Category: Selected Articles

Federal agencies are investigating at least two possible incidents on US soil, including one near the White House in November of last year, that appear similar to mysterious, invisible attacks that have led to debilitating symptoms for dozens of US personnel abroad.

Multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that while the Pentagon and other agencies probing the matter have reached no clear conclusions on what happened, the fact that such an attack might have taken place so close to the White House is particularly alarming.

Defense officials briefed lawmakers on the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on the matter earlier this month, including on the incident near the White House. That incident, which occurred near the Ellipse, the large oval lawn on the south side of the White House, sickened one National Security Council official, according to multiple current and former US officials and sources familiar with the matter.

In a separate 2019 episode, a White House official reported a similar attack while walking her dog in a Virginia suburb just outside Washington, GQ reported last year.

Those sickened reported similar symptoms to CIA and State Department personnel impacted overseas, and officials quickly began to investigate the incident as a possible “Havana syndrome” attack. That name refers to unexplained symptoms that US personnel in Cuba began experiencing in late 2016 – a varying set of complaints that includes ear popping, vertigo, pounding headaches and nausea, sometimes accompanied by an unidentified “piercing directional noise.”

Rumors have long swirled around Washington about similar incidents within the United States. While the recent episodes around Washington appear similar to the previous apparent attacks affecting diplomats, CIA officers and other US personnel serving in Cuba, Russia and China, investigators have not determined whether the puzzling incidents at home are connected to those that have occurred abroad or who may be behind them, sources tell CNN.

Defense officials who briefed lawmakers said it was possible Russia was behind the attacks, but they did not have enough information to say for sure. Another former US official involved in the investigation at the time said China was also among the suspects.

The US has struggled to understand these attacks since 2016 and 2017, when diplomatic and intelligence personnel in Cuba first began reporting alarming symptoms that seemed to appear out of the blue. Intelligence and defense officials have been reluctant to speak publicly about the strange incidents, and some who were impacted have complained publicly that the CIA did not take the matter seriously enough, at least initially.

The attacks eventually led to a dramatic drawdown of staff at the outpost in Havana under the Trump administration. Personnel in Russia and China reported similar, unexplained incidents. Though there’s no consensus as to what causes the symptoms, one State Department-sponsored study found they likely were the result of microwave energy attacks.

Another mystery surrounding “Havana syndrome” is how the US government is confronting the problem. Among those investigating the mysterious pattern of possible attacks are the CIA, the State Department and the Defense Department.

Near the end of the Trump administration, the Pentagon sought to take the lead out of perceived frustration that other agencies were not doing enough to address the issue.

“I knew CIA and Department of State were not taking this sh*t seriously and we wanted to shame them into it by establishing our task force,” Chris Miller, who was acting defense secretary at the time, told CNN last week.

Pentagon leaders set up the task force to track reports of such symptoms hitting Defense Department personnel overseas, an effort that Miller said was intended in part as a “bureaucratic power play” to force CIA and State to take the problem more seriously in their own personnel.

Miller said he began to see reports of these mysterious symptoms as a higher priority in December, after interviewing an alleged victim with extensive combat experience.

“When this officer came in and I knew his background and he explained in an extraordinarily detailed but more military style that I could understand, I was like this is actually for real,” Miller said. “This kid had been in combat a bunch and he knew.”

The CIA began its task force in December 2020, and expanded its efforts under new Director William Burns, who vowed during his confirmation hearings to review the evidence on the alleged attacks on CIA personnel overseas, which have long been publicly reported. The State Department named a senior official to lead the department’s response to the “Havana syndrome” attacks in March.

The Defense Department’s effort is thought to be among the most robust, potentially explaining why a defense official, rather than the intelligence community or the FBI, briefed lawmakers on the incident at the Ellipse, even though it took place on US soil.

Miller tapped Griffin Decker, a career civil servant from US Special Operations Command, to run the effort. Decker would track and verify reports in the military of what by then had become known informally as “Havana syndrome.” Miller says Griffin would report a new case to him “every couple of weeks,” although he cautioned that they were on the lookout for false reporting, psychosomatic episodes or hypochondria. Some of the cases they tracked included the children and dependents of Defense Department personnel overseas, Miller said.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines was asked about CNN’s reporting by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. Haines did not discuss the specifics but called the issue of the mysterious attacks “critically important” and added, “across the intelligence community, frankly, leaders are focused on this issue.”

Haines also defended the classification of information related to the attacks but said members of Congress “should certainly have access to the classified information.”

