Transistors, the building blocks of modern electronics, are typically made of silicon. Because it’s a semiconductor, this material can control the flow of electricity in a circuit. But silicon has fundamental physical limits that restrict how compact and energy-efficient a transistor can be.

MIT researchers have now replaced silicon with a magnetic semiconductor, creating a magnetic transistor that could enable smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient circuits. The material’s magnetism strongly influences its electronic behavior, leading to more efficient control of the flow of electricity. 

The team used a novel magnetic material and an optimization process that reduces the material’s defects, which boosts the transistor’s performance.

The material’s unique magnetic properties also allow for transistors with built-in memory, which would simplify circuit design and unlock new applications for high-performance electronics.

“People have known about magnets for thousands of years, but there are very limited ways to incorporate magnetism into electronics. We have shown a new way to efficiently utilize magnetism that opens up a lot of possibilities for future applications and research,” says Chung-Tao Chou, an MIT graduate student in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Physics, and co-lead author of a paper on this advance.

Chou is joined on the paper by co-lead author Eugene Park, a graduate student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Julian Klein, a DMSE research scientist; Josep Ingla-Aynes, a postdoc in the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center; Jagadeesh S. Moodera, a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics; and senior authors Frances Ross, TDK Professor in DMSE; and Luqiao Liu, an associate professor in EECS, and a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics; as well as others at the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. The paper appears today in Physical Review Letters.

Overcoming the limits

In an electronic device, silicon semiconductor transistors act like tiny light switches that turn a circuit on and off, or amplify weak signals in a communication system. They do this using a small input voltage.

But a fundamental physical limit of silicon semiconductors prevents a transistor from operating below a certain voltage, which hinders its energy efficiency.

To make more efficient electronics, researchers have spent decades working toward magnetic transistors that utilize electron spin to control the flow of electricity. Electron spin is a fundamental property that enables electrons to behave like tiny magnets.

So far, scientists have mostly been limited to using certain magnetic materials. These lack the favorable electronic properties of semiconductors, constraining device performance.

“In this work, we combine magnetism and semiconductor physics to realize useful spintronic devices,” Liu says.

The researchers replace the silicon in the surface layer of a transistor with chromium sulfur bromide, a two-dimensional material that acts as a magnetic semiconductor.

Due to the material’s structure, researchers can switch between two magnetic states very cleanly. This makes it ideal for use in a transistor that smoothly switches between “on” and “off.”

“One of the biggest challenges we faced was finding the right material. We tried many other materials that didn’t work,” Chou says.

They discovered that changing these magnetic states modifies the material’s electronic properties, enabling low-energy operation. And unlike many other 2D materials, chromium sulfur bromide remains stable in air.

To make a transistor, the researchers pattern electrodes onto a silicon substrate, then carefully align and transfer the 2D material on top. They use tape to pick up a tiny piece of material, only a few tens of nanometers thick, and place it onto the substrate.

“A lot of researchers will use solvents or glue to do the transfer, but transistors require a very clean surface. We eliminate all those risks by simplifying this step,” Chou says.

Leveraging magnetism

This lack of contamination enables their device to outperform existing magnetic transistors. Most others can only create a weak magnetic effect, changing the flow of current by a few percent or less. Their new transistor can switch or amplify the electric current by a factor of 10.

They use an external magnetic field to change the magnetic state of the material, switching the transistor using significantly less energy than would usually be required.

The material also allows them to control the magnetic states with electric current. This is important because engineers cannot apply magnetic fields to individual transistors in an electronic device. They need to control each one electrically.

The material’s magnetic properties could also enable transistors with built-in memory, simplifying the design of logic or memory circuits.

A typical memory device has a magnetic cell to store information and a transistor to read it out. Their method can combine both into one magnetic transistor.

“Now, not only are transistors turning on and off, they are also remembering information. And because we can switch the transistor with greater magnitude, the signal is much stronger so we can read out the information faster, and in a much more reliable way,” Liu says.

Building on this demonstration, the researchers plan to further study the use of electrical current to control the device. They are also working to make their method scalable so they can fabricate arrays of transistors.

