiement s’effectue entre terminaux connectés à internet (un terminal du commerçant et un téléphone qui échangent par NFC, par exemple), le PSP peut se dispenser d’attendre le score de risque pour finaliser l’achat.
Dans tous les cas, il conserve la décision finale d’autoriser, bloquer ou retenir la transaction, sur la foi de ses propres critères ou de ceux fournis par le DESP et selon le droit applicable. Ce n’est donc pas la BCE qui a le pouvoir de bloquer tel ou tel achat. En l’état, elle a en revanche celui de se glisser, via le DESP, comme intermédiaire obligé de la plupart des paiements en ligne afin d’alimenter la décision antifraude du prestataire [9].
Aujourd’hui mécanisme antifraude, le Risk and Fraud Management component pourrait évoluer vers une logique de scoring de crédit ou de bonne tenue bancaire, pour peu qu’on le fasse évoluer avec de nouvelles données et de nouvelles règles. Le rulebook prévoit d’ailleurs des mécanismes de changement et une architecture évolutive, mais ce changement de finalité supposerait une évolution législative et réglementaire par rapport aux dispositions actuellement envisagées.
En attendant, l’API provisoire est instructive. Elle prévoit notamment un identifiant de paiement, une référence de transaction UETR (Unique End-to-End Transaction Reference, un un code unique de 36 caractères attribué à chaque virement international sur le réseau SWIFT), le BIC du PSP du payeur, autant de métadonnées permettant de caractériser une transaction.
On y trouve aussi une plage d’adresse IP, dont l’intérêt est double : détecter des anomalies, telles que connexions inhabituelles, utilisation de proxys, de VPN ou de réseaux associés à des fraudes d’une part, corréler plusieurs transactions ou sessions entre elles de l’autre. Voilà une capacité de traçage du comportement réseau qui ne figure pas dans les finalités déclarées. Enfin, cette API comporte deux lignes baptisées sans détour « Emplacement réservé pour d’autres éléments de données », l’administration européenne en mode « il y en a un petit peu plus, je vous le mets quand même ? » avec nos données, en somme.
Les autorités européennes de protection des données s’étaient d’ailleurs inquiétées du dispositif avant même cette version détaillée. L’EDPB et l’EDPS (respectivement, l’European Data Protection Board ou Comité européen de la protection des données et l’European Data Protection Supervisor, Contrôleur européen de la protection des données, en bon français) ont demandé de démontrer la nécessité et la proportionnalité de concentrer en un point le contrôle des plafonds, rappelant que des solutions décentralisées étaient techniquement envisageables. Elles jugeaient également insuffisamment prévisible le mécanisme antifraude envisagé [10]. « Quand c’est flou, c’est qu’il y a un loup », comme disait Martine Aubry.
Des verrous… modifiables à loisir
Sans rentrer dans le débat « solution centralisée contre solution décentralisée », force est de constater que tous les garde-fous envisagés ne valent pas la même chose.
Le premier étage est technique. Niveau du plafond, fonctionnement du waterfall, règles du dispositif de l’euro numérique, interfaces, champs des API, procédures antifraude : la plupart de ces éléments doivent être fixés dans le rulebook et ses spécifications. Le document lui-même prévient qu’il contient encore des emplacements vides, qu’il devra évoluer avec la législation et que certaines parties dépendent de futures décisions du Conseil des gouverneurs ou des prestataires.
Ce sont les verrous les plus fragiles au sens institutionnel du terme : leur modification ne suppose pas de renégocier les traités européens ni nécessairement de réécrire tout le règlement, ce qui permettrait des glissements en douceur vers de nouveaux objectifs. De telles modifications resteraient évidemment encadrées par ledit règlement, le droit des paiements, le RGPD et les procédures de gouvernance du dispositif. Le rulebook traduit le cadre politique et réglementaire – et son interprétation – en règles de fonctionnement, procédures et spécifications techniques qui déterminent ensuite le comportement du système.
Le plafond illustre bien cette souplesse. Personne ne pourra transformer arbitrairement 3 000 euros en 300 euros depuis une console cachée dans le sous-sol de la BCE. En revanche, le dispositif est construit autour d’une limite paramétrable, dont le niveau pourra être révisé suivant la procédure retenue par le futur règlement. La contrainte n’est pas technique, mais une variable de politique publique exécutée automatiquement par le système.
Même constat pour le scoring. Aujourd’hui, la couche centrale conseille et le prestataire de paiement décide. Modifier profondément cette répartition demanderait un fondement juridique approprié. En revanche, enrichir le score ou adapter certaines données traitées est techniquement envisageable sans bouleverser l’architecture logicielle. Mélanger les deux permet de fabriquer assez facilement soit un cauchemar de surveillance totale, soit une brochure vantant un simple « cash numérique ». Aucun des deux n’aide beaucoup.
Pour faire expirer l’euro, il faudra repasser par la loi
Passons au deuxième étage.
Pour qu’un particulier reçoive demain des euros qui expirent le 31 décembre, uniquement dépensables en transports publics ou inutilisables pour acheter du carburant, une modification du seul rulebook ne suffirait pas. Ces fonctions entrent précisément dans la définition de la monnaie programmable que le texte européen interdit. La proposition ajoute même que les paiements conditionnels ne doivent avoir ni pour objet ni pour effet de contourner cette interdiction.
Mentionner cette possible dérive ne fait pourtant que souligner la pertinence de ceux qui la craignent, car si le verrou est réel, il est aussi modifiable : un règlement européen reste du droit dérivé. Changer cette frontière supposerait cependant un acte législatif, donc une nouvelle intervention des colégislateurs. Présenter l’interdiction de l’euro programmable comme une promesse publicitaire révocable par quelques techniciens est tout aussi faux que de la présenter comme une impossibilité technique « by design ».
C’est ici que la zone grise devient intéressante. Une administration pourrait-elle financer une aide exclusivement consacrée à la santé sans jamais transférer au bénéficiaire des « euros santé » ? Techniquement, elle pourrait imaginer un dispositif où des euros parfaitement ordinaires restent réservés chez le payeur et ne sont débloqués que lors d’une dépense répondant à une condition. Le règlement autorise justement la réservation de fonds pour les paiements conditionnels. La limite juridique serait alors appréciée à l’aune de l’interdiction de produire, par ce détour, « l’objet ou l’effet » d’une monnaie programmable. La frontière est donc mince et la tracer risque d’incomber aux juristes – s’ils en sont saisis – plutôt qu’aux techniciens, pour qui elle peut n’être qu’un paramètre parmi d’autres.
Derrière le règlement, les traités, l’obstacle en béton
Le troisième étage est nettement plus solide.
Dans son avis juridique de 2023, la BCE ne se contente pas de soutenir l’interdiction prévue par le règlement. Elle estime qu’une unité monétaire dont l’usage serait limité selon le lieu, le moment ou le bénéficiaire ressemblerait à un bon, perdrait sa pleine fongibilité et entrerait en conflit avec son statut de cours légal. Elle ajoute que la BCE n’a pas mandat pour émettre de tels bons et qu’une monnaie programmable serait incompatible avec les traités, même si le droit dérivé cessait de l’interdire [11].
Cette analyse juridique de la BCE n’est cependant pas gravée dans le marbre du droit, comme le serait un arrêt de la Cour de justice de l’UE. L’argument est cependant solide en ce qu’il modifie l’échelle du changement à opérer : si l’incompatibilité avec le droit primaire devait être confirmée, supprimer deux lignes d’un règlement ne suffirait plus. Rendre l’euro programmable imposerait alors une révision des traités, donc l’accord de l’ensemble des États membres. Bon courage.
Identité et données : un verrou supplémentaire ?
À cela s’ajouteraient, pour les scénarios les plus intrusifs, le RGPD et les droits fondamentaux. Une dépense conditionnée à l’âge, au statut administratif, à la localisation ou à d’autres attributs personnels nécessiterait de relier les règles de paiement aux informations correspondantes. L’interopérabilité avec le portefeuille européen d’identité numérique est déjà prévue, mais uniquement dans le cadre défini par le texte : les services frontaux doivent pouvoir être intégrés ou interopérables et l’utilisateur peut demander à utiliser son EUDI Wallet. Rien n’établit aujourd’hui que ces attributs serviront à autoriser les achats, mais demain ? La distinction importe particulièrement alors que l’architecture de l’identité numérique européenne a déjà été analysée par INCYBER et que ses premières applications soulèvent déjà des questions techniques de séparation et de corrélation des données.
Pékin, laboratoire et faux miroir
Le yuan numérique donne néanmoins une idée de la distance qui sépare possibilité technique et choix politique.
Dès son livre blanc de 2021, la Banque populaire de Chine expliquait que l’e-CNY pouvait tirer sa programmabilité de smart contracts permettant des paiements automatiques selon des conditions prédéfinies [12]. Des programmes locaux sont allés plus loin dans le ciblage pratique : à Shenzhen, des enveloppes promotionnelles en yuan numérique n’étaient utilisables que pendant une période déterminée et auprès de plus de 15 000 commerçants désignés [13]. À Xiong’an, des aides étaient distribuées par catégories, telles que restauration, meubles ou supermarchés, avec durée de validité et réseaux de commerçants associés.
Évitons le tour de passe-passe habituel : cela ne signifie pas que le solde ordinaire de chaque portefeuille chinois est frappé d’obsolescence programmée. Les exemples documentés concernent notamment des coupons ou fonds promotionnels affectés. Ils prouvent cependant qu’une infrastructure de monnaie numérique peut appliquer des règles très granulaires autour de fonds et de transactions sans nécessairement tatouer chaque yuan ordinaire avec une date de péremption.
C’est exactement pour cette raison que la comparaison européenne mérite mieux que « Bruxelles prépare un euro numérique à la chinoise » ou « ça n’a absolument rien à voir ». Le contexte institutionnel européen comprend un règlement négocié par Parlement et Conseil, le RGPD, des autorités de protection des données et des voies de recours. La technologie, elle, permet de construire des couches de plus en plus conditionnelles. La trajectoire dépend donc principalement de la frontière juridique que les institutions maintiendront autour de ces capacités.
Le vrai débat : qui pourra changer quoi ?
On peut finalement ranger les garde-fous en trois familles.
Les paramètres techniques sont les plus souples : niveau de certaines limites, règles opérationnelles, interfaces, jeu de données du mécanisme antifraude… pourront évoluer dans les marges données par le droit et son interprétation, ce qui est loin d’être un carcan rigide, comme le montre l’expérience européenne.
L’interdiction de la monnaie programmable inscrite dans le futur règlement constitue un verrou nettement plus robuste. Elle interdit précisément l’expiration, l’affectation intrinsèque à certaines marchandises et les restrictions comparables. La déplacer exigerait une modification législative : tout serait alors affaire de volonté politique au sein des instances européennes ou à tout le moins d’absence d’opposition d’une partie d’entre elles, notamment le Parlement et le Conseil.
Enfin, le statut de cours légal, la fongibilité de l’euro et les compétences de la BCE forment le verrou le plus profond. Selon l’interprétation publiée par la BCE, on toucherait alors aux traités eux-mêmes, et là, bonne chance pour réunir l’unanimité à 27 États membres.
Cette gradation permet d’éviter deux écueils. Non, le rulebook actuel ne prépare pas un bouton « dépenses en carburant interdites » que Francfort pourrait activer vendredi après déjeuner. Oui, l’euro numérique introduit une différence fondamentale avec le billet : son infrastructure sait appliquer automatiquement des règles, vérifier des limites, réserver des fonds, demander un score de risque et exécuter des transactions conditionnelles.
Le cash possède une propriété politique assez rustique et précieuse : il est techniquement stupide. Il ignore qui le possède, pourquoi on le dépense et ne sait pas modifier lui-même son comportement. L’euro numérique tente de reproduire une partie de cette ignorance avec le hors-ligne et des protections juridiques. En ligne, il reposera néanmoins sur une machine beaucoup plus savante et potentiellement intrusive.
La question des libertés publiques se situe donc moins dans une mystérieuse fonction cachée que dans la gouvernance de cette intelligence : quelles règles resteront au niveau de la loi, lesquelles descendront dans le rulebook, quelles données alimenteront les contrôles et quelle procédure permettra demain de modifier chacune d’elles ? En l’état actuel de nos connaissances, le « jamais programmable » de la BCE devrait plutôt se lire « actuellement pas programmable ».
FAQ sur l’Euro Numérique
Tout savoir si les étapes de l’adoption de l’Euro Numérique
L’euro numérique est-il déjà adopté ?
Non. Au 22 septembre 2026, le Parlement européen a adopté son mandat de négociation, pas le règlement définitif [2]. Une réunion du Conseil du 21 septembre préparait encore le troisième trilogue sur le paquet monnaie unique [3], sans que l’on sache plus sur les résultats de cette réunion à l’heure où nous publions cet article. La BCE ne décidera de l’émission qu’après l’adoption du cadre législatif. Cela n’empêche pas l’infrastructure de se préciser avant le vote : le rulebook v0.91 existe déjà et un pilote est prévu à partir de 2027 [4]. Le cadre politique reste ouvert, mais une partie des infrastructures est déjà assez avancée pour être testée.
L’euro numérique pourra-t-il expirer ?
Pas dans le cadre actuellement proposé. Une date d’expiration attachée intrinsèquement aux unités correspond précisément à la définition de la monnaie programmable interdite par le projet de règlement [5]. Le verrou est donc réel, mais juridique : l’infrastructure sait déjà exécuter des règles et réserver des fonds. Le risque d’une expiration future passerait par une modification du cadre, pas par un bouleversement technique.
Quelle différence entre monnaie programmable et paiement conditionnel ?
La monnaie programmable impose une règle à l’unité monétaire elle-même : où, quand ou pour quoi elle peut être utilisée. Un paiement conditionnel conserve des euros fongibles, mais automatise leur transfert lorsque des conditions extérieures sont réunies [5]. La distinction juridique est réelle, mais ses effets peuvent se rapprocher : des euros ordinaires peuvent rester réservés et n’être débloqués que lorsqu’une dépense répond à une condition. Le texte interdit toutefois que ce détour ait pour objet ou pour effet de recréer de la monnaie programmable. Et là, tout est question d’interprétation juridique, pour peu qu’un éventuel glissement soit signalé aux autorités compétentes.
Une future loi pourrait-elle autoriser la monnaie programmable ?
Le règlement pourrait juridiquement être modifié. Selon la BCE, cela ne suffirait toutefois pas : une monnaie restreinte dans son utilisation serait incompatible avec le cours légal, la fongibilité et les traités qui définissent son mandat. Cette dernière affirmation est la position juridique de la BCE et n’a pas été tranchée sous cette forme par la CJUE [11]. Si cette lecture du droit primaire était confirmée, il faudrait aller jusqu’à une révision des traités et obtenir l’accord de l’ensemble des États membres. Le verrou est donc lourd, mais il reste d’abord juridique et politique, pas technique.
