Former CISA Director Jen Easterly writes about a new international intelligence sharing co-op:

Historically, China, Russia, Iran & North Korea have cooperated to some extent on military and intelligence matters, but differences in language, culture, politics & technological sophistication have hindered deeper collaboration, including in cyber. Shifting geopolitical dynamics, however, could drive these states toward a more formalized intell-sharing partnership. Such a “Four Eyes” alliance would be motivated by common adversaries and strategic interests, including an enhanced capacity to resist economic sanctions and support proxy conflicts...

Tech giants joined states and cities as a pillar of resistance during President Donald Trump’s first term. Now the coalition is in turmoil.

The move comes just one day before a hearing in a lawsuit brought by a grant recipient seeking access to funds frozen by the Trump administration.

Electric vehicles now account for half of Chinese auto sales.

Commercial fishing groups are pressing the Supreme Court to overturn a Biden-era approval of the Massachusetts offshore wind farm.

More than 20 House Republicans say renewable energy subsidies should be protected. That may not be enough to save them.

Urban fires rarely start with a wall of flame roaring down the street. Instead, the spark often comes from small burning materials carried by the wind.

Brussels caved to the auto sector’s pleas for leniency on emissions targets, giving lobbyists and politicians an opening to push for more.

Low Earth orbit is becoming more littered with space junk as climate change lessens nature's way of cleaning it up.

History has shown that food prices can incite widespread political anger in North Africa, and Algeria isn't the only country taking steps ahead of Eid Al-Adha.

One of the biggest holes was around disclosing greenhouse gas releases from clients or suppliers, with only 29 percent of the firms reporting these so-called Scope 3 emissions, according to a new study.

QS World University Rankings has placed MIT in the No. 1 spot in 11 subject areas for 2025, the organization announced today.

The Institute received a No. 1 ranking in the following QS subject areas: Chemical Engineering; Civil and Structural Engineering; Computer Science and Information Systems; Data Science and Artificial Intelligence; Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Linguistics; Materials Science; Mechanical, Aeronautical, and Manufacturing Engineering; Mathematics; Physics and Astronomy; and Statistics and Operational Research.

MIT also placed second in seven subject areas: Accounting and Finance; Architecture/Built Environment; Biological Sciences; Business and Management Studies; Chemistry; Earth and Marine Sciences; and Economics and Econometrics.

For 2024, universities were evaluated in 55 specific subjects and five broader subject areas. MIT was ranked No. 1 in the broader subject area of Engineering and Technology and No. 2 in Natural Sciences.

Quacquarelli Symonds Limited subject rankings, published annually, are designed to help prospective students find the leading schools in their field of interest. Rankings are based on research quality and accomplishments, academic reputation, and graduate employment.

MIT has been ranked as the No. 1 university in the world by QS World University Rankings for 13 straight years.

For those looking to climb the corporate ladder in the U.S., here’s an idea you might not have considered: debate training.

According to a new research paper, people who learn the basics of debate are more likely to advance to leadership roles in U.S. organizations, compared to those who do not receive this training. One key reason is that being equipped with debate skills makes people more assertive in the workplace.

“Debate training can promote leadership emergence and advancement by fostering individuals’ assertiveness, which is a key, valued leadership characteristic in U.S. organizations,” says MIT Associate Professor Jackson Lu, one of the scholars who conducted the study.

The research is based on two experiments and provides empirical insights into leadership development, a subject more often discussed anecdotally than studied systematically.

“Leadership development is a multi-billion-dollar industry, where people spend a lot of money trying to help individuals emerge as leaders,” Lu says. “But the public doesn’t actually know what would be effective, because there hasn’t been a lot of causal evidence. That’s exactly what we provide.”

The paper, “Breaking Ceilings: Debate Training Promotes Leadership Emergence by Increasing Assertiveness,” was published Monday in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The authors are Lu, an associate professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Michelle X. Zhao, an undergraduate student at the Olin Business School of Washington University in St. Louis; Hui Liao, a professor and assistant dean at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business; and Lu Doris Zhang, a doctoral student at MIT Sloan.