This research was supported, in part, by the Semiconductor Research Corporation, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Research Office, and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. The work was partially carried out at the MIT.nano facilities.

California lawmakers have amended A.B. 1709, but the core problem remains: the bill is still a ban on social media access for youth under 16, and it still threatens the privacy and First Amendment rights of all Californians.

Proponents of the bill may argue that the recent amendments represent a compromise, but a close look at the text shows no major changes. As the bill moves forward in the Senate, we must continue to urge lawmakers to vote NO.

Take Action: Tell Your Senator to OPPOSE A.B. 1709

A "Compromise" That Still Denies Access

Under the newly amended Section 22683, platforms are prohibited from offering "addictive features" to users under 16. A platform can allow a minor to keep an account only if it strips away these features, which include what the bill calls "addictive feeds," auto-play, and anything else the Attorney General designates in future rulemaking.

However, the bill defines "addictive feeds" so broadly that it covers virtually every functional recommendation algorithm. The bill applies this label to any presentation of user-generated content recommended "in whole or in part, on information provided by the user." That includes basic inputs like who a user follows, what posts they like, or their self-expressed interests. By calling these basic tools and features “addictive," the bill also makes broad conclusions about the unsettled science behind social media use, youth, and addiction.

Because almost every major social media service uses automated feeds to deliver content, the end result of AB 1709 remains the same: young people under 16 will be denied access to major social media services as they currently exist.

Even if a platform attempts to comply by stripping away recommendation systems for minors, this still violates the First Amendment. Recommendation systems are the primary tools that users rely on to find speech and disseminate their own. Forcing young people onto a stripped-down, dysfunctional version of social media burdens their constitutional right to access information and participate in public discourse.

AB 1709 Still Forces Invasive Age Verification

The amendments do not eliminate the privacy threats posed by age gating. Although the bill references the age-signaling framework in AB 1043, Section 22684 explicitly states that a covered platform "shall verify the age of a user” and makes platforms liable every time a person under 16 makes it through an age check. 

Because AB 1043 does not actually specify how verification should occur without requiring additional proof, AB 1709 will, in practice, force platforms to implement the strictest forms of age verification. To comply, platforms will likely require users to upload government-issued IDs or submit to biometric scanning. Forcing users to turn over their personal information will create massive honeypots of sensitive personal data, destroying online anonymity and exposing users of all ages to security breaches. And relying on biometric systems to verify users’ ages is problematic because the systems have historically had high error rates estimating ages across race and gender lines.

Take Action: Tell Your Senator to OPPOSE A.B. 1709

Lawmakers Must Reject AB 1709

The amendments to AB 1709 also introduce legal confusion, creating provisions that conflict with already enacted legislation like SB 976. Rather than providing clarity or protecting young people, AB 1709 creates a tangled regulatory scheme that sacrifices constitutional rights for political grandstanding.

Denying minors access to digital forums—or stripping those forums of the basic tools needed to navigate them—is censorship. California should not set a national precedent of cutting young people off from digital lifelines, communities, and speech.

We need to keep the pressure on as AB 1709 moves through the Senate. Contact your state senator today and tell them that minor tweaks to a bad bill do not make it good policy.

The Senate Commerce Committee is set to consider S. 737, the SCREEN Act, a sweeping age-verification bill that would require online services to verify users’ ages before they can access any sexually explicit content. If this bill passes, it will force millions of adult internet users to give up their anonymity, privacy, and security before they access lawful speech.  

Unlike many state-age verification laws—which have been harmful in their own right—the SCREEN Act has no requirement that a significant portion of the website consist of sexually explicit content that is harmful to minors. The bill requires nearly any service hosting even a single piece of sexually explicit content to verify the ages of its users. The result is that the bill would apply not only to adult content sites like PornHub or OnlyFans, but also streaming services like Netflix, and social media platforms like Reddit, Discord, or Bluesky, if they host any adult content.