La BCE pourra-t-elle bloquer directement chaque achat ?
Ce n’est pas ce que prévoit l’architecture actuelle. Pour certains paiements en ligne, le système central produit un score de risque avant finalisation, mais le PSP conserve son propre dispositif antifraude et prend la décision concernant la transaction [9]. L’Eurosystème ne dispose donc pas aujourd’hui d’un veto direct sur chaque achat. Il installe néanmoins une couche centrale de scoring dans le circuit de nombreux paiements, avec un jeu de données et des règles susceptibles d’évoluer : la capacité de contrôle existe, même si sa finalité actuelle reste l’antifraude.
L’EUDI Wallet permettra-t-il de conditionner les dépenses ?
Les textes prévoient l’interopérabilité avec le portefeuille européen d’identité numérique et son utilisation à la demande de l’utilisateur. Ils ne prévoient pas actuellement de conditionner généralement les achats à des attributs provenant de ce portefeuille [5]. Rien ne permet donc d’affirmer aujourd’hui qu’un âge, un statut ou une localisation serviront à autoriser une dépense. La passerelle technique avec l’identité existe toutefois : l’utiliser demain pour conditionner des achats exigerait de nouvelles bases techniques et juridiques et poserait directement la question du RGPD et des droits fondamentaux.
Euro Numérique : sources et Références
[1] Banque centrale européenne, « Eurosystem brings central bank money to tokenised finance »
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2026/html/ecb.pr260921~e754847a7b.en.html
[2] Parlement européen, « Digital euro : MEPs ready to start negotiations », 9 juillet 2026.
[3] Conseil de l’Union européenne, CM 4227/26, réunion du groupe de travail consacrée à l’euro numérique et à la préparation du troisième trilogue, 21 septembre 2026.
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/CM-4227-2026-INIT/en/pdf
[3.1] Frequently asked questions on the digital euro and the legal tender of cash :
[3.2] FAQs on the digital euro :
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/faqs/html/ecb.faq_digital_euro.en.html
[4] Banque centrale européenne, « Digital Euro Scheme Rulebook v0.91 », 2 juillet 2026.
[5] Commission européenne, proposition de règlement COM (2023) 369 établissant l’euro numérique, notamment l’article 24 sur les paiements conditionnels et la monnaie programmable, 28 juin 2023.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0369
[6] Kruptos, thread sur la programmabilité de l’euro numérique par les « rails », X. Source notamment utilisée pour sa formulation des « rails » et comme élément du débat.
⚠️🇪🇺🪙 L’euro numérique n’est pas un outil de liberté. C’est l’infrastructure la plus puissante jamais construite pour surveiller et conditionner les flux financiers des Européens
— Kruptos (@KuptoKosmos) July 6, 2026
La BCE et la Commission répètent en boucle "privacy by design" et "comme du cash"
C’est juste du… pic.twitter.com/oTPPg7KSCg[7] Fonds monétaire international, « Central Bank Digital Currency Virtual Handbook », passages consacrés à la programmabilité des transactions et à la fongibilité.
[8] Conseil de l’Union européenne, « Single currency: Council agrees position on the digital euro and on strengthening the role of cash », 19 décembre 2025.
[9] Banque centrale européenne, « Digital Euro Scheme Rulebook v0.91 – Annex D2 – Back-end implementation specifications 4 – Risk and fraud », 2 juillet 2026.
[10] Comité européen de la protection des données (EDPB) et Contrôleur européen de la protection des données (EDPS), « Joint Opinion 02/2023 on the Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of the digital euro », 17 octobre 2023.
[11] Banque centrale européenne, avis CON/2023/34 sur l’euro numérique, notamment la section consacrée à la programmabilité, à la fongibilité et au cours légal, 31 octobre 2023.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023AB0034
[12] Banque populaire de Chine, « Progress of Research & Development of E-CNY in China », juillet 2021.
https://www.pbc.gov.cn/en/3688110/3688172/4157443/4293696/2021072014364791207.pdf
[13] Gouvernement de Shenzhen, dispositif de distribution d’enveloppes en e-CNY assorties d’une durée de validité et utilisables auprès de commerçants désignés, 2022.
https://www.sz.gov.cn/szzt2010/wgkzl/jcgk/jcygk/zdzcjc/content/post_9828400.html
The post <strong>Euro numérique</strong> : quels garde-fous contre une monnaie programmable ? appeared first on INCYBER NEWS.
-
Xi Jinping meets Trump: who holds the cards? – podcast
AI, Iran and Taiwan – there will be no shortage of topics when the two most powerful men in the world meet in Washington. But what do they both want? Jonathan Czin explains
You know when world leaders ring each other up for a chat? It’s never just them on the line. Eavesdropping silently on another extension, just out of sight, there is always someone like Jon Czin listening in.
Czin was the director for China on Joe Biden’s national security council from 2021 to 2023, having honed his expertise as the CIA’s in-house expert on Xi Jinping. He dealt with a lot during his two years working for the White House, but as Donald Trump prepares to welcome Xi Jinping to Washington today, the stakes are arguably even higher.
Continue reading... -
Le Sénégal et l’Afrique face à une règle sur l’IA qu'ils n'écriront pas
Le 24 septembre, à Washington, Donald Trump et Xi Jinping aborderont la question du rythme auquel le monde doit développer l’intelligence artificielle. Ce jour-là, le Sénégal disposera d’un « New Deal technologique » . Celui-ci sera doté de plus de mille milliards de francs CFA (1,77 milliard de… -
Après l'arrivée des aperçus IA de Google, les médias tentent de riposter
L'arrivée des aperçus IA Google, le 22 juillet dernier, a fait plonger l'audience des éditeurs de presse. L'heure est à la riposte face à l'attitude hégémonique du géant américain -
Veterans Protest Design Firm Behind Trump’s Triumphal Arch Vanity Project
Protesters set up an umbrella line outside the design firm behind the Triumphal Arch.
Washington DC—Wednesday afternoon several DC area Veterans and supporters escalated the fight over the Triumphal Arch with a visit to the Harrison Architectural Firm behind the design. They carried umbrellas with protest markings and messages opposing the arch project as well as several other memorial rebrands under White House supervision.
Harrison Design Architecture firm located in a tucked away office in Georgetown is the designer behind the non-competitive contract awarded for the Triumphal Arch. It is not yet clear why a prominent memorial project that would significantly alter the DC skyline was awarded the project without a competitive bid.
Activists stood outside the architectural firm’s offices in Georgetown and staged an umbrella protest drawing attention to the location of the firm.
The $250 million construction project is set to begin any day now and it has resulted in Veterans mobilizing to oppose it over its proximity to Arlington National Cemetery. The 250 foot high monument would overshadow every burial there and forever change the hollowed ground under which 430,000 Veterans and their spouses are buried.
Last Friday one Veteran flew from Hawaii just to participate in a protest of the arch at Memorial Circle, site of the planned construction.
Retired Army Veteran, Colonel Ann Wright, an officer with 27 years experience in the Army said, the arch would be built, “over our dead bodies. It’s for him, Mr. Bonespurs with five deferments from the military.” Col. Wright was emphatic that there would be opposition to the Arch, saying, “A cold day in hell this thing is going up.”
Col Wright was joined at the protest action by another Retired Air Force Colonel as well as Veterans from other periods of service, including a Vietnam Era Veteran.
Veterans and supporters have been staking out the nearby construction site and noting that surveyor flags, paint markers, and tree removals have taken place over the past few weeks.
Early on Wednesday, September 23, drilling equipment was brought in purportedly to begin sampling the sediment underneath Memorial Circle. This is a necessary set in determining the sufficiency and stability of the large structure. The height of the arch would top out at 25 stories. It would be 2 1/2 times the height of the Lincoln Memorial and more than double the height of the Alexandria House, a property once owned by Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The arch would occlude the line of sight between the two existing structures.
Metal fencing was erected around the drilling equipment. Several protesters stood in pouring rain early Wednesday holding signs and banners towards morning commuters, encouraging them to voice their opposition to the arch.
The arch site is not more than 50 feet from the Ladybird Johnson Dogwood and tulip gardens, planted in 1968. President And Lady Bird Johnson planted the trees in 1968 as a part of Lady Bird Johnson Memorial Gardens to encourage environmentalism across the country.
There has been little reporting about the possibility that the few remaining dogwoods may follow the same fate that a number of cherry trees felled in preparation for Trump’s golf course on Haines Point. The dogwood tree is the Virginia State tree.
The arch construction plans have not discussed with any certainty that the remaining dogwood trees at Memorial Circle will be disturbed. Four dogwoods remain from the original garden at the North end of Memorial Circle near the entrance to Memorial Bridge. A 4’ x 5’ plaque nearby describes the purpose of the Lady Bird Memorial Gardens.
According to Virginia State Code, cutting down a dogwood is a violation of State Law and can result in fines of $500.00 to $10,000.00. Virginia State Code § 10.1-1127.1. Tree conservation ordinance; civil penalties, reads, in part: “Memorial tree” means any tree that has been individually designated by the local governing body to be a special commemorating memorial. Violations of such local ordinance shall be punishable by civil penalties not to exceed $2,500 for each violation.
Another set of trees—weeping willows—were cut down and removed from the Kennedy Center grounds in preparation for “renovations” at that site. Word of the Kennedy Center closure and possible renovations triggered a massive local response on Friday when an estimated 10,000 surrounded the Kennedy Center in opposition to possible plans to demolish and rebrand the iconic arts center with Trump’s name.
DCMG will continue updating this story as it develops.
The post Veterans Protest Design Firm Behind Trump’s Triumphal Arch Vanity Project appeared first on DCMediaGroup.
-
Judge seems inclined to side with media outlets who were banned from White House in lawsuit
Due process was not followed, said judge, when CNN, MS Now and Politico were banned from White House
A US district judge on Wednesday heard arguments in the extraordinary showdown between Donald Trump and CNN, MS Now and Politico, suggesting in comments that he was more inclined to side with the media plaintiffs who sued the president on Monday.
Lawyers representing the media organizations have asked Timothy J Kelly, a district judge, to force the White House to return the press badges that were taken over the weekend after Trump banned their journalists from the building. While the judge declined to rule on Wednesday, he acknowledged that due process had not been followed in revoking access.
Continue reading... -
Trump greets Xi Jinping on arrival in rare move as US-China trade truce extended
President lays out red carpet as treasury secretary announces extension of ‘Busan agreement’ pausing trade war hostilities
Donald Trump has welcomed Xi Jinping to the US, taking the unusual step of greeting the Chinese leader on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews to kick off his state visit to Washington.
Xi’s plane was met with a lavish arrival ceremony that included a 30-metre-long (100ft) red carpet flanked by US service members, a military flyover by two B-1 bombers and a presentation of the flags and national anthems of both countries.
Continue reading... -
Judge dismisses Trump’s ‘extraordinary’ lawsuit against Iowa newspaper and pollster
Trump had accused Des Moines Register of fraudulently publishing inaccurate poll results to damage him
A judge on Wednesday dismissed Donald Trump’s lawsuit accusing the Des Moines Register and its former pollster of misrepresenting the state of the 2024 presidential race, rejecting the president’s claim that the newspaper’s poll coverage violated Iowa’s consumer fraud law.
Calling the case extraordinary, Scott J Beattie, the Iowa district judge, said that the argument could have a chilling effect that “can discourage others from reporting on and debating public affairs”.
Continue reading... -
Trump’s Ban of News Organizations Goes Beyond Obama, Biden Actions
In banning CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House, the Trump administration has argued that the move is similar to actions taken by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But the ban goes beyond what those presidents did.
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Sept. 21. Photo by Alex Wroblewski / AFP via Getty Images.
In a Sept. 21 press release, three days after President Donald Trump said the news organizations would be barred “effective immediately,” the White House said that “[a]ccess changes are nothing new,” and that “Democrat Administrations have restricted, punished, and locked out the press” for “years.” The release listed several examples of incidents involving the press during the Obama and Biden administrations.
“There’s no basis to suggest that Biden and Obama ‘did it too,'” Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, told us. “Trump’s action is singular and unprecedented,” he said, noting that Trump has instituted a “full ban of multiple news media” and “is targeting news organizations because they are publishing content he finds unflattering.
“That violates the First Amendment prohibition against government using its power to punish ideas,” Paulson said.
Trump announced the ban on Sept. 18 in a post on Truth Social, saying it was due to reporting what he called “FAKE NEWS.” When questioned by reporters later that day, Trump repeated that he was doing this “because they’re fake news.” He said the news organizations “purposely write negative news” in order to “try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.”
We’ll explain what happened in some of the instances under Obama and Biden cited in the White House press release and by other Republicans. First Amendment experts told us that Trump’s ban is different.
Amy Kristin Sanders, a professor of First Amendment studies at Penn State University, told us that Trump’s action was “unprecedented,” “particularly when taken in light of President Trump’s public stance about why he banned the news organizations.”
“What the Trump Administration has done is revoke access for news organizations that have already been granted press access while publicly saying it is because President Trump doesn’t like the way he is being covered by those news organizations,” Sanders told us in an email. “These outlets are being targeted specifically because they engaged in critical coverage.”
Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which defends free speech rights on college campuses and elsewhere, said, “Past presidents have limited outlets’ White House access based on hostility toward their reporting. For example, the Nixon administration, displeased with the Washington Post’s coverage of Watergate, barred one of the paper’s reporters from covering White House social events.” And the Obama administration initially excluded Fox News from a TV reporting pool for one interview (we’ll explain that incident below).
“But I don’t know of any past example of a president indefinitely banning a media outlet from the White House,” Terr told us.
The White House press release defended the president’s ban. “The First Amendment protects their right to publish; it does not entitle them to a hard pass, briefing room seat, or place in the press pool,” the release said.
Terr disagreed. “Just last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed that when the White House opens its facilities to the press generally, it cannot exclude reporters based on disapproval of their views,” he said, calling the action a violation of the First Amendment.
CNN, Politico and MS NOW sued the administration, asking a federal judge to block enforcement of Trump’s ban and to restore their access to the White House. Administration officials responded in a court filing saying that the news organizations “have failed to maintain basic minimum ‘standards of professionalism and decorum'” by “‘publishing sensitive or classified information.'” A hearing was held Sept. 23.
In response to Trump’s action, the other major TV networks said they wouldn’t participate in pool coverage of the president’s events.
Obama and Fox News
In its press release, the White House highlighted a feud between the Obama White House and Fox News in 2009, early in Obama’s presidency. The Obama White House questioned whether Fox News was a legitimate news organization and excluded “Fox News Sunday” when the president made the rounds on all of the other Sunday news talk shows. And the Treasury Department reportedly tried to limit access for Fox News to an interview with an administration official.