A White House spokesperson said in a statement, “The White House is working closely with departments and agencies to address unexplained health incidents and ensure the safety and security of Americans serving around the world. Given that we are still evaluating reported incidents and that we need to protect the privacy of individuals reporting incidents, we cannot provide or confirm specific details at this time.”

Decker and Jennifer Walsh, who was the acting under secretary of defense for policy, briefed House and Senate lawmakers over the last two weeks on the possible attacks, two sources familiar with the briefings told CNN. Politico first reported on the committee briefings.

In one incident that was investigated, Marines on a remote base in Syria developed flu-like symptoms shortly after a Russian helicopter flew over the base – raising immediate concerns that it could be one of these strange attacks. But “it was quickly traced, where they had bad food and where no one else on the base had the same symptoms,” said one former US official with knowledge of the incident. It was also determined by a defense physician that the symptoms had begun prior to the Russia patrol, a defense official told CNN.

The Syria episode highlights the difficulties that US officials face in trying to pin down what is and isn’t an attack. The symptoms often vary, and officials still have no clear sense of how the unknown adversary is doing what it’s doing. At least one former US official with knowledge of the matter said that investigators still haven’t completely ruled out the possibility that the symptoms are caused by some kind of naturally occurring phenomenon rather than a weapon.

Another US defense official confirmed that the Pentagon’s investigation is ongoing. The official would offer no details, but said, “We would not still be looking at this if we didn’t have equities in it.”

“There is nothing that the Secretary of Defense takes more seriously that the safety, health and welfare of our personnel serving around the globe in defense of our values and freedoms,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in a statement. “Any concerns on issues that call that into question are thoroughly reviewed, and the appropriate actions are taken to mitigate risks to our personnel.”

A March report from the National Academy of Sciences found that “directed, pulsed radiofrequency energy” was the most likely cause of the strange set of symptoms. While the report was carefully written not to overstate its findings, it offered some of the clearest public evidence to date that the incidents could be attacks, attributing the afflictions to “pulsed” or “directed” energy.

Some personnel have been seriously injured from the alleged attacks, with at least one career CIA officer forced to retire last year and diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury.

This story has been updated with comments from the White House and also the Director of National Intelligence.

As NATO leaders meet in Washington this week, Ukraine’s future is hanging in the balance.

Despite vows by alliance leaders to keep arming Ukraine in its fight to fend off invading Russian forces, the prospect of Donald Trump’s returning to the White House is casting a shadow over the summit. 

A Trump victory in the November presidential election could mean a dramatic decline in U.S. aid to Ukraine and American political pressure on Kyiv to bow to Russian demands in any peace talks, Western officials say. 

Trump has long avoided criticism of Russia’s invasion and questioned the value of the NATO alliance. His political allies have expressed skepticism about the large U.S. military aid packages provided to Ukraine.

Former national security aides to Trump have proposed a peace plan that would require major concessions from Ukraine, including forsaking the possibility of NATO membership for the foreseeable future.

Trump has offered no details about his position on Ukraine, other than to promise to bring the war to an end “before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency.” But he has not explained how he would end the war.

On a June podcast, Trump was asked whether he would rule out Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO. He replied that promising membership to Ukraine was a “mistake” and “really why this war started,” comments that seemed to echo Moscow’s talking points about the conflict.

In a statement, Trump campaign communications director Steven Cheung said, “President Trump has repeatedly stated that a top priority in his second term will be to quickly negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. President Trump believes European nations should be paying more of the cost of the conflict, as the U.S. has paid significantly more, which is not fair to our taxpayers. “

“The war between Russia and Ukraine never would have happened if Donald J. Trump were President. So sad.”

Republican Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, considered a possible running mate for Trump, has argued against sending tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Ukraine. In opposing the aid package Congress approved in April, Vance said that it would not be enough to shift the course of the war and that America’s defense industry could not produce enough weapons to meet Ukraine’s needs.

Trump’s campaign has said any policy proposals made by his supporters or former advisers are not endorsed by Trump.

European officials say exactly what Trump would do on Ukraine remains an open question, as his team has avoided offering any specifics about his plans. But they are worried.

The growing anxiety among European allies about a Trump victory is “completely understandable,” said John Herbst, a former ambassador to Ukraine and now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank. “Trump is something of a wild card.”

Ukrainian government officials seeking continued U.S. support have had to navigate a partisan minefield over the past year and have grown frustrated that the issue of arming Kyiv has become a pawn in America’s domestic politics.