The SCREEN Act does not merely require users to attest they are adults. It specifically states that “requiring a user to confirm that the user is not a minor shall not be sufficient.” In practice, that means platforms would have to verify users’ ages using methods tied to their real identities. Providing proof of age online is dramatically different, and far more invasive, than showing your ID at the door to a bartender or bouncer. In the physical world, the bouncer at the door looks at your ID card, confirms you’re old enough, and gives it back to you. Under the SCREEN Act, the “bouncer” will be a digital age-verification service that captures your personal information and saves it to a database for an unspecified amount of time. 

The consequences of the bill won’t be limited to minors. If websites and apps are expected to reliably identify teenagers, adults will be asked to prove they are adults. 

Even worse, the SCREEN Act is a privacy and data security nightmare. One provision of the bill requires services to take reasonable steps to protect the data collected and to not maintain for longer than is necessary. But these are terribly weak protections that impose no meaningful collection, use, or retention limits on services collecting people’s private information. 

In other words, the third parties tasked with verifying a user’s age on a platform could sweep up a lot of personal info they don’t actually need and then could use that information for any number of purposes, so long as they deem their actions reasonable. Companies would then be allowed to keep the information users have been compelled to turn over for as long as possible, raising security and privacy issues along the way.

The SCREEN Act Attacks Your Right To Use VPNs

The SCREEN Act also targets virtual private network (VPN) users and providers. The bill requires covered websites to verify users' ages based on their IP addresses unless the service can determine that the user is outside the United States, and specifically requires age verification on traffic coming from known VPN addresses. In practice, this discourages the use of VPNs and proxy servers, which millions of people rely on for legitimate purposes such as protecting personal privacy, securing public Wi-Fi connections, safeguarding journalists and activists, and preventing data tracking. 

VPNs mask your real location by routing your internet traffic through a server somewhere else. When you visit a website through a VPN, that website only sees the VPN server's IP address, not your actual location. It's like sending a letter through a P.O. box so the recipient doesn't know where you really live. VPNs are a privacy and security tool used by millions of internet users every day, and their use should not be treated as suspect. It is particularly galling that the SCREEN Act forces users who intentionally take steps to protect their privacy to identify themselves.

The SCREEN Act creates onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize the data security and privacy of all internet users. 

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing education, and the way people search for information. Parents, teenagers, teachers, and schools are struggling with tough questions about when AI should, and should not, be used. It makes sense for Congress to hold hearings and examine how AI should be used by minors. But the recently introduced CHATBOT Act answers those questions with a one-size-fits-all mandate governing how teenagers access AI through federally prescribed parental monitoring systems. 

The Bill Requires AI Companies To Build Family Monitoring Systems 

Parents are approaching AI in different ways. Some closely supervise how their children use chatbots, while others might set more general rules about technology. Many families are still figuring out what role AI should play in schoolwork and everyday life. 

The CHATBOT Act would take that decision away from families and AI providers. Instead of letting families and AI providers decide what parental controls should look like, Congress would require every covered AI chatbot to build the same federally prescribed “family account” system. 

As part of the required parental-consent process for teens, AI companies must offer parents a "family account" that provides access to a "full record of the conversations and activity" of teen users and tools to "monitor, analyze, and understand, at scale" those conversations. They must also send alerts if a teen attempts to bypass or disable parental controls. 

This isn’t simply an optional parental-control feature. The bill requires every covered AI provider to build this monitoring infrastructure, and present it as part of the parental consent process. Congress is prescribing a single, highly invasive model of how families should supervise teenagers’ use of AI. 

The CHATBOT Act Creates New Privacy Risks For Families 

Parents and families have different ideas about how much independence teenagers should have. Understandably, they also have very different expectations for 8-year olds, 13-year-olds, and 17-year-olds. The CHATBOT Act effectively requires AI providers to build the same monitoring architecture for users of very different ages. 

And this mandated data collection will create new privacy and security risks. Once Congress requires AI companies to create a permanent, centralized record of teen AI conversations for parental review, that will be a valuable vault of extremely personal information. That raises serious questions about what would happen in cases where someone else gains access to it through account compromise, family disputes, or other security failures. 

The vast archives of conversations created by the government-mandated family accounts won't be interesting only to parents. They will become valuable targets for hackers, identity thieves, civil litigants, and anyone else seeking access to the deeply personal information of others. The CHATBOT Act requires the records to exist, but addresses none of those risks. 