Assertiveness in the attention economy

The researchers conducted two experiments. In the first, 471 employees in a Fortune 100 firm were randomly assigned to receive either nine weeks of debate training or no training. Examined 18 months later, those receiving debate training were more likely to have advanced to leadership roles, by about 12 percentage points. This effect was statistically explained by increased assertiveness among those with debate training.

The second experiment, conducted with 975 university participants, further tested the causal effects of debate training in a controlled setting. Participants were randomly assigned to receive debate training, an alternative non-debate training, or no training. Consistent with the first experiment, participants receiving the debate training were more likely to emerge as leaders in subsequent group activities, an effect statistically explained by their increased assertiveness.

“The inclusion of a non-debate training condition allowed us to causally claim that debate training, rather than just any training, improved assertiveness and increased leadership emergence,” Zhang says. 

To some people, increasing assertiveness might not seem like an ideal recipe for success in an organizational setting, as it might seem likely to increase tensions or decrease cooperation. But as the authors note, the American Psychological Association conceptualizes assertiveness as “an adaptive style of communication in which individuals express their feelings and needs directly, while maintaining respect for others.”

Lu adds: “Assertiveness is conceptually different from aggressiveness. To speak up in meetings or classrooms, people don’t need to be aggressive jerks. You can ask questions politely, yet still effectively express opinons. Of course, that’s different from not saying anything at all.”

Moreover, in the contemporary world where we all must compete for attention, refined communication skills may be more important than ever.

“Whether it is cutting filler or mastering pacing, knowing how to assert our opinions helps us sound more leader-like,” Zhang says.

How firms identify leaders

The research also finds that debate training benefits people across demographics: Its impact was not significantly different for men or women, for those born in the U.S. or outside it, or for different ethnic groups.

However, the findings raise still other questions about how firms identify leaders. As the results show, individuals might have incentive to seek debate training and other general workplace skills. But how much responsibility do firms have to understand and recognize the many kinds of skills, beyond assertiveness, that employees may have?

“We emphasize that the onus of breaking leadership barriers should not fall on individuals themelves,” Lu says. “Organizations should also recognize and appreciate different communication and leadership styles in the workplace.”

Lu also notes that ongoing work is needed to understand if those firms are properly valuing the attributes of their own leaders.

“There is an important distinction between leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness,” Lu says. “Our paper looks at leadership emergence. It’s possible that people who are better listeners, who are more cooperative, and humbler, should also be selected for leadership positions because they are more effective leaders.”

This research was partly funded by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 12 March 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02277-2

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is a key pattern of climate variability for surrounding land areas during winter. Here the authors constrain projections to show that the magnitude of the NAO increases under high emissions, leading to more severe winters.

How do we foster trust in science in an increasingly polarized world? A group including scientists, journalists, policymakers and more gathered at MIT on March 10 to discuss how to bridge the gap between scientific expertise and understanding.

The conference, titled “Building Trust in Science for a More Informed Future,” was organized by the MIT Press and the nonprofit Aspen Institute’s Science and Society Program. It featured talks about the power of storytelling, the role of social media and generative artificial intelligence in our information landscape, and why discussions about certain science topics can become so emotionally heated.

A common theme was the importance of empathy between science communicators and the public.

“The idea that disagreement is often seen as disrespect is insightful,” said MIT’s Ford Professor of Political Science Lily Tsai. “One way to communicate respect is genuine curiosity along with the willingness to change one’s mind. We’re often focused on the facts and evidence and saying, ‘Don’t you understand the facts?’ But the ideal conversation is more like, ‘You value ‘x.’ Tell me why you value ‘x’ and let’s see if we can connect on how the science and research helps you to fulfill those values, even if I don’t agree with them.’”