They have viewed the Biden administration’s approach as too slow and too cautious, delaying the arrival of badly needed weapons. But they also fear what a second Trump presidency could mean for their cause, Western officials say.

For Kyiv, Trump’s plans are a mystery, said William Taylor, a career diplomat who was ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush and briefly charge d’affaires in Kyiv under Trump.

“They’re not entirely sure — no one is really sure — what former President Trump would do,” said Taylor, now with the U.S. Institute for Peace think tank.

Congress adopted the military aid package in April after months of delay, with a group of pro-Trump Republican lawmakers blocking its approval. But when Congress finally voted on the proposal, Trump did not weigh in publicly. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., credited Trump’s public silence with helping get the aid across the finish line.

A majority of Americans continue to support arming Ukraine, according to a new survey from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, with 57% in favor, 32% opposed and 11% unsure. The poll results were nearly identical to those of a survey conducted a year ago.

Emergency and rescue personnel, medics and others clear the rubble of Ohmatdyt Children’s Hospital following a Russian missile attack in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, on Monday.Roman Pilipey / AFP – Getty Images

Although Ukraine has been able to blunt a major Russian offensive near Kharkiv with weapons from the U.S. and European countries, its troops are outnumbered by Russia’s large ground force, and it is struggling to maintain its air defenses against a relentless Russian bombardment of missiles and drones.

On Monday, Russia launched the heaviest aerial attack on Kyiv in four months, striking a children’s hospital in the capital and other targets across the country, killing dozens of people and injuring more than 120, officials in Ukraine said.

To help Ukraine defend itself, NATO member states are prepared to pledge this week to keep spending about $43 billion a year on military equipment for Ukraine, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said last week.

“I expect allies will decide at the summit to sustain this level within the next year,” Stoltenberg told reporters.

President Joe Biden shakes hands with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 11, 2023. Susan Walsh / AP

The Biden administration and other European governments are expected to make announcements at the NATO summit this week about new military hardware for Ukraine, including possibly more Patriot missile defense systems, fighter jets and other weapons.

As for Ukraine’s future security arrangements, U.S. and European officials say they hope to hammer out a statement at the summit promising an “irreversible” path to NATO membership for Kyiv.

But that language may not be enough to secure Ukraine’s place in the NATO alliance if Trump is elected, said Tamar Jacoby, the Kyiv-based director of the New Ukraine Project at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank.

“If you want to be in the West, you have to be tied to the West, and indeed, you have to be ultimately protected by the West. And so, in a way, NATO membership is the most important thing that Ukrainians are fighting for,” Jacoby said.

NATO countries should adopt a binding measure that would guarantee Ukraine’s eventual membership in the alliance, to protect Ukraine after any possible armistice negotiated between Kyiv and Moscow, she said.

“If ever there was a time to Trump-proof a path into NATO for Ukraine, this would be the moment,” Jacoby said.

There’s been much talk about the gravity and impact of this month’s Supreme Court finding granting a former U.S. president presumptive immunity for “official” acts, and absolute immunity when exercising “core constitutional powers.” In the oral arguments preceding this decision, and in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the justices raised the scenario of a president getting away with ordering Navy SEALS to kill a political opponent, using the military to stage a coup or accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon. Chief Justice John Roberts called his colleagues’ remonstrations “extreme hypotheticals” and” fearmongering.”

There was nothing extreme in Sotomayor’s concerns, and her fears were justified. As a national security analyst, with 25 years as an FBI agent, I know we don’t need to engage in hypotheticals to lay out this ruling’s likely consequences. All we need to understand what a criminally immune Trump might do, with even one executive branch agency given carte blanche, is to remind ourselves what the nation learned about the FBI during the 1970s.

The great unraveling started in 1971, when a group of peace activists broke into a small FBI office in Media, Pa., and stole whatever files they could carry out. They suspected that the FBI was spying on anti-Vietnam war protestors, especially on college campuses. The files confirmed their suspicions, but unsure of what exactly they were looking at, they handed some of the files to reporters. One journalist, then-NBC reporter Carl Stern, was intrigued by a code word in the files: “COINTELPRO.” It would take years of dogged reporting, lawsuits to uncover documents and a number of congressional committee inquiries to fully learn the details of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s secret counterintelligence program to covertly address anything and anyone deemed to be a threat by Hoover or the presidents he served under.

For over a year, a special Senate committee chaired by Idaho Democrat Frank Church conducted 800 interviews, demanded documents and held public and closed-door hearings. What they learned shocked the nation. The Church Committee and other investigations confirmed that the FBI, the CIA and the NSA had been unlawfully spying on American citizens.