Families are still figuring out what role AI should play in schoolwork and everyday life. Congress shouldn’t freeze one answer into federal law by requiring every AI company to build the same prescribed monitoring system. 

The CHATBOT Act Applies A Children’s Law To Teenagers 

The CHATBOT Act takes the basic structure of COPPA, a nearly 30-year-old law that applies to children aged 12 and under, and applies the same “verifiable parental consent” to older teenagers. 

That’s a dramatic expansion of the law. Congress enacted COPPA to prevent kids from handing over detailed personal information to online services without making sure parents approved. For nearly three decades, Congress has required parental consent before websites collect personal information from any user under 13. COPPA is not simple to comply with, which is why so many internet companies, large and small, simply bar kids under 13 from having accounts. That includes major social media sites and AI. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Discord, Spotify, and blogging platforms like WordPress all keep out users under 13. Children under 13 are also not allowed to use Microsoft Co-Pilot, Google Gemini, or ChatGPT. Anthropic does not allow users under 18 to use its AI model, Claude. In cases where younger kids maintain social media accounts despite the rules, studies show the vast majority of them are creating those accounts with parental consent.  

In short, COPPA’s protections against collecting personal information from minors without parental consent already apply to the AI services CHATBOT Act seeks to regulate. Worse, the CHATBOT Act takes COPPA’s privacy protections and inverts them—it will result in AI services likely collecting more information about young users. 

But the CHATBOT Act extends that model to high school students using AI assistants that are rapidly becoming tools for learning, research, writing, coding, and creative work. It then mandates specific, invasive surveillance tools that go well beyond anything COPPA requires. 

The bill requires providers to offer these “family accounts,” with these specific features, as a default for teenagers. By doing so, CHATBOT effectively treats a high school senior the same way it treats an elementary school student. 

Supporters may argue that parents of teens don’t have to create a family account. But every family with a teenager will still have to go through the bill’s parental-consent process before a teenager can use a covered AI system. Providers will need practical ways to verify that an adult is, in fact, the teenager’s parent. And parents of kids under 13 have no option to consent to their kids’ use of an AI system—the bill’s only option is to create a family account.

Congress should not extend the COPPA parental-permission model to millions of older teenagers, and it would be harmful to do so. The government does not require COPPA-style parental permission before a 17-year-old checks out a library book, uses Wikipedia, types search terms into Google, or reads a newspaper online. It shouldn’t require parental permission simply because the same question gets asked of an AI assistant. 

The CHATBOT Act Will Pressure AI Companies To Check Users’ Ages 

The bill says it doesn’t require age verification. But like many recent “kids online safety” bills, it imposes obligations that depend on a company knowing whether a user is under 18. 

Specifically, the bill requires AI systems to either disable access to young kids, get parental consent, or the creation of a family account if a service has reason to believe a user is a minor. The standard means that services don’t need to have actual knowledge of a user’s age to be later held liable for improperly letting them use their AI tools. That creates a practical problem. Given the potential liability of getting something wrong, AI companies will likely require stricter forms of age verification to figure out who is under 13, a teenager, and who is a parent. Some providers might ask for government-issued identification.  Other companies may rely on age estimation systems that use facial scans or other signals to guess a user’s age. Neither of these approaches is good for users’ privacy or security. One collects more information than is necessary, and the other inevitably makes mistakes. 

Congress shouldn’t force companies into that choice, or families into this position. In the name of protecting children, the CHATBOT Act will result in online services collecting even more information from kids and families, creating privacy and security risks. Parents who want family accounts like those described in the bill should be free to choose AI services that offer them. But Congress shouldn’t pressure every provider to collect more information about everyone’s age simply to comply with the law. 

A Better Way Forward

Congress doesn't have to choose between doing nothing and creating a sweeping new federal parental-monitoring mandate. Existing law allows regulators to police deceptive AI products, protect children's privacy under COPPA, and hold companies accountable when they market unsafe or misleading products to families. 

Lawmakers have urged the FTC to crack down on AI-enabled toys that make unsubstantiated educational claims or illegally collect children's data. Those are regulatory actions that can be taken right now. 