Many participants discussed the threat of misinformation, a problem exacerbated by the emergence of social media and generative AI. But it’s not all bad news for the scientific community. MIT Provost Cindy Barnhart opened the event by citing surveys showing a high level of trust broadly in scientists across the globe. Still, she also pointed to a U.S. survey showing communication was seen as an area of relative weakness for scientists.

Barnhart noted MIT’s long commitment to science communication and commended communication efforts affiliated with MIT including MIT Press, MIT Technology Review, and MIT News.

“We’re working hard to communicate the value of science to society as we fight to build public support for the scientific research, discovery, and evidence that is needed in our society,” Barnhart said. “At MIT, an essential way we do that is by shining a bright light on the groundbreaking work of our faculty, research, scientists, staff, postdocs, and students.”

Another theme was the importance of storytelling in science communication, and participants including the two keynote speakers offered plenty of their own stories. Francis Collins, who directed the National Institutes of Health between 2009 and 2021, and Sudanese climate journalist Lina Yassin delivered a joint keynote address moderated by MIT Vice President for Communications Alfred Ironside.

Recalling his time leading the NIH through the Covid-19 pandemic, Collins said the Covid-19 vaccine development was a major success, but the scientific community failed to explain to the public the way science evolves based on new evidence.

“We missed a chance to use the pandemic as a teachable moment,” Collins said. “In March of 2020, we were just starting to learn about the virus and how it spread, but we had to make recommendations to the public, which would often change a month or two later. So people began to doubt the information they were getting was reliable because it kept changing. If you’re in a circumstance where you’re communicating scientific evidence, start by saying, ‘This is a work in progress.’”

Collins said the government should have had a better plan for communicating information to the public when the pandemic started.

“Our health system was badly broken at the time because it had been underinvested in for far too long, so community-based education wasn’t really possible,” Collins said, noting his agency should have done more to empower physicians who were trusted voices in rural communities. “Far too much of our communication was top down.”

In her keynote address, Yassin shared her experience trying to get people in her home country to evacuate ahead of natural disasters. She said many people initially ignored her advice, citing their faith in God’s plan for them. But when she reframed her messaging to incorporate the teachings of Islam, a religion most of the country practices, she said people were much more receptive.

That was another recurring lesson participants shared: Science discussions don’t occur in a vacuum. Any conversation that ignores a person’s existing values and experiences will be less effective.

“Personal experience, as well as personal faith and belief, are critically important filters that we encounter every time we talk to people about science,” Ironside said.

As the price of solar panels has plummeted in recent decades, installation costs have taken up a greater share of the technology’s overall price tag. The long installation process for solar farms is also emerging as a key bottleneck in the deployment of solar energy.

Now the startup Charge Robotics is developing solar installation factories to speed up the process of building large-scale solar farms. The company’s factories are shipped to the site of utility solar projects, where equipment including tracks, mounting brackets, and panels are fed into the system and automatically assembled. A robotic vehicle autonomously puts the finished product — which amounts to a completed section of solar farm — in its final place.

“We think of this as the Henry Ford moment for solar,” says CEO Banks Hunter ’15, who founded Charge Robotics with fellow MIT alumnus Max Justicz ’17. “We’re going from a very bespoke, hands on, manual installation process to something much more streamlined and set up for mass manufacturing. There are all kinds of benefits that come along with that, including consistency, quality, speed, cost, and safety.”

Last year, solar energy accounted for 81 percent of new electric capacity in the U.S., and Hunter and Justicz see their factories as necessary for continued acceleration in the industry.

The founders say they were met with skepticism when they first unveiled their plans. But in the beginning of last year, they deployed a prototype system that successfully built a solar farm with SOLV Energy, one of the largest solar installers in the U.S. Now, Charge has raised $22 million for its first commercial deployments later this year.