“In 2009, the Obama White House attempted to exclude a Fox News reporter from an interview with an unpaid executive pay consultant for the U.S. Treasury Department. Other news organizations objected to the effort and supported Fox and it never occurred again,” Paulson told us. “Continuance of this practice would have raised significant First Amendment questions.”
In a Sept. 19 talk at Colgate University, Obama commented on Trump’s ban on certain news outlets. “I’m trying to think what would’ve happened if I had said, ‘You know what, Fox News, you’re out of here.’ It’s unimaginable.” Obama didn’t kick out the network from the White House. But his administration took other actions against Fox News, and the Justice Department also surveilled one of the network’s reporters as part of aggressive measures to curtail leaks to the media.
We wrote about these actions in 2018, when Obama said he had “complained plenty about Fox News, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people,” a reference to Trump repeatedly calling the media that. As we said then, Obama did more than complain. He didn’t use the phrase “enemies of the people,” though he did say that Fox News’ “point of view” was “ultimately destructive” to the U.S.
On Sept. 20, 2009, Obama appeared on the Sunday talk shows on NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC and Univision, but ignored “Fox News Sunday.” Asked about the snub, White House spokesman Josh Earnest criticized Fox for not airing Obama’s Sept. 9, 2009, joint address to Congress on healthcare. The speech did air on the Fox News Channel, however — but not the broadcast network. Obama didn’t make it to “Fox News Sunday” until his last year in office.
In October 2009, the White House ramped up its rhetoric. Anita Dunn, the White House director of communications, told the New York Times, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent” and said that “we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” When asked about Dunn’s comments, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that “it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming, it’s really not news. It’s pushing a point of view.” He added, “We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate, but understanding that they represent a point of view.”
That same month, the Treasury Department reportedly tried to exclude Fox News from a pool TV interview of an administration official, Kenneth Feinberg, the so-called “pay czar.” The White House disputed that account, saying the issue was merely a miscommunication. But Fox News and other news outlets reported that the Treasury Department had tried to leave Fox News out of the pool, until the other TV networks protested. “All the networks said, that’s it, you’ve crossed the line,” CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid told his own network.
Fox News did interview Feinberg.
“The Obama administration’s exclusion of Fox News from a pool was rightly condemned as an attack on press freedom,” Terr told us. “The White House also lists a couple of other examples of the Obama administration reportedly restricting or threatening to restrict reporters’ access. Of course, none of that justifies what the Trump administration is doing now. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And the Trump administration’s wrong — a directive from the top to ban three outlets from the White House indefinitely over their critical or negative reporting — appears to be unprecedented in its scope and severity.”
Obama Administration Pursuit of Leaks
The Justice Department under Obama also aggressively investigated leaks of information to the media, surveilling or subpoenaing journalists in the process, including Fox News reporter James Rosen. In 2010, the DOJ tracked Rosen’s movements at the State Department and collected his telephone and email records, according to the Washington Post, which broke the story in 2013.
In the affidavit for a search warrant to obtain emails, the FBI agent described Rosen as “an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin told the Washington Post.
In 2012, the DOJ also seized two months of telephone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press.
In 2017, the Committee to Protect Journalists wrote: “Under the Obama administration, charges were brought against at least eight government employees or contractors accused of leaking information to the media, and several journalists were snared in the process through subpoenas to testify or surveillance of their records. After public outcry, the Department of Justice released revised standards for subpoenaing reporters.”
The aggressive posture against leaks, and reporters, continued under Trump’s first term and has escalated in his second. In an August report, CPJ said the DOJ in Trump’s second term had issued subpoenas involving at least 10 journalists, “marking one of the most aggressive uses of legal powers against the press in the United States in decades.” It cited the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which found that over Biden’s term three such subpoenas were issued and just one was issued in Trump’s first term.
Biden’s Stricter Criteria for White House Press Badges
Asked about Trump banning the media outlets from the White House press room, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise falsely equated Trump’s move to a situation during the Biden administration when it placed greater restrictions on those seeking a hard pass allowing access to the White House press facilities.
“Joe Biden removed the press credentials from over 400 different agencies,” Scalise said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sept. 20.
The White House parroted Scalise’s claim in its press release the following day, claiming, “The Biden Administration restricted more than 440 reporters from White House access through a new, retroactive press credentialing process — with independent and conservative journalists taking a heavy share of the hit. The White House Correspondents’ Association barely objected.”
But those claims are misleading at best.
As ABC News’ Jonathan Karl pointed out during the interview with Scalise, “The 400 individual reporters who [lost] credentials did not reapply. There was only one that was actually denied a credential. And all of those who didn’t reapply were allowed to come in.”
“They were removed,” Scalise said.
“They were not banned from the White House,” Karl said. “That did not happen.”
Here’s what did happen. In May 2023, the Biden administration established new, stricter rules for who could obtain a “hard pass” allowing routine access to the White House press areas without an escort. As the Washington Post explained at the time, in order to be eligible for a hard pass, a journalist had to be “employed full time by an organization principally concerned with news dissemination; must reside in the greater Washington, D.C., area; must have gone to the White House for work at least once during the prior six months; and must hold press credentials for either the Supreme Court, Senate or House.”
The White House at the time estimated that 40% of the journalists who had hard passes hadn’t even been to the White House in the previous 90 days.
In August of that year, Politico reported that over the first three months under the new Biden-era rules, the number of hard pass holders dropped from 1,417 to 975. Most of the drop was attributed to journalists who simply didn’t reapply. According to Politico, only one person who applied was denied a pass under the new criteria.
Importantly, though, even journalists without a hard pass could still get access to the White House press briefings by obtaining a daily pass, which required a journalist to provide personal information to clear security.
Jen Psaki, who served as White House press secretary under Biden from January 2021 to May 2022, posted a video to TikTok on Sept. 21 calling Scalise’s taking point “total BS.”
“So what the White House did was they put in place a couple of requirements that are pretty standard,” Psaki said, noting that “there were a lot of people with hard passes out there that had not used it in several years.”
“But [conservative] outlets like Breitbart and Fox and OAN and Newsmax all got hard passes because the criteria had nothing to do with how you were covering the administration,” Psaki said. “It was whether you were meeting those basic standard requirements, which is very much aligned with what the Senate and the House requires as well.”
Reporters who did not regularly cover the White House could still get access to White House press briefings “simply by getting day passes, and that is something that the Biden White House granted to a huge number of people from a range of news outlets,” Psaki said. “None were prevented from getting access to the White House because of their coverage. That is a big difference between then and what’s happening now.”
After his “This Week” interview, Scalise pushed back on X on Karl’s live fact-check.
“This morning, ABC tried to claim the Biden White House didn’t cut off press access for over 400 journalists,” Scalise wrote. “The facts say otherwise.”
He cited a Fox News story in August 2023 that claimed, “More than 440 reporters lose press passes after White House changes requirements.”
The White House correspondent for Today News Africa filed a lawsuit claiming the Biden administration discriminated against him by changing the criteria. However, a D.C. District Court judge ruled in favor of the White House, saying the criteria established by the Biden White House for hard pass credentials was “facially reasonable” and “viewpoint neutral.” As a result, the judge noted, passes were not denied based on the content of stories produced by applicants.
In Trump’s case, Sanders, the Penn State professor, told us, “These outlets are being targeted specifically because they engaged in critical coverage.”
“The Biden administration did change the credentialing requirements for ‘hard pass’ access, causing some journalists not to renew their hard passes and possibly making some journalists ineligible for a hard pass,” Sanders said. “This is different than excluding members of the WHCA from pool coverage based on the viewpoints they express in their journalism.”
The Free Speech Center’s Paulson likened the Biden rules “to a public library requiring patrons to prove residency before renewing a library card. There were no First Amendment issues.”
Terr, at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that “there were legitimate concerns about the new rules, including that they disadvantaged smaller outlets and freelancers. The rules also gave the administration discretion to discipline journalists who didn’t act in a ‘professional manner,’ a vague and subjective standard that could be abused to punish aggressive questioning.”
However, Terr said, the Biden administration “used viewpoint-neutral criteria to determine access” and “didn’t go so far as to ban any outlet from the White House over unfavorable coverage.”
Other Instances of Press Access
The White House press release highlighted several other instances of reporters not getting access to certain events.
Boston Herald
The White House said that Obama press officials had raised the issue of fairness when denying the Boston Herald full access to a May 2011 fundraising event.
“Obama White House officials restricted the Boston Herald from coverage — writing that pool slots depended on covering Obama ‘fairly’ — after the paper ran a front page Mitt Romney op-ed,” the White House press release said.
The Herald reported that Matt Lehrich, an Obama White House spokesperson, told the newspaper that the Herald’s request was denied because the White House Correspondents’ Association had already granted local pool coverage to the Herald’s competitor, the Boston Globe. However, Lehrich did suggest that covering Obama “regularly” and “fairly” were factors in which outlets are selected for press pool assignments.
“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” the Herald said Lehrich wrote when replying to the Herald’s request for full access to the fundraiser.
In emails with the Herald, Lehrich had brought up the newspaper publishing a front-page editorial critical of Obama that was written by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Obama’s eventual Republican presidential opponent, in March 2011. “My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” the Herald said Lehrich wrote.
But “Lehrich insisted the Herald may yet be allowed into Obama events,” the Herald said.
San Francisco Chronicle
The White House press release also accurately recounted a conflict between the Obama White House and the San Francisco Chronicle in April 2011. However, the former Chronicle reporter involved said that what happened then is “very different” from what Trump is doing now.
“After a San Francisco Chronicle reporter recorded protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser, White House officials threatened to strip the outlet from access and warned of retaliation if the paper reported on it,” the White House press release said.
“That’s true,” Carla Marinucci, the Chronicle’s former senior political writer, told the Chronicle for a Sept. 21 story about the incident. She said Obama’s press aides “went insane” on the Chronicle after she posted a video she recorded of the protest, which the press team argued violated pool protocol because the event coverage was limited to print reporters. As a result of the dustup, Marinucci said the Obama White House “blocked us from the local press pool for a year.”
But Marinucci said what Obama’s press aides did is not on the same level as what Trump has done.
“They never accused us of posting fake news. They just didn’t want us to post a video,” Marinucci told the Chronicle. “That’s very different from saying these organizations are fake news and I don’t like what they are doing.”
She called Trump’s actions against the three news organizations a “complete violation of the First Amendment.”
Obama’s 2008 Campaign
The White House press release also said, “In the Obama campaign’s final days, senior campaign officials pulled reporters from three prominent outlets off the traveling press plane — restricting them from coverage after the papers endorsed Obama’s opponent.” The news outlets affected disagreed on whether the endorsements, which came from the editorial pages, played a role.
With three days to go before the 2008 presidential election, the Obama campaign removed journalists with the Washington Times, New York Post and Dallas Morning News from the pool of reporters traveling on Obama’s campaign plane. The campaign said that a lack of seats and high demand necessitated making some changes. Some of the newspapers affected said the move appeared to be retaliation for their individual editorial boards endorsing Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain.
“This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth,” John Solomon, then the executive editor of the Washington Times, said at the time.
However, Ryan Rusak, the politics editor at the Dallas Morning News, wrote that the paper didn’t have evidence the endorsement was the reason. “We think the Obama campaign’s decision is to some degree more a function of limited seats,” he wrote on the paper’s website, noting that he and the political reporter “had absolutely no input or knowledge of the endorsement.”
Rusak said an Obama campaign spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, told the paper the campaign needed space for Obama’s wife, Michelle, and her staff and Secret Service, and the endorsement didn’t play a role. “There are news organizations, as you look around you on the plane, whose editorial boards are never friendly to Senator Obama,” Douglass said. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal were still on the plane, Rusak said.
New York Post
Biden’s White House, the Trump administration’s press release said, “blocked New York Post reporter Steven Nelson from covering the President’s only daytime public event — despite empty seats in the room — after the reporter pressed Biden on his family’s shady business dealings.”
That’s a reference to a decision Biden officials made in May 2023 to exclude Nelson from the press covering an event featuring Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. The Biden White House said Nelson was one of about two dozen reporters it could not accommodate due to a lack of space. But the New York Post said it suspected Nelson had been denied a press spot at the event because he had previously questioned Biden about the Biden family’s alleged dealings with foreign countries and the press staff didn’t want the president to face tough questions..
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
The post Trump’s Ban of News Organizations Goes Beyond Obama, Biden Actions appeared first on FactCheck.org.
-
[Mayday] #257 Chroniques médiévales
Émission du 23 septembre 2026, traverser la nuit de l’Occident et y trouver des lumièresL’incendie millénariste, des révoltes médiévales. L’Apocalypse selon Luigi*Vivre au milieu du désert, un reportage dans l’abbaye Cistercienne de Fontenay par LuigiTalk-show avec Bernard de Clairvaux, un dialogue du FrigoL’art gothique, sur une erreur de LuigiJean II le Bon, un mauvais roi Thaumaturge, geste féodal de LuigiC’était la peste noire, un entretien de LuigiO festimedieval, une arrivée de Bas ReliefRejouer le Moyen-Age, une rencontre de GenepiŒnologie médiéviste, un apéro de Bas ReliefTapisserie et cotte de maille, un dialogue du FrigoMUSIQUES Peter Kernel – I’ll die rich at your funeralCurse ov dialect – Family assortedDead Can Dance – Aion* Avec un extrait de « la guerre des pauvres » d’Eric VuillardImage : Détail de la tapisserie de Bayeux
-
[St Nazaire] Comico Volant : se former à la GAV en théâtre forum
Le collectif du Comico Volant (région parisienne)nous font réviser ou apprendre comment éviter de trop en dire, d’en dire tout court, en garde-à-vue, grâce à une séance de théâtre forum : quels sont nos droits ? nos obligations ? Comment réagir ? Le théâtre-forum est un outil très efficace venu de l’Education Populaire, qui permet de se former en immersif, car c’est assez proche du jeu de rôle : vous allez la vivre, la Garde-A-Vue ! ou presque …
Formation à prix libre – inscription conseillée en envoyant un mail à lesamiesdemay@riseup.net
-
Appel de 56 organisations à un mois de mobilisation contre tout transfert d’armes vers Israël
Depuis 3 ans, un génocide est en cours à Gaza, tandis que l’asphyxie du territoire, le nettoyage ethnique, la colonisation à marche forcée et la répression féroce par l’occupation israélienne s’accélèrent en Cisjordanie. Ce génocide est notamment rendu possible par la déshumanisation du peuple palestinien et par le fait que de nombreux gouvernements dans le monde, tout en assurant une impunité totale à Israël, autorisent la coopération militaire et le commerce des armes avec lui.