Finally, the FTC is currently investigating how AI companies test their products, protect children and teens, comply with COPPA, and enforce age restrictions. The results of that inquiry could be useful guidance to Congress, and to the public debate around these issues. 

Cracking down on bad actors, while learning more about how families are already making decisions about AI use, is a much better path forward than building one, federally-prescribed model of parenting or product design.

The chart is interesting.

On the IPI benchmark, Opus 5 improved over Opus 4.8, reducing the probability of an attacker succeeding within 15 attempts from 5.5% to 2.0%, and from 0.5% to 0.2% on 1 attempt. It also improved on Sonnet 5 (5.9% at k=15) and Mythos 5 (2.6%), making it the most robust model evaluated. Opus 5 also outperformed all non-Claude models on this benchmark. The most robust non-Claude model was Muse Spark at 16.5% within 15 attempts—more than eight times Opus 5’s rate. The most capable GPT 5.6 variant, Sol, was comparable to its predecessor GPT 5.5 (20.0% versus 20.8% within 15 attempts), and was 10 times as likely to be successfully attacked as Claude Opus 5 at 2.0%. The other GPT 5.6 variants are less robust, at 30.4% (Terra) and 43.9% (Luna). A single attempt against GPT 5.6 Sol succeeded 3.1% of the time, higher than the 2.0% an attacker achieved against Opus 5 after fifteen attempts...

This post is available as a printable one page handout in English and Spanish.

Recordings of law enforcement, whether by bystanders or by those directly encountering officers, can be powerful tools of government accountability and can support movements for social change. But recording officers can come with risks. Below are important legal and practical considerations related to recording the police and other law enforcement officers.

Can I legally record the police or immigration officers?

Yes. All Americans have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement. This includes local police and federal officers such as those from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, nine different federal appellate courts have recognized and affirmed this right, relying on decades of Supreme Court precedent.

Courts typically frame the right to record law enforcement as the right to record officers exercising their official duties in public. This right extends to bystanders as well as people recording their own interactions with law enforcement, such as livestreaming their own traffic stops. The right also applies to private places where the recorder has a legal right to be, such as in their own home.

You may take photos, or record video and audio. Courts have held that wiretap laws, which generally protect private conversations, do not prohibit civilians from audio recording law enforcement. That’s because officers exercising their official duties, particularly in public, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither do civilians in public places who speak to law enforcement in a manner audible to passersby.

What are some limitations on the right to record law enforcement?

Courts have been clear that behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety is not protected. Officers can't order you to move because you are recording, but they may order you to move for public safety reasons even if you are recording.

If the law enforcement officer is off-duty or is in a private space that you don’t also have a right to be in, your right to record the officer may be limited. For example, a Los Angeles jury in 2026 found two women guilty of felony stalking after they followed an ICE agent to his home and livestreamed the pursuit.

What are some other considerations when recording officers?

Even if you believe you are appropriately exercising your First Amendment right to record law enforcement, officers may nevertheless escalate the situation and/or retaliate against you. Below are some things to keep in mind.

• Stay calm and courteous.
• If you are a bystander, stand at a safe distance from the scene that you are recording. But note that officers may approach and confront you, closing that distance in an effort to accuse you of interfering with and possibly also assaulting a federal officer.
• Be alert and mindful of the possibility that officers may illegally retaliate against you in a number of ways, including arrest, destruction of your device, and bodily harm. They may also try to retaliate by harming the person being arrested. 
• Consider the sensitive nature of recording in the context of an arrest. For example, the person being arrested or their loved ones may be concerned about exposing their immigration status, so think about obtaining consent or blurring out faces in any version you publish to focus on ICE/CBP conduct (while still retaining the original video). 
• Law enforcement may not search your cell phone or other device without a warrant based on probable cause from a judge, even if you are under arrest. Thus, you may refuse a request from an officer to review or delete what you recorded. You also may refuse to unlock your phone or provide your passcode.

What can I do to protect my footage?

How well protected your photos or video footage are depends on both the device and the way you’re recording. If you’re uploading video to a livestreaming service, it can save that video to the cloud if you enable that setting. But what if you want to protect your recordings  stored locally?