From surgical robots to solar robots

While majoring in mechanical engineering at MIT, Hunter found plenty of excuses to build things. One such excuse was Course 2.009 (Produce Engineering Processes), where he and his classmates built a smart watch for communication in remote areas.

After graduation, Hunter worked for the MIT alumni-founded startups Shaper Tools and Vicarious Surgical. Vicarious Surgical is a medical robotics company that has raised more than $450 million to date. Banks was the second employee and worked there for five years.

“A lot of really hands on, project-based classes at MIT translated directly into my first roles coming out of school and set me up to be very independent and run large engineering projects,” Banks says, “Course 2.009, in particular, was a big launch point for me. The founders of Vicarious Surgical got in touch with me through the 2.009 network.”

As early as 2017, Hunter and Justicz, who majored in mechanical engineering and computer science, had discussed starting a company together. But they had to decide where to apply their broad engineering and product skillsets.

“Both of us care a lot about climate change. We see climate change as the biggest problem impacting the greatest number of people on the planet,” Hunter says. “Our mentality was if we can build anything, we might as well build something that really matters.”

In the process of cold calling hundreds of people in the energy industry, the founders decided solar was the future of energy production because its price was decreasing so quickly.

“It’s becoming cheaper faster than any other form of energy production in human history,” Hunter says.

When the founders began visiting construction sites for the large, utility-scale solar farms that make up the bulk of energy generation, it wasn’t hard to find the bottlenecks. The first site they traveled to was in the Mojave Desert in California. Hunter describes it as a massive dust bowl where thousands of workers spent months repeating tasks like moving material and assembling the same parts, over and over again.

“The site had something like 2 million panels on it, and every single one was assembled and fastened the same way by hand,” Hunter says. “Max and I thought it was insane. There’s no way that can scale to transform the energy grid in a short window of time.”

Hunter says he heard from each of the largest solar companies in the U.S. that their biggest limitation for scaling was labor shortages. The problem was slowing growth and killing projects.

Hunter and Justicz founded Charge Robotics in 2021 to break through that bottleneck. Their first step was to order utility solar parts and assemble them by hand in their backyards.

“From there, we came up with this portable assembly line that we could ship out to construction sites and then feed in the entire solar system, including the steel tracks, mounting brackets, fasteners, and the solar panels,” Hunter explains. “The assembly line robotically assembles all those pieces to produce completed solar bays, which are chunks of a solar farm.”

Each bay represents a 40-foot piece of the solar farm and weighs about 800 pounds. A robotic vehicle brings it to its final location in the field. Banks says Charge’s system automates all mechanical installation except for the process of pile driving the first metal stakes into the ground.

Charge’s assembly lines also have machine-vision systems that scan each part to ensure quality, and the systems work with the most common solar parts and panel sizes.

From pilot to product

When the founders started pitching their plans to investors and construction companies, people didn’t believe it was possible.

“The initial feedback was basically, ‘This will never work,’” Hunter says. “But as soon as we took our first system out into the field and people saw it operating, they got much more excited and started believing it was real.”

Since that first deployment, Charge’s team has been making its system faster and easier to operate. The company plans to set up its factories at project sites and run them in partnership with solar construction companies. The factories could even run alongside human workers.

“With our system, people are operating robotic equipment remotely rather than putting in the screws themselves,” Hunter explains. “We can essentially deliver the assembled solar to customers. Their only responsibility is to deliver the materials and parts on big pallets that we feed into our system.”

Hunter says multiple factories could be deployed at the same site and could also operate 24/7 to dramatically speed up projects.

“We are hitting the limits of solar growth because these companies don’t have enough people,” Hunter says. “We can build much bigger sites much faster with the same number of people by just shipping out more of our factories. It’s a fundamentally new way of scaling solar energy.”

Professors Emery Brown and Hamsa Balakrishnan work in vastly different fields, but are united by their deep commitment to mentoring students. While each has contributed to major advancements in their respective areas — statistical neuroscience for Brown, and large-scale transportation systems for Balakrishnan — their students might argue that their greatest impact comes from the guidance, empathy, and personal support they provide. 