Cette complicité permet à Israël de mettre à feu et à sang toute la région mais aussi d’exporter dans le reste du monde ses propres technologies militaires « testées au combat » sur les populations civiles.
Bien qu’Emmanuel Macron et ses ministres successifs affirment le contraire ou cherchent à minimiser les faits, la France exporte chaque année une moyenne de 20 millions d’euros de matériel strictement militaire à Israël, sans parler du matériel à double usage civil-militaire, ou des logiciels, en infraction avec les traités internationaux (Traité sur le Commerce des armes, dont la France est pourtant signataire…) et des résolutions des Nations Unies (notamment celle du 18 septembre 2024, pourtant votée par la France). Que ce matériel soit jugé prétendument « défensif » ou « offensif », il est utilisé pour conforter l’impunité d’Israël et pour lui permettre de commettre un génocide.
En avril 2026, le rapport de People’s Embargo for Palestine, du Palestinian Youth Movement, et d’Urgence Palestine prouvait, à la suite de plusieurs révélations de Disclose et d’enquêtes citoyennes, que l’État français avait autorisé plus de 525 livraisons de matériel militaire à Israël depuis octobre 2023 : maillons de munitions, pièces pour drones de combat, pour le combat nocturne, pour véhicules blindés, pour canons… Tout ce matériel est nécessaire pour que les armes utilisées par Israël soient létales.
Aujourd’hui, nos organisations ont identifié plus de 75 entreprises ayant des relations liées à l’armement avec Israël (exportations, importations, coopérations diverses…). Ces composants d’armes qui vont en Israël transitent par des routes, des ports, des aéroports. Là aussi, des directions d’entreprises font le choix d’accepter ces commandes et de les expédier, faisant fi de la conscience des salarié·es, des prises de positions syndicales, des alertes de la société civile et du droit international.
Malgré les mensonges des gouvernements français qui se sont succédé ces trois dernières années, et les silences coupables des directions d’entreprises, les mobilisations populaires ont permis de rétablir la vérité, faire interdire tout ou partie de la présence des entreprises israéliennes à certains salons d’armement, et une première PME a été contrainte d’arrêter d’exporter des pièces de drones militaires.
Nous saluons toutes celles et ceux qui se sont mobilisé·es ces trois dernières années en solidarité avec le peuple palestinien et pour l’arrêt du commerce d’armement entre la France et Israël. Les syndicats de salarié·es, par leurs prises de position, leur refus de charger des armes, leurs rassemblements ou leurs grèves ont contribué à mettre la pression sur leurs employeurs complices et sur l’État français. Nous sommes convaincu que c’est grâce à la conjonction des forces salariales, politiques et des mouvements de la société civile que nous pourrons l’emporter et établir la fin de ce commerce.
Ces entreprises qui arment Israël sont implantées dans tout le territoire, dans tous les départements. Le génocide se fabrique près de chez nous.
C’est pourquoi nous appelons l’ensemble des membres de nos organisations, les associations, les collectifs, les syndicats et les partis politiques soutenant le peuple palestinien, et toute personne de conscience, à participer en octobre 2026 à un mois d’actions contre l’armement d’Israël à travers la France.
Ces actions pourront prendre de multiples formes localement, dans l’optique de tisser des liens avec les salarié·es et leurs syndicats, de mettre la pression sur les responsables de ces entreprises ou de dénoncer la complicité active de la France avec le génocide en Palestine.
D’autres actions pourront avoir lieu sur la même période dans toute l’Europe.
Ensemble, nous avons le pouvoir de faire cesser toute coopération militaire et tout commerce d’armement entre la France et Israël !
Signataires
Organisations initiatricesAssociation France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) – BDS France – SAIF – Urgence Palestine (UP)
SyndicatsCGT • CNT • Confédération Paysanne • FSE • FSU • UNEF • Union syndicale Solidaires • Sud aérien • CGT STMicroelectronics
Associations et organisations de la société civileArgenteuil Solidarité Palestine • AJPO • APPEL-Égalité • Aser • ATTAC France • FASTI • Femmes plurielles • Forum Palestine Citoyenneté • JURDI • Mouvement pour une alternative non violente (MAN) • Survie • Syndicat des Avocats de France (SAF) • Tsedek ! • Union juive française pour la paix (UJFP)
Partis politiquesLes Écologistes • LFI (La France Insoumise) • NPA-L’Anticapitaliste • PCF (Parti communiste français) • PIR (Parti des indigènes de la République) • PM (Perspectives musulmanes) • RCGA (Réseau Coopératif de Gauche Alternative) • UCL (Union communiste libertaire) • Le Poing Levé • Association nationale communiste (ANC)
CollectifsBlouses Blanches pour Gaza • CJACP • Collectif Solidarité Palestine Martigues • Collectif 69 de soutien au peuple palestinien • Étudiants avec Gaza • Extinction Rébellion • Guerre à la Guerre • Journalistes solidaires de Gaza • KESSEM • Marseille Gaza Palestine (MAGPAL) • Nous toutes • Reporters solidaires • Samidoun • Soulèvements de la Terre • Universitaires avec Gaza • Vietnam Dioxyne • Young Struggle • Collectif pour le Liban • Union Palestine Marseille
-
This Week In The Big Picture
With just under seven weeks to Election Day, candidates and parties are starting to make their final arguments for why voters should support them in November.
But with Donald Trump’s support in the country collapsing and Democrats looking increasingly likely to retake the House and even the Senate, Republicans are scrambling. And their closing pitches are starting to go off the rails.
Tomorrow, looks at how Republicans are trying to save their jobs and congressional majorities this November, from their pleas for “another two years,” to their sudden opposition to the war in Iran, to their kicking hundreds of thousands off Obamacare.
And in case you missed it, yesterday did a deep dive into Trump’s ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. How did we get here? Where do the lawsuits challenging the ban stand? And how is the ban backfiring on Trump?
-
Footage shows people fleeing as drone strikes business centre in Kyiv – video
Video shows the moment a drone struck a business centre in Kyiv, in an attack that came hours after Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, met Donald Trump to discuss peace efforts. Railway infrastructure, warehouses and fuel stations were also damaged in the attack
Continue reading... -
Why Saudis Failed to Stop Houthi Advance, Despite Vast Intelligence and Weapons Edge
Saudi warplanes never showed up to repulse the Houthis’ capture of the key strategic Bab el Mandeb Strait, analysts say. (LinkedIn illustration) When Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels launched an offensive along the country’s Red Sea coast earlier this month, the government’s Saudi-aligned forces were taken by surprise. As the Yemeni defenders fell back and the Houthis closed in on the western port city of Mokha, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman placed two urgent calls to Donald Trump, pleading for U.S. air strikes to blunt the rebel’s advance. But the president, wary of opening a second front in his war against Iran, refused and told the Saudi leader to order his own air force into the fray. Trump did, however, offer to beef up the U.S.-Saudi intelligence cell already in the country.
But as the fighting intensified, Saudi warplanes—the centerpiece of the kingdom’s $174 billion-purchase of U.S. weaponry over the past two years—never showed up. Over the next few days, the Houthis captured Mokha and swept farther down the coast to seize their most strategic prize—the Bab el Mandeb Strait at the southern entrance of the Red Sea. And so now, from the rocky outcropping of Perim Island in the middle of the narrow waterway, Houthi artillery has choked off the only alternative the Saudis have had, beyond the blocked Strait of Hormuz, for exporting its oil, the lifeline of its—and much of the world’s—economy.
The surprise, speed and success of the Houthi offensive has raised questions about the degree to which the U.S. and Saudis were providing intelligence to Yemeni government forces in the weeks and months before the fighting began. According to the Pentagon, the strengthened U.S.-Saudi intelligence cell now numbers some 200 American military and intelligence personnel working with their Saudi counterparts in Riyadh, mostly on targeting.
-
Les dernières productions des éditions SENONEVERO
Accessibles en librairie à compter du 6 Octobre 2026 Présentation ci-dessous Au ras du sol et théoricien à la fois, Louis Martin écrivait en 1996 « Théorie et marche à pied » paru sous le titre de « Journal d’un gréviste » relatant une des grèves du mouvement social que déclencha le plan Juppé à l’automne 1995. Dans […] -
Michel Mercier surjoue l’humilité au procès en appel du MoDem
L’ancien trésorier du MoDem (et ancien garde des Sceaux) a nié l’existence d’un système frauduleux mis en place par le parti centriste au préjudice du Parlement européen, mercredi à la cour d’appel de Paris. -
Trump's approval drops as Democrats take double-digit lead in new poll
President Donald Trump's approval rating has taken a noticeable step backward after more than a month of gains, according to a new national poll, while Democrats opened a double-digit advantage on a key midterm election question. The results arrive as New Jersey voters prepare for another high-stakes election cycle and political leaders on both sides of the aisle look toward 2027 statewide contests. -
L’IA s’impose au menu de la visite de Xi Jinping à Washington
Le numéro un chinois se rend aux États-Unis mercredi 23 septembre pour une courte visite d’État. Pour les deux pays, l’intelligence artificielle est à la fois une source de rivalité technologique et économique, et un sujet de discussions en raison de ses dangers. -
«La Chine se positionne comme le fer de lance de l’IA open source à l’échelle internationale»
Dans le domaine de l’intelligence artificielle, la Chine se présente comme une alternative aux États-Unis en proposant aux pays du Sud des modèles libres, moins gourmands et moins coûteux, souligne Nowmay Opalinski, spécialiste des politiques numériques chinoises. -
Qui a intérêt à réguler l’intelligence artificielle?
Les patrons d’OpenAI et d’Anthropic ont été conviés au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, mercredi 23 septembre, pour évoquer la dangerosité de leurs modèles. En insistant sur les risques «existentiels» de leurs créations, ils espèrent pouvoir contrôler la manière dont le secteur sera surveillé. Et contenir leurs concurrents. -
The FBI Anti-Corruption Squad Was Circling Susan Collins — Until Trump Got In The Way
This story was originally published by ProPublica and the Texas Tribune. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.
In the final weeks of 2019, a top fundraiser for Sen. Susan Collins walked into a perilous meeting at a Corner Bakery in Washington, D.C.
For the first time in her two-decade Senate career, the Republican lawmaker from Maine was in danger of losing her seat. President Donald Trump’s dismal approval ratings were dragging her down in the polls, and she was falling behind her likely 2020 Democratic challenger in fundraising.
Scott Reed, head of the Collins super PAC, was on a mission to close that gap. Reed was meeting that day with three executives from a Hawaiian defense contractor, Navatek. A year earlier, Collins had helped their company land a multimillion-dollar Navy research contract in Maine. Now, seated at a coffee shop not far from the U.S. Capitol, Reed asked them for a $500,000 donation.
Government contractors are banned from making political contributions. More consequentially, for the company to offer donations to Collins in exchange for an official action, or for Collins to accept, would constitute criminal bribery.
But the company did have such a proposal: Navatek was hungry for more government contracts in Maine. If they cut a big check, the CEO told Reed, Navatek wanted Collins to guarantee tens of millions of dollars in additional federal funding.
To skirt campaign finance laws and conceal the source of the funds, Navatek planned to funnel the donation through a shell company. The CEO wanted assurance that Collins would know where the money came from. Reed confirmed that she would, the executive said — and that Navatek would get its government contracts.
After the Corner Bakery meeting, Navatek’s CEO, Martin Kao, sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company. Two months later, he told Navatek executives that Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts, according to an internal company email reviewed by ProPublica.
Three years later, Kao holed up in a conference room to recount the Corner Bakery meeting to a group of four FBI agents and federal prosecutors. The FBI had seen through his shell company ruse, and in 2022 a grand jury indicted him for making illegal campaign contributions. No one working for Collins was charged.
Facing years in prison, Kao hoped to do less time by revealing the entire scheme.
What he told them has never before become public. The Corner Bakery meeting, he asserted, was just one episode in a sprawling pay-to-play operation that embroiled some of the most powerful figures in Congress.
Over three days at the U.S. attorney’s office in Honolulu, Kao laid out in devastating detail how his operation worked. He gave agents a 50-page document naming dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts. Kao and his close associates had donated nearly $900,000 to dozens of politicians, allowing Navatek to establish operations in half a dozen states with over $40 million a year in government funding.
Most damningly, Kao told FBI agents and prosecutors, the company’s work for the government was of no real value. Navatek’s research under his stewardship never resulted in products the military wanted to buy, ProPublica found.
Kao’s tell-all interviews with the FBI lasted into late 2024. His confessions opened up an entirely new phase of the investigation. Agents sifted through hundreds of thousands of records seized during Kao’s arrest and found that many were consistent with his account of widespread influence peddling.
Kao had credibility issues. He was now a felon trying to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. And there were other challenges. Building a corruption case against elected officials requires extraordinary proof of a quid pro quo arrangement, in part because the Supreme Court has narrowed what counts as bribery.
Even so, by the end of 2024, the agents had enough evidence to pursue a sweeping bribery probe that could ensnare top lawmakers of both political parties. They asked their supervisors to approve a new investigation and contemplated using undercover operatives to gather more evidence. Although their effort was in its early stages, and it was unclear where it would lead, FBI agents asked Kao extensive questions about his dealings with Collins and her office.
Then Trump returned to the White House. Consumed by a campaign of vengeance, he stacked the Department of Justice with his personal lawyers and demanded a purge of anyone who had ever investigated him.
The specialized FBI and DOJ teams handling public corruption investigations, some of which were involved in Trump-related cases, were eviscerated. One of the agents who had taken Kao’s confession was pushed out as retribution for her role in investigating Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Dozens of agents and prosecutors quit amid the department’s destruction, including the career attorney assigned to Kao’s case.
Trump’s Justice Department no longer takes on public corruption in any meaningful fashion, former officials said. The investigation sparked by Kao’s revelations is dead. And the government is no longer talking to an informant who had offered a road map to corruption in Congress.
The White House referred ProPublica to the FBI.
FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson said the agency had investigated claims against Collins years ago “and ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is totally false.” Williamson said the Trump administration has removed agents only “if they have been found to have acted unethically, undermined the mission, or engaged in weaponization of law enforcement.”
Williamson did not respond to questions about the new investigation launched in 2024 based on Kao’s previously unreported cooperation with the FBI.
ProPublica is revealing the existence of the case for the first time. We reviewed a trove of evidence gathered by the FBI and thousands of pages of legal records, and interviewed dozens of people familiar with Navatek, its Washington operations, and the FBI inquiry to conduct our own investigation. We independently corroborated much of Kao’s account. Whether or not Kao’s dealings with politicians amount to criminal bribery, the Trump Justice Department has little interest in finding out, and his sheer success reveals how easily influence is purchased in Washington today. This is the first in a series of stories drawn from our reporting.