Modern smartphones generally protect data, including videos, using encryption. This means if your phone is locked and protected by a strong passphrase, it is more difficult for an officer to delete what you’ve stored on the device. Removing biometrics such as face and fingerprint unlock can protect your device contents further. You can check your settings by following the steps in our Surveillance Self-Defense guides (see below) to ensure device encryption is turned on.

Want more information?

• Read more about your right to record law enforcement: https://www.eff.org/issues/right-record
• Read EFF’s Surveillance Self-Defense technical guide: https://ssd.eff.org

Last month, the story broke (alternate link) that Madison Square Garden uses facial recognition software on everyone entering the facility, and—among other groups—flags activists that oppose using facial recognition.

Turns out that the system was shut off for Taylor Swift’s wedding.

Evan Greer—one of the people that MSG alerts on—comments:

Ironically, Swift herself has reportedly used facial recognition at her own concerts to identify stalkers. This “privacy for me, surveillance for thee” attitude feels like a perfect encapsulation of the future we’re already living in: one where wealthy elites can afford privacy, while the rest of us are forced to live in a corporate surveillance panopticon...

The hearing was an early sign that a novel effort by states to tackle climate change — one that Trump’s DOJ has fought — could face trouble in the courts.

The state’s main grid operator told lawmakers the continued growth might lead to reliability risks without changes to the generation mix.

Heat waves and smoke-filled skies are contributing to low donor turnout.

The intraparty fight comes weeks ahead of a GOP runoff for governor.

Global warming also doubled the likelihood of this year’s tinderbox conditions in France, says snap scientific analysis.

In joint statements, the three countries reaffirmed their commitment to fighting global warming.

These species are now heading toward France and Spain after entering the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal.

The river is expected to further ebb in the coming days with no significant rain in the forecast and temperatures expected to rise across the region.

A group of almost 200 scientists aims to secure funding to train 1,000 Ph.D.s over the next decade.

For Hugh Smith, the challenge of building an energy-secure future isn’t about creating the world’s “best” battery. It’s about designing the right battery for the right job.

As a fifth-year PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Smith studies sodium-ion batteries, an emerging alternative to the lithium-ion batteries that power everything from smartphones to electric vehicles. By replacing expensive critical minerals like lithium, nickel, and cobalt with more readily available elements like sodium, iron, and manganese, his research aims to make energy storage both more affordable and more sustainable.

“I’ve believed for a very long time that the biggest engineering problem humanity faces is the transition to clean energy,” Smith says. “Batteries are a critical bottleneck in that transition.”

Growing up in Albany, New York, Smith was drawn to materials science because it combined two of his favorite subjects: chemistry and math. What kept him interested, however, was the field’s ability to touch nearly every aspect of everyday life.

“Anytime you interact with a solid material, there are people who intentionally designed that material for a specific purpose,” he says.

That idea of designing materials with a real-world purpose eventually led him to batteries. After earning his undergraduate degree in materials science from Case Western Reserve University, Smith came to MIT to explore how new battery chemistries could reduce costs without sacrificing performance.

Consumers often want batteries that charge quickly, last for years, store large amounts of energy, and remain inexpensive. But in reality, improving one characteristic of this technology usually means compromising another. A smartphone battery, for example, prioritizes energy density and long lifespan, while a battery storing electricity for the power grid doesn’t need to be lightweight or compact. Instead, cost and reliability become the most important considerations.

Rather than chasing an all-encompassing solution, Smith focuses on finding the right balance for specific applications, often juggling competing priorities. Instead of strengthening a singular characteristic, Smith works to maximize as many components of the battery as possible, including cost, performance, sustainability, and reliability, depending on how it will be used.

“It’s trying to balance everything,” he says. “It’s not catering extremely to some properties and then abandoning others.” 

The sodium-ion batteries Smith studies could eventually provide lower-cost options for electrical grids or more affordable electric vehicles. Because sodium-ion batteries can largely be manufactured using the same infrastructure already developed for lithium-ion batteries, they also offer a potentially smoother path toward commercialization than many emerging battery technologies.