Emery Brown: Holistic mentorship

Brown is the Edward Hood Professor of Medical Engineering and Computational Neuroscience at MIT and a practicing anesthesiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. Brown’s experimental research has made important contributions toward understanding the neuroscience of how anesthetics act in the brain to create the states of general anesthesia. 

One of the biggest challenges in academic environments is knowing how to chart a course. Brown takes the time to connect with students individually, helping them identify meaningful pathways that they may not have considered for themselves. In addition to mentoring his graduate students and postdocs, Brown also hosts clinicians and faculty from around the world. Their presence in the lab exposes students to a number of career opportunities and connections outside of MIT’s academic environment.

Brown also continues to support former students beyond their time in his lab, offering guidance on personal and professional development even after they have moved on to other roles. “Knowing that I have Emery at my back as someone I can always turn to … is such a source of confidence and strength as I go forward into my own career,” one nominator wrote. 

When Brown faced a major career decision recently, he turned to his students to ask how his choice might affect them. He met with students individually to understand the personal impact that each might experience. Brown was adamant in ensuring that his professional advancement would not jeopardize his students, and invested a great deal of thought and effort in ensuring a positive outcome for them. 

Brown is deeply committed to the health and well-being of his students, with many nominators sharing examples of his constant support through challenging personal circumstances. When one student reached out to Brown, overwhelmed by research, recent personal loss, and career uncertainty, Brown created a safe space for vulnerable conversations. 

“He listened, supported me, and encouraged me to reflect on my aspirations for the next five years, assuring me that I should pursue them regardless of any obstacles,” the nominator shared. “Following our conversation, I felt more grounded and regained momentum in my research project.”

In summation, his student felt that Brown’s advice was “simple, yet enlightening, and exactly what I needed to hear at that moment.”

Hamsa Balakrishnan: Unequivocal advocacy

Balakrishnan is the William E. Leonhard Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT. She leads the Dynamics, Infrastructure Networks, and Mobility (DINaMo) Research Group. Her current research interests are in the design, analysis, and implementation of control and optimization algorithms for large-scale cyber-physical infrastructures, with an emphasis on air transportation systems. 

Her nominators commended Balakrishnan for her efforts to support and advocate for all of her students. In particular, she connects her students to academic mentors within the community, which contributes to their sense of acceptance within the field. 

Balakrishnan’s mindfulness in respecting personal expression and her proactive approach to making everyone feel welcome have made a lasting impact on her students. “Hamsa’s efforts have encouraged me to bring my full self to the workplace,” one student wrote; “I will be forever grateful for her mentorship and kindness as an advisor.”

One student shared their experience of moving from a difficult advising situation to working with Balakrishnan, describing how her mentorship was crucial in the nominator’s successful return to research: “Hamsa’s mentorship has been vital to building up my confidence as a researcher, as she [often] provides helpful guidance and positive affirmation.”

Balakrishnan frequently gives her students freedom to independently explore and develop their research interests. When students wanted to delve into new areas like space research — far removed from her expertise in air traffic management and uncrewed aerial vehicles — Balakrishnan embraced the challenge and learned about these topics in order to provide better guidance. 

One student described how Balakrishnan consistently encouraged the lab to work on topics that interested them. This led the student to develop a novel research topic and publish a first author paper within months of joining the lab. 

Balakrishnan is deeply committed to promoting a healthy work-life balance for her students. She ensures that mentees do not feel compelled to overwork by encouraging them to take time off. Even if students do not have significant updates, Balakrishnan encourages weekly meetings to foster an open line of communication. She helps them set attainable goals, especially when it comes to tasks like paper reading and writing, and never pressures them to work late hours in order to meet paper or conference deadlines. 

In a bold push for medical privacy, Hawaii's House of Representatives has introduced HCR 144/HR 138, a resolution calling for the Hawaii Attorney General to investigate whether crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are violating patient privacy laws. 