Of all the politicians Navatek courted under Kao’s leadership, Collins was its most important patron. The senator’s office steered government contracts worth millions toward the company while her campaign was pumping Kao and his network for donations, according to emails seen by ProPublica. Sometimes they cut checks within 24 hours of the annual defense spending bill, which funds military contracts, clearing a key Senate hurdle.
Collins’ office did not specifically address questions about the Corner Bakery meeting, the senator’s relationship with Kao and the millions she helped appropriate for Navatek.
Annie Clark, Collins’ deputy chief of staff, told ProPublica in an email that Collins’ office “vigorously” denies allegations of bribery and pay-for-play made by Kao, calling his claims “outlandish.” Collins’ campaign was not part of the discussions between Kao and the super PAC, and her office “fully cooperated” with the FBI investigation, Clark said.
“The fact that the FBI and Biden-led Department of Justice thoroughly examined the Navatek matter demonstrates this,” Clark wrote. “These issues were resolved in 2021 and concluded when the Collins campaign disgorged the illegal contributions that Martin Kao had made without our knowledge.”
Collins is once again fighting to keep her seat, in a race that could determine control of the Senate. On the campaign trail, she spotlights the funding she directs to Maine while leading the appropriations committee, which she calls “the most powerful committee in the Senate.”
She demonstrated that power with Navatek. After the budgets became law, Collins’ office pushed the Navy to award specific contracts to Navatek, emails seen by ProPublica show, even though awards are supposed to be competitive.
“I spoke with Sen. Collins office regarding the $8M,” a naval official wrote in an email on Feb. 6, 2019. “The interested company is Navatek.”
In a meeting with Collins and two campaign officials, Kao said, the officials told him the senator expected his ongoing support. Collins told him: “You’ve seen me deliver,” Kao said.
Reed knew Kao was behind the $150,000 anonymous donation, emails showed, because Kao told Reed he planned to donate through a shell company. “Very smart,” Reed replied in an email viewed by ProPublica.
Reed did not respond to detailed questions about the Corner Bakery meeting, the $150,000 donation and Kao’s allegations. “I understand Martin Kao is now sitting in federal prison,” Reed wrote in a brief email. “I never had any communications with Senator Collins [or] her staff about Martin Kao and/or Navatek.”
But an email seen by ProPublica suggests that someone must have relayed the news of Kao’s donation to Collins, just like Reed promised to do in Kao’s recounting of the Corner Bakery meeting.
Seven days after the super PAC cashed the check from Kao’s shell company, one of Reed’s subordinates emailed a Navatek lobbyist asking for Kao’s phone number: “Senator Collins would like to call Martin to thank him.”
The Navatek Method
Before Kao’s doomed reign as CEO, Navatek was a sleepy Hawaiian engineering company with a few dozen employees. It was founded in 1978 by Steven Loui, a talented engineer and scion of a powerful Hawaiian shipping family. Navatek was not a profit center but a vehicle for Loui’s passion projects, like an experimental catamaran for navigating Hawaii’s choppy waters.
The company benefited from the largesse of the legendary Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, multiple former Navatek executives and employees said, whose family had been close to the Loui family for generations. Inouye was a master of earmarks, a practice that allowed lawmakers to insert funding for specific companies by name in the federal budget. The self-styled “King of Pork” steered hundreds of millions in federal dollars to Hawaii. Former Navatek employees say he was affectionately referred to as “Uncle Dan.” “Before Inouye took an interest, Congress didn’t even know our companies existed,” a longtime Loui lieutenant wrote in a 1998 op-ed.
In response to ProPublica questions, Loui said that money appropriated by Inouye made up “a minority” of Navatek’s revenue.
Inouye’s death in 2012 made the company’s future uncertain. Not only was Navatek’s direct line to Capitol Hill gone, but Congress was doing away with the abuse-riddled earmark process. Now companies would nominally have to compete on the merits for government contracts.
Kao joined Navatek in 2008 as its chief financial officer. Loui charged him with replacing Navatek’s rainmaker and eventually named Kao CEO. He sold Kao the company in return for a share of the profits.
Kao was an unusual figure among the company’s low-key naval engineers and boat aficionados. He seemed to be aping a Wall Street tycoon, telling employees they could either be “a beast or a bitch,” a former executive said. He drove to work in a Ferrari and abruptly fired subordinates who displeased him — one time, in the middle of the night. “He had very little interest in the technology,” one former employee recalled. “Martin was only interested in dollar signs.”
Kao also exaggerated and lied. He told different people he had stepbrothers whose parents died in a fishing accident or an avalanche, a former employee recalled. He lied to Loui about having law degrees from both the University of California, Los Angeles and New York University. He once told a lobbyist who raised quarter horses that he owned a herd of polo ponies, just to one-up him.
Despite his erratic behavior, former employees agree Kao hit upon an effective way to replace the lost earmarks. If the company could not rely on a benefactor like Inouye, it would develop a stable of them.
Navatek targeted the powerful members who sat on the House and Senate appropriations committees. These members could no longer earmark money for specific military contractors. But they retained the power to budget millions of dollars for equipment or bespoke research and development. Because Pentagon budgets run thousands of pages and are largely prepared in secret, it is easy for appropriators to add a line item intended for a contractor like Navatek without leaving any fingerprints.
Soon, Kao had refined a playbook. Navatek would concoct a research project in partnership with a university in a member’s district or home state, and Kao would make a large initial campaign donation. Working with a team of pricey, well-connected lobbyists, Navatek would get meetings on Capitol Hill to pitch the research to congressional staff. Navatek kept spreadsheets, reviewed by ProPublica, that listed members of Congress as the “specialty” of certain lobbyists.
Separately, Kao later told the FBI, there would be a meeting of just the key players. One engineer, who traveled with Kao to D.C. to explain the technical side of a project, recalled being sent out of the room once the subject of money came up. Sometimes in these smaller meetings, members of Congress directly asked Kao for donations, he told the FBI. In other cases, he said, Navatek’s lobbyists would relay a request from an intermediary for a specific dollar amount.
Kao told the FBI that the lawmakers, lobbyists and Navatek brass understood these donations were bribes and that the payments were essential to the entire scheme. Kao believed he was buying Navatek’s way into the annual defense budget, not winning over members with innovative engineering proposals.
“I’m not red or blue, I’m green,” he would tell congressional staffers, a former Navatek employee recalled.
While a deal was being struck, Navatek and congressional staffers worked closely on the legislative process. Every year, Congress prefaces the defense budget with massive reports describing the purpose of inscrutable line items. Staffers would include a project description so specific that Navatek would be the only logical pick.
Often, Navatek composed language that ended up, word for word, in Senate funding requests, former employees said. In 2019, for example, Navatek’s priorities were tucked into page 185 of the 307-page report released by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee set aside $21.5 million for “hybrid composite structures research for enhanced mobility,” “electric propulsion for military craft and advanced planing hulls” and a “test bed for autonomous ship systems.” Although Navatek’s name does not appear on the page, these were all projects the company requested, according to internal documents and interviews with former employees.
Once the budget passed, lawmakers’ staff leaned on Navy officials to award Navatek the money. Former contracting officers told ProPublica they felt pressure to go along because money from those contracts funded their office — and because members of Congress had confronted dissenting naval officials in the past. “There’s only so many battles you can fight,” one said. So Congress sometimes got its way even when Navatek’s projects made little sense.
Inside Navatek, employees referred to this strategy as “the method.” And it enabled the company to string together tens of millions of dollars in contracts. The result was the same as getting earmarks: a reliable, growing revenue stream bankrolled by U.S. taxpayers.
“It was a simple enough play. Let’s find the small states that have complementary universities … [and] let’s get access to their senators,” Eric Schiff, a former Navatek executive, told ProPublica. “I’ve met Susan Collins. You can get access to Susan Collins. Once we got the first things working with Maine, then we said, ‘Well, let’s keep reaching.’ And so we did.”
In a statement to ProPublica, Navatek founder Loui said Kao’s “unethical and illegal method of winning contracts” was a departure from how he operated the company prior to Kao’s ownership.
Kao boosted Navatek’s annual revenue from $10 million around the time Loui sold him the company to almost $40 million when he was arrested in 2020. In the second half of 2019 alone, Navatek paid a roster of five lobbying shops more than $500,000.
Even Navatek’s executives were surprised at how far their money went in D.C. “It was eye-opening for me, frankly. ‘Oh my God, all of it is for sale. It’s all for sale,’” Schiff said.
The key players in Kao’s pay-to-play deals went to great lengths to meet in person and leave no trace of an actual quid pro quo, he told agents. “That is why I literally had to fly to D.C. almost every week,” Kao later told the FBI. “Sometimes for a 15-minute meeting.”
But the FBI compiled emails, which ProPublica reviewed, that were suggestive of illegal bargains. Navatek executives and lobbyists spoke openly as if they were buying lawmakers’ assistance. In one back-and-forth, a lobbyist and a company executive described another senator as “fundamentally transactional” and having “a reputation as a pay-to-play office.”
In another message, Andy Winer, who former executives said was Navatek’s chief strategist, reminded Kao to budget money for political contributions based on how much the company wanted in congressional funding the following year.
Winer was his guide to the political underbelly, Kao said. A consummate insider, Winer had parlayed six years as chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii into a lucrative lobbying career with a firm called Strategies 360. One of Winer’s former colleagues compared him to the slick lobbyist on the Netflix show “House of Cards” who toggles between the political and corporate worlds.
In another email exchange scrutinized by the FBI, Kao asked Winer about making a $5,600 donation to nudge along a senator who seemed keen to work with Navatek: “Would that ‘help?’”
Winer, who had already donated himself, replied, “With my contribution, I think it sends the right message.” He suggested Kao split up his donation to be “less conspicuous.”
The method didn’t always work. Once, Kao complained that a senator had reneged on a deal and he ought to get his donations back.
“You should not feel aggrieved nor should you ever put that in writing,” Todd Webster, another lobbyist Navatek hired, replied. Webster did not respond to detailed questions.
Winer said he stopped working with Navatek following Kao’s arrest. “The political contributions I discussed with Kao were understood by me to be lawful political contributions. I never participated in, witnessed, or had knowledge of any illegal political contribution, bribe, or agreement to exchange a political contribution for an appropriation, contract, or other official action,” Winer said in an email to ProPublica. “I never advised Kao to make a contribution in exchange for official action.”
Strategies 360 has new ownership that did not oversee Winer while he represented Navatek, its CEO, John Oceguera, said.
Navatek employees began to notice members of Congress visiting their East Coast offices. “You would be like, ‘Oh, there’s this senator walking around,’ and we would get a picture with them,” one engineer recalled.
While some projects involved potentially meaningful research, Navatek’s bread and butter was R&D that went nowhere. As a slideshow prepared by an executive explained, “We thrive in the valley of death,” the term for the bureaucratic gap where research languishes without being developed into a product. The slideshow noted that none of the technology had ever actually been deployed.
The Office of Naval Research did not respond to a request for comment.
In Maine, Navatek was studying ways to modify small boats to reduce the “slamming” impact felt by passengers at high speeds. With the help of the University of Maine’s giant 3D printer, Navatek made a prototype and unveiled it at a press conference where a Guinness World Records representative declared it the world’s largest 3D-printed boat. But Navatek executives knew the Navy had no plans to use the new design, former employees said.
“[The work] got rolled into a few PowerPoint slides and a white paper, and that was the deliverable,” recalled one who worked on the project. “The boats weren’t delivered to the Navy — the Navy didn’t even want them.”
Kao to Collins: “Here to Help”
The first time Kao came face-to-face with Collins, in 2018, he told the FBI, he had to pay for the privilege.
Collins would not meet unless he agreed to donate to her campaign, he said. While it is not illegal for politicians to exchange face time for contributions — in this case, just a few thousand dollars — it was not the last time Collins would seek Kao’s support.
Navatek had been eager to expand beyond Hawaii, and Maine was a perfect beachhead — a small, coastal state hungry for high-tech jobs that happened to be represented by a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Collins, more than most appropriators, likes to trumpet the dollars she brings home.
To work with Collins, Navatek hired a lobbyist, Glen Mandigo, who also lobbied for the University of Maine and was tight with her office. Mandigo asked how much Navatek wanted in funding and how much Kao was willing to support Collins, Kao told the FBI. The University of Maine did not reply to a request for comment.
In that first meeting with Collins and her staff, Kao pitched an $8 million boat hull research project for Navatek and the university. Collins seemed supportive. Not long after, Mandigo called Kao and said Collins wanted him to bundle tens of thousands of dollars for her reelection, suggesting Navatek throw a fundraiser, Kao said.
In an email to ProPublica, Mandigo denied taking part in a pay-to-play arrangement.
“I did not advise Navatek officials, nor would I advise any client, that support from Sen. Collins was contingent on campaign donations,” Mandigo wrote. He said that in his 25 years of working with Collins and the Maine delegation, “I never saw or heard of such behavior from the Senator or her staff.” Clark, Collins’ deputy chief of staff, told ProPublica it was “wholly inaccurate” to say Mandigo was close to their office.
FBI agents had collected voluminous corporate records and email correspondence between Navatek and Collins’ inner circle. Much of that evidence aligned with the story they were now getting directly from Kao.
The FBI had spotted his out-of-the-blue donations in the summer of 2018, just before Collins included $8 million for Navatek’s proposal in the defense budget. Emails showed her staff made it clear to the Navy that it should send the money to Navatek. FBI agents also had evidence of Kao and Mandigo planning a fundraiser starting in April 2019. Their emails — with her scheduler and her campaign’s finance director — freely mixed talk of Navatek’s Collins-backed contract with plans to raise money for her.
The principals settled on hosting Collins for a publicity event at Navatek’s Maine headquarters in August 2019, where she posed for pictures with Kao and a model of the company’s experimental boat. Behind the scenes, the FBI saw in emails and company records, Kao orchestrated over $40,000 in donations from extended family in advance of the event. To avoid the legal cap on individual campaign contributions, the emails show, he told Collins’ team to reallocate his excess contributions to his father — which an agent highlighted and noted is against election law in a presentation to prosecutors — and sent them his father’s full name and address.
“This is perfect,” Amy Abbott, the reelection campaign finance director, emailed Kao after discussing his father’s contribution. “We are so grateful for ALL the Kao support!”
Before the event, Kao said, Collins, Abbott and another staffer met with him in private. One of the staffers told Kao the campaign expected more donations. It was in this meeting that Collins said, “You’ve seen me deliver,” he told the FBI.
Less than one month after the event, the Senate released a draft of the defense budget containing $21.5 million for Navatek’s pet projects in Maine. Kao emailed a Collins campaign fundraiser — who would in theory have nothing to do with a government contract — four days later, saying, “Thanks again for all the support from Sen Collins.”