The FBI, with the approval of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and later with the encouragement of President Lyndon Johnson, illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders. The FBI sent a letter to King, using details uncovered in the wiretap, essentially blackmailing King and suggesting he kill himself. There were countless other “black bag jobs” where the FBI, without court authorization, broke into people’s homes, took evidence, opened and read mail, and planted microphones — all outside the law, because someone in power deemed those American citizens to pose some kind of threat.

In 1968 and into the 1970s, Hoover claimed the Black Panther Party was “the greatest threat to internal security of the United States.” (It wasn’t.) Hoover discussed the Black Panthers with then-President Richard Nixon and got the green light to go after them, when, as Nixon directed, “you sort of had the scent of the smell of a national conspiracy thing. You know, the kind of thing like the Panthers, and all that … ”  The FBI developed an informant to penetrate the Panthers’ Illinois chapter. In the evening of Dec. 3, 1969, the informant drugged Fred Hampton, one of the chapter’s rising leaders. Chicago police officers, coordinating with the bureau, raided Hampton’s apartment and fatally shot him as he slept.

Unsurprisingly, these sorts of actions did not stop at the Panthers. Nixon ordered the FBI to unlawfully wiretap members of the media without benefit of lawful court orders, simply because Nixon didn’t like those reporters. And, during the Watergate scandal, he ordered the CIA to tell the FBI to end their investigation into the illegal break-in directed by Nixon’s campaign.

Remember, it was Nixon who infamously said during an interview, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Nixon’s assertion was wrong back in the 1970s. Yet, with this month’s court ruling on absolute immunity, an American president can make that declaration with a straight face. If a president is acting within his Constitutional powers, they can tell the FBI to do almost anything to suppress any “threat” — real or imagined, political or not.

According to a Reuters report, Trump’s allies are already planning to give their candidate direct control of DOJ and the FBI so that they will no longer function independent of the White House. “Two prominent Trump allies told Reuters they support eliminating the FBI’s general counsel” — the office that flashes a red light whenever the bureau is about to do something unlawful. If that red light is removed, there’d be nothing standing between a president and a crime spree.

The Church Committee’s findings resulted in numerous regulations and policies that established guardrails to prevent the FBI and other intelligence agencies from unlawfully spying on Americans. The committee also established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to ensure that federal judges approve all national security wiretaps and covert search warrants. Today, a president could tell the FBI to ignore the formalities of the FISA court and simply spy on his enemies — without fear of criminal liability.

Do Sotomayor’s hypotheticals seem “extreme” now? They shouldn’t, because we’ve already “been there, done that” as a nation. If none of this troubles you, you’re not paying attention. Because some day, a president you don’t support can designate you, your friends, your employer or your favorite organization or news platform a threat. That president could direct the FBI to spy on those entities and people, and you won’t know about it until it’s too late. It’s happened before, and it can happen again.

WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) – President Joe Biden refused to abandon his reelection campaign on Monday as he sought to stave off a possible revolt by fellow Democrats who worry the party could lose the White House and Congress in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.

Separately, he told wavering Democratic lawmakers in a letter that they needed to close ranks behind his candidacy. Several have called for him to drop out, and more could do so now that lawmakers have returned to Washington after a break.

Biden faces a critical week as he tries to shore up a campaign that has been on defense since a shaky June 27 debate against Republican Donald Trump, which raised questions about his ability to do the job for another 4-1/2 years.

Though he has secured enough delegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination, some donors and lawmakers have called for him to step aside and let Vice President Kamala Harris or another candidate lead the ticket.

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers have voiced concern that his poor public approval ratings, plus concerns about his age and ability, could hurt the party’s prospects for retaining the Senate, which they control by a 51-49 majority, and winning back the House, where Republicans have a 219-213 majority.

Biden on Sunday made a series of campaign appearances in Pennsylvania, a battleground state that traditionally can decide an election. He was joined by Senator John Fetterman, a high-profile Democrat who has rejected calls for Biden to drop out.

He will have little time to campaign this week as he hosts a meeting of NATO member states, capped with a rare solo press conference on Thursday.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll last week found that one in three registered Democratic voters believed that Biden should quit the race, with 59% of respondents in the president’s party saying he is too old to work in government.

Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt, Jeff Mason, Nandita Bose, Steve Holland, Doina Chiacu, Moira Warburton, Richard Cowan and Andrea Shalal; Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Scott Malone and Howard Goller