Often referred to as "fake clinics" or “unregulated pregnancy centers” (UPCs), these are non-medical centers that provide  free pregnancy tests and counseling, but typically do not offer essential reproductive care like abortion or contraception. In Hawaii, these centers outnumber actual clinics offering abortion and reproductive healthcare. In fact, the first CPC in the United States was opened in Hawaii in 1967 by Robert Pearson, who then founded the Pearson Foundation, a St. Louis-based organization to assist local groups in setting up unregulated crisis pregnancy centers. 

EFF has called on state AGs to investigate CPCs across the country. In particular, we are concerned that many centers have misrepresented their privacy practices, including suggesting that patient information is protected by HIPAA when it may not be. In January, EFF contacted attorneys general in Florida, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri asking them to identify and hold accountable CPCs that engage in deceptive practices.

Rep. Kapela’s resolution specifically references EFF’s call on state Attorneys General. It reads:

“WHEREAS, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, an international digital rights nonprofit that promotes internet civil liberties, has called on states to investigate whether crisis pregnancy centers are complying with patient privacy regulations with regard to the retention and use of collected patient data.” 

HCR 144/HR 138 underscores the need to ensure that healthcare providers handle personal data, particularly medical data, securely and transparently.. Along with EFF’s letters to state AGs, the resolution refers to the increasing body of research on the topic, such as: 

• A 2024 Healthcare Management Associates Study showed that CPCs received $400 million in federal funding between 2017 and 2023, with little oversight from regulators.
• A Health Affairs article from November 2024 titled "Addressing the HIPAA Blind Spot for Crisis Pregnancy Centers" noted that crisis pregnancy centers often invoke the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to collect personal information from clients.

Regardless of one's stance on reproductive healthcare, there is one principle that should be universally accepted: the right to privacy. As HCR 144/HR 138 moves forward, it is imperative that Hawaii's Attorney General investigate whether CPCs are complying with privacy regulations and take action, if necessary, to protect the privacy rights of individuals seeking reproductive healthcare in Hawaii. 

Without comprehensive privacy laws that offer individuals a private right of action, state authorities must be the front line in safeguarding the privacy of their constituents. As we continue to advocate for stronger privacy protections nationwide, we encourage lawmakers and advocates in other states to follow Hawaii's lead and take action to protect the medical privacy rights of all of their constituents.

A look back at the games governments played to avoid transparency

In the year 2015, we witnessed the launch of OpenAI, a debate over the color of a dress going viral, and a Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples have the right to get married. It was also the year that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) first published The Foilies, an annual report that hands out tongue-in-cheek "awards" to government agencies and officials that respond outrageously when a member of the public tries to access public records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or similar laws.

A lot has changed over the last decade, but one thing that hasn't is the steady flow of attempts by authorities to avoid their legal and ethical obligations to be open and accountable. Sometimes, these cases are intentional, but just as often, they are due to incompetence or straight-up half-assedness.

Over the years, EFF has teamed up with MuckRock to document and ridicule these FOIA fails and transparency trip-ups. And through a partnership with AAN Publishers, we have named-and-shamed the culprits in weekly newspapers and on indie news sites across the United States in celebration of Sunshine Week, an annual event raising awareness of the role access to public records plays in a democracy.  

This year, we reflect on the most absurd and frustrating winners from the last 10 years as we prepare for the next decade, which may even be more terrible for government transparency.

The Most Infuriating FOIA Fee: U.S. Department of Defense (2016 Winner)

Assessing huge fee estimates is one way agencies discourage FOIA requesters.

Under FOIA, federal agencies are able to charge "reasonable" fees for producing copies of records. But sometimes agencies fabricate enormous price tags to pressure the requester to drop the query.