Smith’s graduate school journey has been defined as much by the process of learning how to do research as by the science itself. He joined a brand-new research group at MIT as its first graduate student, and helped establish the lab run by Professor Iwnetim Abate. Without senior graduate students or postdocs to turn to for day-to-day guidance, he often had to teach himself new techniques and how to troubleshoot when things went wrong.

“I learned not to be fearful of new things,” Smith says. “Just because I didn’t know how to do something didn’t mean I couldn’t figure it out.”

He says the experience transformed him into a more independent researcher and someone who is willing to dive headfirst into unfamiliar problems.

Before beginning graduate school, Smith spent seven months at the Battery Innovation Center in Newberry, Indiana, an experience that broadened his understanding of how scientific discoveries become real technologies. Working alongside materials scientists, chemists, mechanical engineers, and chemical engineers showed him that no single discipline can solve the challenges of battery development alone.

“It requires a huge team effort,” Smith says. “It requires a lot of different types of knowledge.”

He says the experience also helped him better understand where his own expertise could make the greatest impact and when collaboration across disciplines is essential.

Outside the lab, Smith makes time to stay active through MIT’s intramural sports program, where he plays soccer, ultimate frisbee, football, and volleyball on teams with fellow graduate students. The games offer a chance to unwind after long days of research while strengthening the friendships he’s built throughout graduate school. He also enjoys fishing around the Boston area with friends and exploring New England’s coastal towns, museums, and historic sites.

As he prepares to graduate in the winter and pursue a career in battery research and development, Smith hopes to continue designing technologies that support the transition to clean energy. 

“Lots of smart people have already made wind and solar very cheap,” Smith says. “The issue is reliability, and batteries can help solve that problem. I hope the work I’m doing helps to affordably unlock the transition to an electric grid powered by reliable clean energy, and an electrified transportation network.”

Daniela Rus, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and the Panasonic Professor of Computer Science, has received the 2026 High-Tech Prize of the Bavarian Minister-President for her contributions to robotics, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems. 

Awarded jointly by the Bavarian State Government and the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities, it is the most highly endowed award for technology and engineering in Germany. Rus accepted the prize on July 23 at the Herkulessaal of the Munich Residence.

The selection committee cited four strands of her work: self-organizing robot collectives, soft robotics, autonomous mobility, and brain-inspired artificial intelligence. Together they describe a 30-year effort to build machines that hold up outside the lab, in conditions no one scripted in advance.

That effort has arrived at a moment when physical AI has become a preoccupation for industry leaders and policymakers alike. When human-robot collaboration comes up, the examples tend to be household chores or the factory floor. Rus is working several orders of magnitude wider than that, developing algorithms and systems that put autonomous robots into transportation, agriculture, medicine, the home, and environmental monitoring. She is also a pioneer of soft robotics, where compliant machines manipulate the world more safely and adapt to it more readily than rigid ones can.

Her emphasis throughout has been on giving robots the intelligence to reason and adapt in the real world, through algorithms whose behavior can be explained.

"AI gives machines the ability to do work that humans don't want to do," she says. "It's not a battle between humans and machines. Both form a system that solves problems that neither humans nor machines can solve alone."

At CSAIL she leads the Distributed Robotics Laboratory, where that principle has produced some unusual solutions to durable problems. Her group helped build an ingestible origami robot capable of retrieving swallowed button batteries from a child's digestive tract, and a fleet of small autonomous boats that assemble themselves into bridges and platforms, turning a city's waterways into infrastructure that can be reconfigured on demand.

She also helped invent liquid neural networks, an architecture inspired by the compact nervous system of a millimeter-long worm. The networks can steer a vehicle through an unfamiliar environment using as few as 19 control neurons, a level of efficiency that conventional architectures cannot approach. The research led Rus and former CSAIL affiliates Ramin Hasani, Alexander Amini, and Mathias Lechner to found Liquid AI out of MIT CSAIL, building models designed from the start for the hardware constraints of the devices they run on.

"Daniela Rus is a pioneer in soft robotics and physical AI," noted Lorenzo Masia, professor of intelligent bio-robotic systems at the Technical University of Munich, in a press release. "The prize will help to bring this science to the forefront."