“I’ve been involved in many tight races in the past and understand last minute ‘needs’ come up,” he continued. “We are here to help anyway we can … financially or whatever.”
Kao’s desire to donate even more money led to the fateful Corner Bakery meeting with the head of the Collins super PAC, called the 1820 PAC, Kao told the FBI. Unlike Collins’ campaign, which could accept only $5,600 per election from individuals, the super PAC could accept unlimited contributions.
The super PAC emailed Kao a memo before the meeting stressing the need to raise money with “urgency.” At the meeting, Kao and Reed, the super PAC’s chair, hammered out a deal for a six-figure donation, Kao told the FBI. Over email, Kao informed Reed of his shell company scheme, saying he had cleared it with his lawyer. “They are super vague and very difficult to get any background info on,” Kao reassured him. “Thanks for doing this,” Reed replied.
Emails Between Martin Kao and Scott Reed, Discussing Contributions to the Susan Collins Super PAC, 1820 PAC
“Hi Scott: Had a chance to discuss 1820 with my CFO and attorney last night. They are suggesting setting up a separate new LLC to make the donations. Name of new LLC: Society of Young Women Scientists and Engineers.
In my personal real estate investments, we often use LLCs that can be set up to “facilitate” transactions. They are super vague and very difficult to get any background info on. Totally legal and typically used in real estate transactions to conceal the identity of buyer/seller. Wanted to get your thoughts/concerns.”
—email from Martin Kao to Scott Reed, Nov. 22, 2019“Very smart and glad your counsel understands. Thanks for doing this.”
—email from Scott Reed to Martin Kao, Nov. 22, 2019“Great! We will proceed on getting this set up ASAP. Have a nice weekend.”
—email from Martin Kao to Scott Reed, Nov. 22, 2019The FBI spoke to the other Navatek executives at Corner Bakery, who confirmed the meeting took place. One, David Kring, the company’s top scientist, told ProPublica he had no memory of what was discussed.
The other, Duke Hartman, told an FBI agent it was just “a get to know you meeting” with the chair of the super PAC and they did not discuss the “particulars of a donation.” Agents, records show, came to believe Hartman was lying about his role in Kao’s pay-to-play operation and would name him as a formal subject of a future investigation. Hartman was not charged. He did not respond to a detailed request for comment.
A few weeks after the $150,000 check to the Collins super PAC cleared, in February 2020, Kao and his team met with Collins’ office and secured a new round of funding.
“We were very warmly received,” Kao reported to his colleagues in an email obtained by the FBI. “Excellent meeting. Total of $32M will be supported.” Records show the Senate allocated at least $10 million that year based on Navatek’s proposals.
Navatek’s ambitions peaked in mid-2020. As the company waited to see if Collins would survive her reelection campaign, executives prepared to ask their champion on the appropriations committee for even more funding the following spring, internal documents show.
Other documents from that time show the company was courting senators from seven additional states and gunning for more than $200 million in new appropriations. Navatek expected to have offices in more than a dozen states by the end of the following year, including a new 15,000-square-foot facility in the Portland, Maine, harbor.
Kao, meanwhile, closed on a $4.5 million beachside home in an exclusive Honolulu neighborhood; the backyard pool had a waterfall feature. He renamed the company Martin Defense Group after himself, joking that it would simplify his future takeover of Lockheed Martin.
“It was working well, and it would have continued to work well,” said Schiff, the former executive. “Martin got greedy. Just got damn greedy.”
Downfall, Cover-up
In early 2020, the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit good government group, noticed something strange in the public filings for the Collins super PAC. The PAC had received a $150,000 donation from a newly created LLC with a typo in its name: the Society of Young Women Scientist and Engineers, with no S at the end of “Scientist.”
This was the $150,000 Kao donated after the Corner Bakery meeting. The money had come from Navatek’s account, not Kao’s, violating a ban on government contractors making donations.
A check for $150,000 to the Collins super PAC 1820 from the Society of Young Women Scientist and Engineers — a shell company that obscured the actual donor.
The center suspected the society was not a real group but a pass-through to hide the identity of a major political donor. It filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. It took only a few days for a Hawaii journalist to discover Kao’s wife’s name on the society’s paperwork, linking the shell company to Navatek.
Inside Navatek, Kao shifted into damage control mode. He spoke to Reed and the super PAC’s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, and began to hatch a cover-up. In an email released in civil litigation, Mitchell suggested the society make charitable donations — preferably in Maine — which would make it seem like a legitimate nonprofit. “I want to be sure that the LLC proceeds with the ideas we discussed — giving scholarships and recognition to women in engineering, etc.,” wrote Mitchell. “That would help both of us, I think.”
Mitchell added, “We should develop a plan and timetable, so there are some scholarships given over the next several months, and particularly, perhaps in Maine, where the bad press was.”
Mitchell, who later played a major role in Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, did not respond to requests for comment.
Kao and his team settled on donating scholarships to women in STEM. They offered between $5,000 and $25,000 apiece to state universities where they were angling to win government contracts — that way, the cover-up would benefit them politically, too.
But Navatek’s and Kao’s problems were just beginning. Undeterred by scrutiny from the FEC, Kao defrauded the COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program newly passed by Congress. He inflated Navatek’s payroll to amass loans of $13 million, according to a federal indictment. The Navatek founder, Loui, had long since soured on his chosen successor. This was the final straw. He reported Kao to federal authorities.
“This is not how Navatek behaved or conducted business before I sold the company to Martin Kao,” Loui wrote to ProPublica. He said Navatek was successful before Kao’s ownership and had many sources of government funding. After Kao’s arrest, he added, the company fully cooperated with law enforcement.
Loui has since regained control of the company and renamed it PacMar. He is dedicated to restoring its reputation and ability to execute government contracts, he continued. Loui said he fired employees hired during Kao’s tenure who were “not capable of performing quality, professional engineering and science tasks.”
“The company received no Collins-supported funding after Martin Kao’s arrest, nor should it,” Loui added. “What Martin Kao and his cabal did was wrong.”
On Sept. 30, 2020, law enforcement raided Navatek’s Honolulu offices and arrested Kao for fraud. Federal agents in windbreakers seized his laptop and ordered the company’s IT staff to copy the company’s internal servers.
Navatek’s public flameout attracted the attention of Michelle Ball and Kevin Gounaud, two experienced agents in the FBI’s elite anti-corruption unit. Gounaud was a 20-year FBI veteran who had worked on elaborate undercover operations. Ball had made a name for herself taking on politically sensitive cases. In 2018, she led the investigation into Maria Butina, the Russian agent convicted of infiltrating the National Rifle Association in an attempt to influence the Trump campaign.
The agents began digging through thousands of records for details of Navatek’s lobbying operation, donation strategy and ties to politicians.
They zeroed in on Kao’s relationship with Collins. In a 60-slide presentation agents prepared for prosecutors, they highlighted contributions that Kao and his wife made to the senator in 2018, right before Collins placed the $8 million in research funding into the federal budget. Kao had also given Navatek money to various relatives to donate to Collins in 2019, sending her around $33,000 through these illegal straw donors, the indictment said. Kao’s wife and father did not reply to requests for comment.
The government charged Kao in two separate cases: one for defrauding the loan program and another for his campaign finance crimes. His love of talking like a wheeler-dealer — including over email — was a gift to investigators. In one email, he all but admitted the scholarships to young women were a diversion. “Whatever… just a pack of bitches getting free $,” he wrote.
In the face of overwhelming evidence, Kao pleaded guilty in both cases in the fall of 2022. Navatek by then was under court-ordered new management. Awaiting sentencing, Kao worked as a line cook at a Cheesecake Factory.
He began meeting with the same FBI agents and prosecutors who brought him down. For the agents, he was a rare witness: a contractor with deep ties to elected officials saying he would speak candidly about how Washington works.
Kao faced nearly a decade in prison. “My world and life imploded,” he would later recall in a letter to the Hawaii U.S. District Court. “I was fooled and foolish enough to believe that the power elected officials wielded, and [were] actively willing to sell to anyone wealthy enough to pay, was….‘smart business.’”
Over the next two years, Kao sat with agents for at least three dayslong interviews. He told them that politicians, Collins in particular, had been willing participants in his scheme. “It takes two to tangle,” he told them.
Taxpayers funded Navatek’s entire political operation, Kao said. “Most companies of our size do not have the resources to endlessly hire expensive lobbyists and make political donations,” he told the FBI. Navatek solved this by using money from government contracts to hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions, according to interviews, court testimony and internal company records. Diverting money from contracts for lobbying and political donations can be illegal.
For their final meeting, in September 2024, Kao handed the FBI the 50-page document detailing Navatek’s dealings with more than a dozen members of Congress and their staff. It was not only a confession but a road map, with the email addresses and phone numbers of people Kao thought agents ought to subpoena.
Last year, Kao was sentenced to 87 months in prison. The judge in his case offered no leniency based on his cooperation with the FBI. Loui is battling Kao in court to recover the millions he contends Kao stole from the company.
Both Scott Reed and Amy Abbott remain in Collins’ inner circle. Abbott is the finance director for her 2026 reelection effort, and Reed again chairs the main Collins super PAC. Abbott, who is married to Collins’ campaign manager, referred questions to the senator’s communications staff. Clark told ProPublica that Abbott and other campaign staff were interviewed by the FBI and that the campaign was never a target of the investigation.
Earlier this year, Kao agreed to meet a ProPublica reporter at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, where he is incarcerated. But on two occasions when guards summoned Kao over the intercom, he refused to enter the visitation room. Over email, he said he was no longer willing to meet, citing the ongoing litigation. He declined through his lawyer to respond to detailed questions.
By late 2024, Ball and Gounaud, the FBI agents, had come to believe there was enough evidence to warrant a broader investigation into bribery of members of Congress, according to a memo seen by ProPublica.
Before they could embark on their new mission, however, they became casualties of Trump’s retribution campaign.
Ball and Gounaud worked for the FBI’s elite anti-corruption unit known as CR-15, which specialized in investigating misconduct by elected officials. When Trump retook power, his new FBI director, Kash Patel, purged the unit agent by agent.
Ball was targeted for her work on the special counsel investigation of Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election. She was fired in October 2025 in a one-page letter stating she had “weaponized” the Justice Department. She is challenging her firing in a lawsuit. Gounaud was pushed out in early 2026. Both agents declined to comment through their attorney.
Trump also targeted the Justice Department attorneys who worked with CR-15. The team, known as the Public Integrity Section, collapsed spectacularly in February 2025 after staff were ordered to drop a case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Trump ally. The unit’s leadership quit en masse. Trump appointees ordered the remaining prosecutors to halt new corruption cases, just months after Kao made his detailed confession.
Before Ball was fired, however, she managed to take a key step forward.
Based on all the evidence, she persuaded her supervisors to approve a new investigation. It centered on South Carolina, one of the states Navatek eyed for a rapid expansion. The FBI had questions about a steak dinner Kao shared with Sen. Lindsey Graham.
-
‘We hope he’ll accept’: US invites Putin to G20 summit at Trump golf club
Kremlin yet to respond publicly to US invitation that is likely to raise concerns from Ukraine and EU countries
The United States has invited Vladimir Putin to take part in the meeting of the G20 scheduled in Miami in December in what would be the first major summit with the Russian leader present since he launched his invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The invitation, which marks a significant reversal by the Trump administration of Russia’s international isolation, was announced by Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, during a press conference on the sidelines of the United Nations conference in New York.
Continue reading... -
Un colloque pour défendre la Cour pénale internationale, «mortellement menacée» par Trump
À l’initiative de l’eurodéputée Chloé Ridel et du député écologiste Pouria Amirshahi, une rencontre a été organisée à l’Assemblée nationale pour soutenir les juges de la CPI, dont neuf d’entre elles et eux sont visés par des sanctions états-uniennes. Une atteinte à leurs droits permise par la passivité des dirigeants européens. -
The Guardian view on the future of the UN: more embattled, but more necessary, than ever | Editorial
As the secretary general, António Guterres, prepares to step down, the general assembly is highlighting the scale of the organisation’s challenges
The United Nations was created, its charter states, to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Donald Trump used his address to the general assembly to threaten Iran, another member state, with annihilation again. The charter also speaks of the obligations of international law. On Venezuela, Mr Trump gloated that “to the victor belong the spoils”. His speech in New York on Tuesday might be regarded as an improvement on last year’s only in that it was not an explicit, full-scale attack on the UN itself, merely on its founding principles.
The absences this year are perhaps as telling as the US president’s hostile presence. Vladimir Putin has not attended for more than a decade. Nor has Xi Jinping – but the snub is more striking as he is in Washington to meet the US president. India’s Narendra Modi is not present; nor are Cyril Ramaphosa, Bola Tinubu or Abdel Fatah al-Sisi – the leaders of Africa’s three giants, South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt. While their reasons are various, the gaps speak collectively to Mr Trump’s wrecking capability and the broader challenges faced by the UN.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Continue reading... -
No signs Chagos deal can be adapted to suit Trump, say UK officials
Agreement with Mauritius over Diego Garcia unlikely to be revived unless president changes his mind, insiders believe
The Chagos Islands deal is on hold for as long as Donald Trump objects to it, UK officials believe, with no immediate signs it can be adapted to suit the US president.
After Trump savaged the three-way plan as “a terrible deal” during a meeting with Andy Burnham at the UN general assembly, the prime minister said he was “confident” the UK would be able to find a solution to revive the idea.
Continue reading... -
Israël en guerre de communication
Pour un régime génocidaire, la guerre informationnelle est un enjeu majeur, au même titre que l'offensive militaire.
L’article Israël en guerre de communication est apparu en premier sur Contre Attaque.
-
Ben Jennings on Andy Burnham’s meeting with Donald Trump – cartoon
-
E. Jean Carroll: «Les femmes qui parlent ne cherchent pas à devenir célèbres»
Elle a attaqué en justice le président états-unien, qu’elle accuse de l’avoir violée. Trump l’a traitée de «cinglée» et de «menteuse». Elle a gagné deux fois devant la justice. La journaliste états-unienne E. Jean Carroll est l’invitée de «Mediapart». -
Iran’s president hits out at ‘bully’ Trump in UN speech but signals willingness to talk
Masoud Pezeshkian says Tehran is ready for dialogue and diplomacy ‘but without the language of force’
Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, turned the tables on Donald Trump, describing America as the true bully and terrorist in the Middle East while also insisting that Iran had always shown a commitment to the negotiating table.
In a defiant speech to the UN general assembly in New York, his first since the US and Israel launched an all-out war on Iran, Pezeshkian repeatedly vowed that Tehran would never bend the knee to America.