In 2015, Martin Peck asked the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to disclose the number of "HotPlug” devices (tools used to preserve data on seized computers) it had purchased. The DOD said it would cost $660 million and 15 million labor hours (over 1,712 years), because its document system wasn't searchable by keyword, and staff would have to comb through 30 million contracts by hand. 

Runners-up: 

City of Seattle (2019 Winner): City officials quoted a member of the public $33 million for metadata for every email sent in 2017, but ultimately reduced the fee to $40.

Rochester (Michigan) Community Schools District (2023 Winner): A group of parents critical of the district's remote-learning plan requested records to see if the district was spying on their social media. One parent was told they would have to cough up $18,641,345 for the records, because the district would have to sift through every email. 

Willacy County (Texas) Sheriff's Office (2016 Winner): When the Houston Chronicle asked for crime data, the sheriff sent them an itemized invoice that included $98.40 worth of Wite-Out–the equivalent of 55 bottles–to redact 1,016 pages of records.

The Most Ridiculous Redaction: Federal Bureau of Investigation (2015 Winner)

Ain't no party like a REDACTED FBI party!

Brad Heath, who in 2014 was a reporter at USA Today, got a tip that a shady figure had possibly attended an FBI retirement party. So he filed a request for the guest list and pictures taken at the event. In response, the FBI sent a series of surreal photos of the attendees, hugging, toasting, and posing awkwardly, but all with polygonal redactions covering their faces like some sort of mutant, Minecraft family reunion.

Runner-Up 

U.S. Southern Command (2023 Winner): Investigative journalist Jason Leopold obtained scans of paintings by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which were heavily redacted under the claim that the art would disclose law enforcement information that could "reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."

The Most Reprehensible Reprisal Against a Requester: White Castle, Louisiana (2017 Winner)

WBRZ Reporter Chris Nakamoto was cuffed for trying to obtain records in White Castle, Louisiana. Credit: WBRZ-TV

Chris Nakamoto, at the time a reporter for WBRZ, filed a public records request to probe the White Castle mayor's salary. But when he went down to check on some of the missing records, he was handcuffed, placed in a holding cell, and charged with the crime of "remaining after being forbidden.” He was summoned to appear before the "Mayor's Court" in a judicial proceeding presided over by none other than the same mayor he was investigating. The charges were dropped two months later. 

Runners-up

Jack White (2015 Winner): One of the rare non-government Foilies winners, the White Stripes guitarist verbally abused University of Oklahoma student journalists and announced he wouldn't play at the school anymore. The reason? The student newspaper, OU Daily, obtained and published White's contract for a campus performance, which included his no-longer-secret guacamole recipe, a bowl of which was demanded in his rider.

Richlands, Virginia (2024 Winner): Resident Laura Mollo used public records laws to investigate problems with the 911 system and, in response, experienced intense harassment from the city and its contractors, including the police pulling her over and the city appointing a special prosecutor to investigate her. On separate occasions, Morro even says she found her mailbox filled with spaghetti and manure. 

Worst Federal Agency of the Decade: Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Bashing the FBI has come back into vogue among certain partisan circles in recent years, but we've been slamming the feds long before it was trendy.

The agency received eight Foilies over the last decade, more than any other entity, but the FBI's hostility towards FOIA goes back much further. In 2021, the Cato Institute uncovered records showing that, since at least 1989, the FBI had been spying on the National Security Archive, a non-profit watchdog that keeps an eye on the intelligence community. The FBI’s methods included both physical and electronic surveillance, and the records show the FBI specifically cited the organization's "tenacity" in using FOIA.

Cato's Patrick G. Eddington reported it took 11 months for the FBI to produce those records, but that's actually relatively fast for the agency. We highlighted a 2009 FOIA request that the FBI took 12 years to fulfil: Bruce Alpert of the Times-Picayune had asked for records regarding the corruption case of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, but by the time he received the 84 pages in 2021, the reporter had retired. Similarly, when George Washington University professor and documentary filmmaker Nina Seavey asked the FBI for records related to surveillance of antiwar and civil rights activists, the FBI told her it would take 17 years to provide the documents. When the agency launched an online system for accepting FOIA requests, it somehow made the process even more difficult.