Rus' previous honors include the 2025 IEEE Edison Medal and the 2024 John Scott Award. She is a member of the 2002 class of MacArthur Fellows and has been elected to the French National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She is a fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.

This spring, 25 MIT students and postdocs traveled to Washington to meet with congressional staffers and advocate for sustained federal investment in scientific research. 

With recent cuts to National Science Foundation programs and continued uncertainty surrounding the federal research budget, these conversations were especially timely. Over the course of just two days, participants met with 62 congressional offices representing 32 states to discuss the importance of federal support for scientific research, higher education, and other policy concerns related to their individual research areas.

Each spring, the MIT Science Policy Initiative (SPI) organizes Congressional Visit Days (CVD), a program that introduces graduate students and postdocs to the federal policymaking process while demonstrating the many ways scientists can engage in policy advocacy. In addition to meeting with congressional offices, participants connect with Washington-based MIT alumni and members of the MIT Washington Office to learn about careers at the intersection of science and public policy.

This year's CVD was co-organized by Audrey Parker, a PhD student in civil and environmental engineering at MIT, and Ian Robertson, a PhD student in physical oceanography at MIT and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). Robertson reflects on the experience:

"Having attended the trip as a participant last year, stepping into the role of a co-leader this year was a big commitment that was well worth the payoff. It was rewarding to build on the work of past leaders, strengthening the CVD experience for participants by training and encouraging them to discuss not just general science funding advocacy in their meetings, but also specific policies tied to their research. I look forward to the future success of the CVD program in continuing to provide students and postdocs a template for science policy conversations with Congress and helping them realize the various avenues in which they can connect research to policy throughout their careers."

To prepare for the trip, participants attended three training sessions led by SPI in collaboration with the MIT Washington Office and the MIT Policy Lab. These sessions provided background on the federal appropriations process, the role of congressional staff in shaping legislation, and practical strategies for communicating scientific expertise to policymakers. The training sessions also gave participants a chance to practice sharing their research and policy pitches with each other in mock "Hill meetings."

While on the Hill, students advocated for both general science funding for the upcoming fiscal year as well as specific policies tied to their research in artificial intelligence, environmental science and engineering, energy, space, and health. They encouraged offices to edit language in bills, support bills already on the floor, or sponsor new bills. Staffers on both sides of the aisle were particularly interested in discussing AI privacy and security across disciplines. They also expressed strong interest in hot environmental topics, such as deep-sea mining, and were eager to learn more about its associated environmental consequences. In many cases, conversations about participants' research and science-based policy priorities reinforced the need for continued federal funding of science, enabling staffers to connect abstract funding decisions with the researchers and projects they support.

The experience proved valuable for both the MIT delegation and the congressional offices they visited. Rodrigo Zuniga, a first-year PhD student participant, highlights:

"Going to Washington, D.C., offered a whole new perspective of the role of science in politics for me. In today's news and social media landscape, it's really easy to see Washington as irreversibly polarized, but in talking to staffers from both the majority and minority parties, I saw a general desire for bipartisanship and widespread support for science. What's most clear to me after this experience with CVD is that there is a lot of room and pressing need for humans with scientific training and expertise to participate proactively in local, state, and federal government."

As scientific and technological issues continue to shape public policy, opportunities for researchers to engage with policymakers have never been more important. Programs like Congressional Visit Days help equip the next generation of scientists with the knowledge and confidence to communicate the value of research beyond the laboratory, strengthening connections between the scientific community and the policymakers whose decisions shape its future.

He’s being prosecuted for giving border officials a code that wiped his phone:

The case centers on a feature included in GrapheneOS, a custom Android operating system that runs in place of the software on most modern Google Pixel devices. Tunick’s attorneys confirmed GrapheneOS was running on his phone.

The software feature allows the device owner to set a passcode that deliberately wipes the contents of that device if entered instead of the user’s unlock passcode.

Tunick’s case also raises ongoing questions about what constitutional rights can be invoked at the border, which the U.S. government has long asserted is not U.S. soil until a person is authorized to enter...