Continue reading... -
Has Burnham proved he can handle Trump? - The Latest
Andy Burnham has navigated his way through a first high-stakes meeting with Donald Trump at the UN general assembly in New York. The prime minister’s aides were delighted with how the meeting went, as Trump praised the US-UK relationship and described Burnham as a ‘natural businessman’. The anticipated sticking points – the Chagos Islands, West Bank settlement sanctions and Ireland – appear not to have derailed the talks nor cast a shadow over the future relationship. Lucy Hough speaks to policy editor Kiran Stacey – watch on YouTube
Continue reading... -
Trump Tyranny Tracker | Day 603-605: Sept. 18-20, 2026
Demonstrators gather outside of the Kennedy Center in protest of Trump’s takeover and closure of the building. (Craig Hudson for The Washington Post)Welcome to today’s Trump Tyranny Tracker…
Trump officials expanded their focus on the midterms, Trump blocked major news organizations from the White House, and Americans facing more increases in everyday costs are among the top stories this weekend.
This Weekend at a Glance
Election Pressure — DHS circulated a list of jurisdictions providing multilingual voting materials alongside DOJ guidance for prosecuting election crimes.
Press Suppression — Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over coverage he dislikes.
Affordability Crisis — Prices continue rising as mortgage rates near 7% and wages fail to keep pace with inflation.
What We Need to Pay Attention To
A DHS email raises new questions about the Trump administration’s election plans
What Happened: An internal DHS email included a 78-page list of states and counties that provide voting materials in languages other than English, along with DOJ guidance on prosecuting election crimes. DHS is also putting more resources into investigating noncitizen voting ahead of the midterms.
Why It Matters: Federal law requires many states to provide voting materials in other languages. Using immigration or criminal enforcement against these communities is meant to intimidate eligible voters and discourage them from voting.
Source: NPR
Corruption
Secret contracts reveal undisclosed terms in Trump’s drug-pricing deals
What Happened: Confidential agreements with Pfizer and Eli Lilly reveal that Trump officials gave pharmaceutical companies tariff protections and other benefits, and encouraged them to raise drug prices overseas. Key details about pricing and what the companies received in return were redacted.
Source: The Washington Post
‘My Money:’ Trump’s Claim That He Controls MAGA Super PAC Draws Watchdog Complaint
What Happened: The Campaign Legal Center filed an FEC complaint accusing Trump of violating campaign finance law by directing the spending of MAGA Inc., a super PAC with more than $400 million. Trump has repeatedly called it “my money that I control” and said he decides how it is spent.
Why It Matters: Trump reportedly is violating campaign finance law while the agency responsible for enforcing it has been gutted and cannot investigate him. This is the lawlessness and corruption that happens when government watchdogs are purged.
Source: New York Times
Power Consolidation
It’s illegal for armed federal officers to be at polls. Lawsuits seek to ensure that
What Happened: Two lawsuits are seeking to block federal officers from polling places after Trump officials repeatedly left open the possibility of deploying them during the midterms. Federal law restricts armed federal personnel at polls, and the Voting Rights Act prohibits voter intimidation.
Why It Matters: Armed federal agents at polling places are meant to intimidate voters. Using federal law enforcement around voting is an authoritarian tactic designed to make people afraid to exercise their rights.
Source: NPR
State blames mail delivery issues for dozens of ballots from rural Alaska not counting in primary
What Happened: Seventy-five ballots cast in person in seven rural Alaska communities arrived too late to be counted in the August primary because of mail delays. Election officials are changing how the ballots are routed for the general election to prevent it from happening again.
Source: Associated Press
Weaponization of Institutions
White House budget chief pushes for scrutiny of NIH grants in Oval Office clash
What Happened: Russell Vought pushed Trump to create a White House commission to review NIH research grants and reject funding that conflicts with Trump’s priorities. Political appointees would have control over billions of dollars in biomedical research funding normally awarded through scientific peer review.
Why It Matters: Trump and Vought are using federal research funding to control what scientists can study. Scientists are being forced to conform to his political agenda or lose funding.
Source: The Washington Post
Attorney General Blanche’s appearances at political events blur Justice Department boundaries
What Happened: Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared at a Republican Senate campaign rally and the GOP midterm convention, where he praised Trump and promoted Republican positions on crime and the economy. DOJ says the appearances were in his personal capacity and were cleared by ethics officials.
Why It Matters: The attorney general controls the country’s most powerful federal law enforcement agency. Campaigning for a political party erases the separation between enforcing the law and partisan politics.
Source: Associated Press
Media Suppression & Authoritarian Tactics
CNN, MS NOW, Politico say their journalists have been denied access to the White House
What Happened: Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House after accusing them of producing negative and “fake” coverage. Reporters from all three outlets were denied entry and had their press credentials disabled or confiscated.
Why It Matters: Banning news organizations from the White House because Trump does not like their coverage is a direct attack on press freedom and the First Amendment. Using government power to punish and intimidate the press is straight out of an authoritarian playbook.
Source: The Hill
Disney says Trump threats against reporters should prompt court to block FCC action
What Happened: Disney and ABC asked a federal court to block the FCC’s early review of eight ABC station licenses, arguing FCC Chair Brendan Carr is carrying out Trump’s demands against broadcasters whose coverage he dislikes. The FCC ordered the reviews one day after Trump called for ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel, even though the licenses were not due for renewal until 2028.
Source: Reuters
Human & Civil Rights Abuses
ICE agent shoots and wounds man in Austin, Texas, officials say
What Happened: An ICE agent shot 28-year-old Venezuelan Wilber Rafael Garces Perez during a traffic stop in Austin, leaving him seriously wounded. Mayor Kirk Watson called for an independent investigation rather than allowing ICE to investigate the shooting itself.
Source: Politico
Trump officials sending undocumented children to Texas sparks fears of mass deportation
What Happened: More than 90% of unaccompanied children entering new immigration proceedings in August were sent to Texas shelters that operate without state licenses and where very few children have lawyers. Federal officials are looking for additional facilities that could hold up to 3,000 children.
Why It Matters: Trump officials are sending children to unlicensed facilities where most don’t have lawyers while ICE is preparing to detain thousands more. Children are being stripped of basic protections and put through a detention system that will cause lasting psychological trauma.
Source: The Guardian
US appeals court rejects Trump policy allowing swift deportations to third countries
What Happened: A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that Trump’s policy allowing migrants to be rapidly deported to third countries without enough time to raise safety concerns is unlawful. More than 25,000 migrants have been sent to at least 29 countries under Trump’s third-country deportation agreements.
Source: Reuters
Men deported from US bound and beaten in Equatorial Guinea detention hotel, lawyers say
What Happened: Two men deported from the U.S. to Equatorial Guinea were bound, hooded, beaten and taken to prison after speaking about conditions at the hotel where U.S. deportees are being held, according to witnesses and human rights lawyers. About 30 other deportees are still being held there, many without legal status or ties to the country.
Why It Matters: The U.S. sent people to a country known for torture and arbitrary detention. Now people deported by the U.S. are being bound, beaten, and imprisoned there.
Source: The Guardian
Government Disruption
Hill investigates after F-35 parts diverted to Hong Kong
What Happened: F-35 components being shipped from Australia to the U.S. for repairs were diverted to Hong Kong, and some remain missing. The shipment included a cockpit canopy containing stealth technology. Congress and the Pentagon are investigating what happened.
Why It Matters: This is a surreal national security failure. Sensitive F-35 technology was diverted to Hong Kong, and some parts disappeared. The Pentagon still does not know who has the missing components or whether China got access to the technology.
Source: Politico
US military had close call after using AI for false intelligence report, sources say
What Happened: The U.S. military prepared to intercept and potentially board a Chinese ship after an AI-assisted intelligence report falsely identified its cargo as components for a nuclear weapons program. Military aircraft were already in the air when officials discovered the intelligence was false and stopped the operation.
Why It Matters: The same AI Trump sees no need to regulate produced false intelligence that nearly got the U.S. military into war with China. Aircraft were already in the air and armed troops were preparing to board. Nothing to see here.
Source: CNN
US judge strikes down Education Department’s anti-DEI grant policy
What Happened: A federal judge struck down the Education Department policy used to cancel more than 90% of grants in two teacher training programs, finding that it provided no clear standard for what counted as DEI and was “arbitrary and capricious.” More than $600 million in grants had been canceled under the policy.
Source: Reuters
Judge rules EPA illegally terminated $7 billion solar program intended to help poorer Americans
What Happened: A federal judge ruled that Trump’s EPA illegally terminated the $7 billion Solar for All program, which was designed to bring solar power to more than 900,000 lower-income households. The judge found that EPA did not have the authority to cancel grants Congress had already funded.
Source: Associated Press
Census Bureau Directs Staff to Keep Quiet During Comment Period for Controversial New Rule
What Happened: Census Bureau leadership ordered employees to halt outside events related to the 2030 Census during the public comment period for a proposed rule that would exclude many noncitizens from the population count and eliminate race and ethnicity questions.
Source: Talking Points Memo
Imperial & Geopolitical Watch
Trump Ramps Up Bid to Dismantle International Criminal Court
What Happened: Trump officials are preparing sanctions against the International Criminal Court that would block most transactions with the court and cut it off from U.S. dollars and much of the global financial system. Trump has already sanctioned individual ICC judges and prosecutors.
Why It Matters: Trump is trying to cripple the court responsible for prosecuting war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. That includes cases involving Russia’s genocidal invasion of Ukraine and the arrest warrant for Putin.
Source: Wall Street Journal
U.S. Probes Iran Link to Cyberattacks on Texas-Bound Energy Tankers
What Happened: U.S. officials are investigating whether Iran was behind cyberattacks on two energy tankers traveling through the Strait of Gibraltar toward Texas. The Coast Guard and FBI boarded both vessels after they reached the Gulf of Mexico to investigate and secure their systems.
Source: Wall Street Journal
What to know after a week of Houthi attacks that threaten Saudi oil and have rattled world markets
What Happened: Iran-backed Houthis seized the strategic Yemeni port of Mokha and nearby Red Sea islands while attacking Saudi oil infrastructure and shipping. The fighting has displaced roughly 125,000 Yemenis and added pressure to global fuel prices.
Source: Associated Press
Far-Right & Russian Influence Watch
Russia Aims to Inject Chaos Into Elections, U.S. Intelligence Finds
What Happened: U.S. intelligence found that the Kremlin authorized a new online influence campaign targeting the November midterms, using covert disinformation to deepen divisions and undermine confidence in the election. Russia’s AI-generated videos are also targeting candidates in battleground Senate races.
Source: New York Times
Economic News
Farmer who voted for Trump talks about impact of high costs of Iran war, tariffs: “We’re all just in survival mode”
What Happened: North Carolina farmer Matt Bell says his diesel costs have nearly doubled from last year while prices on fertilizer, equipment, seeds and other expenses have also increased. Bell, who voted for Trump, says some farmers are considering leaving the industry because they can no longer afford the rising costs.
Why It Matters: Higher fuel, fertilizer and equipment costs are making it more expensive to produce food. Those higher costs will mean higher prices for Americans at the grocery store.
Source: CBS News
Weeks Before the Midterms, Almost Everything Is Getting More Expensive
What Happened: Consumer prices are up 3.4% from a year ago, gasoline is near its highest level since 2022, mortgage rates are approaching 7%, and wages have failed to keep pace with inflation for five straight months. The Federal Reserve also raised interest rates for the first time in three years, adding to borrowing costs.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Resistance
Check out 50501 for local and nationwide events…
Source: 50501
Protesters form human chain at Kennedy Center amid Trump’s threats to demolish it
What Happened: Thousands protested outside the Kennedy Center after Trump threatened to close or “rip down” the center unless he gets recognition for its renovation. A federal judge has blocked Trump’s name from being added to the building and ordered 30 days’ notice before any demolition.
Source: ABC News
By the Numbers
$400+ million — Money controlled by MAGA Inc., the super PAC Trump says is “my money”
90%+ — Unaccompanied children entering new immigration proceedings who were sent to Texas shelters in August
25,000+ — Migrants sent to at least 29 third countries under Trump’s deportation agreements
$7 billion — Solar for All program Trump’s EPA illegally terminated
$600+ million — Teacher training grants canceled under the Education Department’s anti-DEI policy
3.4% — Increase in consumer prices over the past year
Nearly 7% — Current mortgage rates
5 months — Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation
What to Watch Next
Trump is expanding control in the midterms — What other federal agencies will be pulled into election enforcement before November?
Trump is banning news organizations from the White House — Will more outlets lose access over coverage he does not like?
Russia has launched another operation targeting the midterms — What other Russian influence operations will U.S. intelligence uncover?
Prices are rising while wages fall behind — How much more will Americans pay as higher fuel costs, tariffs, and interest rates spread through the economy?
Key Takeaways
Election Control — DHS is putting more resources into election enforcement as Trump officials refuse to rule out sending federal agents to polling places.
Media Suppression — Trump banned three major news organizations from the White House while the FCC faces accusations that it is using licensing power against broadcasters he dislikes.
Government Weaponization — Trump officials are pushing political control over scientific funding while the attorney general campaigns for Republicans.
Immigration Cruelty — Children are being sent to unlicensed facilities with little access to lawyers while thousands of migrants have been deported to third countries.
Affordability Crisis — Prices are up, mortgage rates are nearing 7%, wages have fallen behind inflation for five straight months, and farmers are warning that rising costs are becoming impossible to absorb.
Call to Action
Document Everything: Document purges, corruption, and power grabs. Share credible information with journalists, watchdogs, and legal experts. Silence enables authoritarianism—see something, say something.
Defend Press Freedom: Support independent journalism by subscribing to and sharing reporting that challenges Trump’s power grab.
Mobilize for Action: Organize or join legal efforts and resistance movements to protect democracy and human and civil rights.
Support Whistleblowers: Encourage legal defense funds for government workers facing retaliation for exposing corruption.
Follow my work on YouTube → Subscribe to Unmasking Russia
https://youtube.com/@unmaskingrussia
Thanks for reading the Trump Tyranny Tracker. Stay tuned for more updates.
-
Accor lève le voile sur le futur de l’expérience client dans l’hôtellerie avec son assistant IA « All Concierge », disponible dans 11 langues
Comptant 45 marques dans son portefeuille, présent dans plus de 110 pays, avec plus de 5 800 hôtels, 10 000 restaurants et bars, des espaces de wellness et de coworking, Accor, acteur majeur de l’hôtellerie, n’est plus à présenter. Aujourd’hui, ce n’est pas pour ses chiffres que le groupe français fait la une, mais pour sa stratégie autour de l’intelligence artificielle. Conscient des chamboulements liés à l’adoption généralisée de cette technologie, notamment en matière d’expérience client, il prend les devants et annonce le lancement généralisé de son assistant conversationnel « ALL Concierge » après une phase pilote réussie.