The FBI was at its worst when it was attempting to use non-disclosure agreements to keep local law enforcement agencies from responding to public records requests regarding the use of cell phone surveillance technologies called cell-site simulators, or "stingrays." The agency even went so far as to threaten agencies that release technical information to media organizations with up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine, claiming it would be a violation of the Arms Export Control Act.

But you don't have to take our word for it: Even Micky Dolenz of The Monkees had to sue the FBI to get records on how agents collected intelligence on the 1960s band.

Worst Local Jurisdiction of the Decade: Chicago, Illinois

Some agencies, like the city of Chicago, treat FOIA requests like a plague.

Over the last decade, The Foilies have called out officials at all levels of government and in every part of the country (and even in several other countries), but time and time again, one city keeps demonstrating special antagonism to the idea of freedom of information: the Windy City.

In fact, the most ridiculous justification for ignoring transparency obligations we ever encountered was proudly championed by now-former Mayor Lori Lightfoot during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020. She offered a bogus choice to Chicagoans: the city could either process public records requests or provide pandemic response, falsely claiming that answering these requests would pull epidemiologists off the job. According to the Chicago Tribune, she implied that responding to FOIA requests would result in people having to "bury another grandmother." She even invoked the story of Passover, claiming that the "angel of death is right here in our midst every single day" as a reason to suspend FOIA deadlines.

If we drill down on Chicago, there's one particular department that seems to take particular pleasure in screwing the public: the Chicago Police Department (CPD). In 2021, CPD was nominated so many times (for withholding records of search warrants, a list of names of police officers, and body-worn camera footage from a botched raid) that we just threw up our hands and named them "The Hardest Department to FOIA" of the year.

In one particularly nasty case, CPD had mistakenly raided the home of an innocent woman and handcuffed her while she was naked and did not allow her to dress. Later, the woman filed a FOIA request for the body-worn camera footage and had to sue to get it. But CPD didn't leave it there: the city's lawyers tried to block a TV station from airing the video and then sought sanctions against the woman's attorney. 

If you thought these were some doozies, check out The Foilies 2025 (to be published on March 16) to read the beginning of a new decade's worth of FOIA horror stories.

Good old-fashioned grassroots advocacy is one of the best tools we have right now for making a positive change for our civil liberties online. When we unite toward a shared goal, anything is possible, and the right to repair movement is a prime example of this.

In July of last year, EFF and many other organizations celebrated Repair Independence Day to commemorate both California and Minnesota enacting strong right to repair laws. And, very recently, it was reported that all 50 states have introduced right to repair legislation. Now, not every state has passed laws yet, but this signals an important milestone for the movement—we want to fix the stuff we own!

And this movement has had an impact beyond specific right to repair legislation. In a similar vein, just a few months ago, the U.S. Copyright Office ruled that users can legally repair commercial food preparation equipment without breaking copyright law. Device manufacturers themselves are also starting to feel the pressure and are creating repair-friendly programs.

Years of hard work have made it possible for us to celebrate the right-to-repair movement time and time again. It's a group effort—folks like iFixit, who provide repair guides and repairability scores; the Repair Association, who’ve helped lead the movement in state legislatures; and of course, people like you who contact local representatives, are the reason this movement has gained so much momentum.

Fix Copyright! Also available in kids' sizes.

But there's still work that can be done. If you’re itching to fix your devices, you can read up on what your state’s repair laws mean for you. You can educate your friends, family, and colleagues when they’re frustrated at how expensive device repair is. And, of course, you can show your support for the right to repair movement with EFF’s latest member t-shirt. 

We live in a very tumultuous time, so it’s important to celebrate the victories, and it’s equally important to remember that your voice and support can bring about positive change that you want to see.