-
Vidéo : les F-16 ukrainiens engagent le combat au canon face aux drones russes rapides Gueran-5
Des vidéos diffusées ces derniers jours disent montrer des F-16 ukrainiens détruisant des drones russes Gueran-5 à courte distance, au canon de 20 mm. Une méthode payante, mais risquée, qui trahit surtout une pénurie de missiles.
-
La marche climat du 26 septembre devient « statique » à Paris à cause de la venue du Pape
La venue du Pape à Paris a mis à l'arrêt la marche climat prévue samedi 26 septembre à Paris. « C'est désormais validé par la préfecture. Le rendez-vous parisien sera finalement statique », ont déclaré les organisateurs de la marche pour « le vivant, la paix et la justice sociale ». Le nouveau rendez-vous est fixé place de la République de 17 à 20 heures.
Lire la suite - En bref / Luttes
Si le rassemblement parisien sera immobile, 260 autres manifestations sont prévues à travers la France le 26 septembre. Des marches (…) -
IA : le grand enfumage
L'IA va-t-elle résoudre tous nos problèmes ? C'est ce qu'essaient de nous faire croire les dirigeants des grosses entreprises tech qui la développent. Pourtant, entre les bouleversements du marché du travail, le coût écologique des data centers, ou les… -
« Requiem pour Gaza » : dire l’indicible
Requiem pour Gaza, qui réunit des textes du reporter Chris Hedges et des bandes dessinées de Joe Sacco, restitue les témoignages d’exilés de Gaza. La force du livre ne réside pas tant dans l’accumulation de récits terrifiants que dans la volonté de nommer… -
Palestine. La responsabilité des États tiers dans le génocide
Source : Orient XXI - Afrique du Nord-Moyen-Orient -
Du grand ménage à la chute : l'itinéraire chaotique de Tiffany Joncour à la tête du RN du Rhône
Source : Rue89Lyon
Payant -
Vol vers le Ghana : expulsés des États-Unis vers un pays où ils n'étaient jamais allés (Anglais)
-
Has Burnham proved he can handle Trump? - The Latest
Andy Burnham has navigated his way through a first high-stakes meeting with Donald Trump at the UN general assembly in New York. The prime minister’s aides were delighted with how the meeting went, as Trump praised the US-UK relationship and described Burnham as a ‘natural businessman’. The anticipated sticking points – the Chagos Islands, West Bank settlement sanctions and Ireland – appear not to have derailed the talks nor cast a shadow over the future relationship. Lucy Hough speaks to policy editor Kiran Stacey – watch on YouTube
Continue reading... -
What The Trump Administration Can Do Right Now To Lower Gas Prices
Saturday night, Ukraine attacked the Kapotnya refinery in Moscow. At a time when the supply chain is already stretched, the news is extremely unwelcome. Here are some things we can do to mitigate increased energy costs. If you have bothered to fill up a diesel tank lately you cannot help but notice that things have gotten really expensive. Diesel is selling at all-time highs, with the national average about $6.30 per gallon. California is even worse, averaging $8.00 per gallon. Ships, trucks, and trains rely heavily on diesel and if it gets more expensive, nearly everything else does. -
Trump Backs Temporary Diesel Export Ban as Fuel Costs Ripple Through Economy
With diesel regularly notching up record highs, President Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on exports of the fuel from the United States. He was reminded that several Republican senators had called for a diesel export ban at the U.N. during a joint press conference with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "Well, I've called for that too. I've said, let's not send out the diesel," Trump said on Sept. 22... -
Trump’s UN speech was delusional and dangerous | Kenneth Roth
It is sad and dangerous that at such a perilous moment, the United States is saddled with a president like Trump
Donald Trump’s speech on Tuesday to the United Nations general assembly was an object lesson in his lawless rule and remarkable capacity for self-delusion. Disregarding the UN charter’s emphasis on the peaceful resolution of disputes, he doubled down on his violent unilateralism while denigrating the global issues that the UN is designed to address.
For many, the headline remark was his musing about whether to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” of Iran. “Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”
Kenneth Roth is a Guardian US columnist, a senior fellow at Yale University and a former executive director of Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments
Continue reading... -
Gaza : les milices palestiniennes soutenues par Israël étendent leur emprise
-
America Must Win Back Its Global Standing
From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land," President Donald Trump declared in his inaugural address in January 2017. "From this moment on, it's going to be America First." An insular, populist nationalism, coupled with an antipathy toward globalist ideas and institutions, became the central theme and the clarion call of both his terms in the White House. President Trump has spent considerable energy lambasting the United Nations, an institution the United States helped create 80 years ago and has shaped ever since. He has derided it as an "unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy," and little more than "a talking shop."... -
Revue de presse Septembre 2026
Les articles :
«L’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires est devenu un monstre technologique» paru dans Les echos du 19 août 2026, article ci-dessous
Les fouilles sur le site Cigéo à Bure révèlent « un fossé monumental » : https://www.estrepublicain.fr/videos/les-fouilles-sur-le-site-cigeo-a-bure-revelent-un-fosse-monumental-3ku0z5f
« Le nucléaire a contribué à faire croire que l’on pouvait avoir une croissance matérielle infinie » : interview d’Anne Pottin sur Politis : https://www.politis.fr/articles/2026/09/entretien-ange-pottin-le-nucleaire-a-contribue-a-faire-croire-que-lon-pouvait-avoir-une-croissance-materielle-infinie/
«L’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires est devenu un monstre technologique»
Pour Robert Charlier, professeur émérite à l’ULiège et membre du comité scientifique de l’Andra, enfouir les déchets nucléaires n’est pas raisonnable. Il réclame un vrai débat sur le sujet.
Robert Charlier appelle à un véritable débat sociétal sur les déchets les plus radioactifs et à longue durée de vie. «La question est trop critique pour que le citoyen ne s’en occupe pas.» © SASKIA VANDERSTICHELE
Est-ce bien raisonnable d’enfouir sous terre une énorme poubelle qui va rester toxique pendant des dizaines de milliers d’années, voire plus, un temps bien plus long que celui qui nous sépare des grottes de Lascaux? Moi, je trouve cela glaçant», lance Robert Charlier, qui a travaillé une bonne partie de sa carrière sur l’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires. Professeur émérite de l’ULiège, il est, depuis 2023, membre du conseil scientifique de l’Andra, l’organisme public français chargé de la gestion des déchets radioactifs, l’équivalent de l’Ondraf. Et il a longtemps hésité à prendre la parole publiquement. «J’ai décidé de m’exprimer, parce que j’estime que le sujet des déchets nucléaires n’est pas suffisamment débattu. Petit à petit, je me rends compte que j’ai des collègues qui se posent les mêmes questions, mais qui ne l’expriment qu’en privé. Ce n’est pas facile de défendre des points de vue alternatifs. Mais je veux prendre mes responsabilités.»
Une longue réflexion
Lui-même a pris du temps pour nourrir sa réflexion. Ingénieur en construction, spécialiste de la géomécanique – la science qui étudie le comportement des sols et des roches – il commence à travailler sur les déchets nucléaires dans les années 1990. Après un post-doctorat à Grenoble, il dirige une première thèse sur les laboratoires souterrains pour l’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires, puis participe à un premier projet européen sur le sujet. «Après, à l’ULiège, nous avons eu de manière quasi continue des projets européens et des contrats avec des agences belges comme l’Ondraf et le SCK-CEN, mais aussi l’Andra en France.» Une période durant laquelle Robert Charlier se concentre sur son domaine d’expertise, et se pose peu de questions sur les autres dimensions de la problématique. «Comme chercheur, on creuse son sillon. Et comme prof d’unif, plus les années passent, plus on a d’engagements. J’ai eu une vie trépidante, mais durant laquelle il était difficile de prendre du recul.» Quelques années avant sa retraite, il commence toutefois à élargir son champ de vision. «Ma collègue Céline Parotte, du département de science politique, m’a alors fait découvrir un ‘serious game’ sur l’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires, qui consiste à mettre autour d’une table des personnes qui n’ont pas de connaissances sur le sujet, et à les faire réfléchir.» Ce jeu, il va le pratiquer à plusieurs reprises, avec des étudiants ingénieurs et en science po, mais aussi parfois avec des élèves du secondaire ou le grand public. «Cela ouvre les yeux. Cela permet de se poser des questions qu’on ne se posait pas nécessairement avant.»
Une problématique trop complexe
Une fois pensionné, il y a cinq ans, il décide d’arrêter ses activités dans le domaine. À une exception près: il rejoint le conseil scientifique de l’Andra, qui compte une douzaine de membres, avec des profils et des parcours très variés. «Là, j’ai vraiment découvert la largeur du spectre, perçu la complexité de la problématique, et entendu des points de vue qui parfois m’éclairaient, parfois me sidéraient ou m’inquiétaient.» Sa conviction, aujourd’hui? «Pour les déchets les plus toxiques et avec une longue durée de vie, une question philosophique se pose. L’enfouissement géologique est un sujet d’une complexité telle que personne ne le maîtrise. Et donc, on se retrouve face à un monstre technologique, vu l’ampleur de tout ce qu’il faut contrôler. Il y aura des failles, parce que plus un système est complexe, plus le risque de failles augmente. Je pense que ce n’est pas une solution raisonnable.» On demande à Robert Charlier des exemples de failles potentielles. Il pointe la question des gaz.
«Une partie des déchets sont stockés dans des fûts en acier inoxydable – inoxydable à l’échelle humaine, mais qui va s’oxyder très lentement. Et une fois qu’on aura refermé les tunnels des sites de stockage, il n’y aura plus d’oxygène. L’acier va donc capturer celui de l’eau et libérer de l’hydrogène. Et si cet hydrogène s’accumule, il finira par fracturer la roche. J’ai commencé à travailler sur cette question il y a 20 ans. Et pour moi, elle n’est pas réglée.»
Des alternatives?
Il pointe aussi l’existence de déchets dont on sait qu’on ne pourra pas les stocker en profondeur, dans l’état actuel des choses. «Et dans les projets de nouvelles centrales, notamment des SMR, il y aura encore plus de production de déchets dont on ne sait absolument pas que faire.» Quand on lui fait remarquer qu’il faut à tout le moins trouver une solution pour les déchets déjà produits, et que l’enfouissement semble la plus raisonnable, il répond qu’il a lui-même longtemps tenu ce discours. «Mais, en réalité, on s’est concentrés sur cette option depuis près de 50 ans, et on a très peu travaillé sur les alternatives.» Mais quelles sont les alternatives? «Il existe des recherches sur la transmutation. L’idée, c’est de réduire la durée de la toxicité. Si on peut la ramener de 100.000 ans à 5.000 ans, ce n’est plus du tout la même chose, à l’échelle de l’humanité. Mais la plupart des travaux concluent que c’est possible, mais que ça va être compliqué, et donc, que ce n’est pas une bonne solution.»
Éviter de fermer des portes
La transmutation, c’est l’objectif du projet Myrrha, mené au centre de recherche nucléaire de Mol. On demande à Robert Charlier si on ne risque pas, en misant sur une solution de ce type, de se lancer dans une fuite en avant et de perdre encore quelques dizaines d’années. Il rétorque que cela, c’est le discours du monde nucléaire, qui considère qu’il a une solution pour les déchets. «On nous dit l’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires, c’est Tina: there is no alternative. Et donc, on ne consacre pas beaucoup de financements à chercher d’autres pistes. Au contraire, on ferme des portes. Car si demain, on veut faire de la transmutation, la manière dont on traite les déchets n’est pas pertinente: il faudrait les séparer au maximum.» Et durant les recherches, on peut très bien prolonger le stockage en surface, qui est de toute façon prévu pour plusieurs décennies, argumente-t-il.
Surtout, il réclame un vrai débat sociétal sur le sujet. «Notre société ne veut pas voir cette question, ou ceux qui gèrent ne veulent pas qu’on la voie. Parce que comment serait-il défendable aujourd’hui de construire de nouvelles centrales ou de poursuivre l’exploitation de centrales existantes si on reconnaît qu’on a des déchets aussi toxiques à gérer?» On évoque les changements climatiques, les environnementalistes qui sont devenus pronucléaires. «C’est une question qui n’est pas facile, et chacun a son projet de société. Mais a-t-on le droit de développer une technologie aussi dangereuse, alors qu’elle représente à peine 5% de l’énergie primaire consommée au niveau mondial?» Robert Charlier revient sur la question du débat sociétal. «Je pense que ceux qui sont en charge des déchets nucléaires ont peur des opposants radicalisés. Cela fait 20 ans que je visite régulièrement le laboratoire souterrain français à Bure. C’est impressionnant de voir comment les protections autour de l’entrée de ce laboratoire sont devenues de plus en plus imposantes. La présence policière augmente, il y a des vigiles partout. Et cela conduit à une polarisation du débat. Il est de plus en plus difficile de manifester, et il est de plus en plus difficile de discuter sereinement.» On lui fait remarquer qu’il y a tout de même, en Belgique et en France, eu un débat sociétal, même s’il n’a peut-être pas eu l’ampleur qu’il souhaiterait, qui a conduit à demander une réversibilité du stockage géologique. «En France, c’est un parlementaire, Christian Bataille, qui a réussi à créer un vrai débat sur la question, au début des années 1990. En Belgique, on avance par petits pas, avec des ministres qui ne se pressent pas pour gérer le dossier. Et concernant la réversibilité, j’ai entendu un membre du conseil scientifique de l’Andra dire que le principe de cette réversibilité n’avait été accepté que pour qu’on puisse créer le stockage souterrain.» Le sort des déchets nucléaires mérite un véritable débat, insiste-t-il. «La grande majorité des gens qui s’occupent de l’enfouissement sont des gens très sérieux, qui font leur métier en âme et conscience. Mais c’est un tout petit cercle. La question est trop critique pour que le citoyen ne s’en occupe pas.»
-
Anthropic sort Claude Opus 5.5, OpenAI réplique avec GPT-6 Sol et Luna : la bataille de l’IA est loin d’être finie
Alignement des planètes dans le doux monde de l’intelligence artificielle : OpenAI et Anthropic ont sorti le même jour leurs derniers modèles, GPT-6 Sol et Luna pour le premier, Claude Opus 5.5 pour le second. Une double sortie pour le moins inattendue au vu des récentes déclarations faites par les dirigeants des deux entreprises.
-
Après l'empreinte carbone, voici l'empreinte plastique
C'est l'angle mort des décisions environnementales. Des chercheuses ont créé l'« empreinte plastique particulaire », un indice pour (enfin) quantifier la dissémination des micro et nanoplastiques issue de la lente fragmentation des pneus, t-shirts en polyester, bouteilles...
Lire la suite - Entretien / Pollutions , Plastique
Le bilan carbone n'est pas le bon outil pour évaluer la pollution des objets en plastique. C'est ce que défendent des chercheuses françaises de l'Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et (…)
