The foundations of America’s prosperity are being dismantled

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE

The foundations of America’s prosperity are being dismantled

Ever since World War II, the US has been the global leader in science and technology—and benefited immensely from it. Research fuels American innovation and the economy in turn. Scientists around the world want to study in the US and collaborate with American scientists to produce more of that research. These international collaborations play a critical role in American soft power and diplomacy. The products Americans can buy, the drugs they have access to, the diseases they’re at risk of catching—are all directly related to the strength of American research and its connections to the world’s scientists. That scientific leadership is now being dismantled, according to more than 10 federal workers who spoke to MIT Technology Review, as the Trump administration—spearheaded by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—slashes personnel, programs, and agencies. Meanwhile, the president himself has gone after relationships with US allies. These workers come from several agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce, the US Agency for International Development, and the National Science Foundation. All of them occupy scientific and technical roles, many of which the average American has never heard of but which are nevertheless critical, coordinating research, distributing funding, supporting policymaking, or advising diplomacy. They warn that dismantling the behind-the-scenes scientific research programs that backstop American life could lead to long-lasting, perhaps irreparable damage to everything from the quality of health care to the public’s access to next-generation consumer technologies. The US took nearly a century to craft its rich scientific ecosystem; if the unraveling that has taken place over the past month continues, Americans will feel the effects for decades to come. Most of the federal workers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk or for fear of being targeted. Many are completely stunned and terrified by the scope and totality of the actions. While every administration brings its changes, keeping the US a science and technology leader has never been a partisan issue. No one predicted the wholesale assault on these foundations of American prosperity. “If you believe that innovation is important to economic development, then throwing a wrench in one of the most sophisticated and productive innovation machines in world history is not a good idea,” says Deborah Seligsohn, an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University who worked for two decades in the State Department on science issues. “They’re setting us up for economic decline.” The biggest funder of innovation The US currently has the most top-quality research institutes in the world. This includes world-class universities like MIT (which publishes MIT Technology Review) and the University of California, Berkeley; national labs like Oak Ridge and Los Alamos; and federal research facilities run by agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Defense. Much of this network was developed by the federal government after World War II to bolster the US position as a global superpower. Before the Trump administration’s wide-ranging actions, which now threaten to slash federal research funding, the government remained by far the largest supporter of scientific progress. Outside of its own labs and facilities, it funded more than 50% of research and development across higher education, according to data from the National Science Foundation. In 2023, that came to nearly $60 billion out of the $109 billion that universities spent on basic science and engineering. The return on these investments is difficult to measure. It can often take years or decades for this kind of basic science research to have tangible effects on the lives of Americans and people globally, and on the US’s place in the world. But history is littered with examples of the transformative effect that this funding produces over time. The internet and GPS were first developed through research backed by the Department of Defense, as was the quantum dot technology behind high-resolution QLED television screens. Well before they were useful or commercially relevant, the development of neural networks that underpin nearly all modern AI systems was substantially supported by the National Science Foundation. The decades-long drug discovery process that led to Ozempic was incubated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Microchips. Self-driving cars. MRIs. The flu shot. The list goes on and on. In her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State, Mariana Mazzucato, a leading economist studying innovation at University College London, found that every major technological transformation in the US, from electric cars to Google to the iPhone, can trace its roots back to basic science research once funded by the federal government. If the past offers any lesson, that means every major transformation in the future could be shortchanged with the destruction of that support. The Trump administration’s distaste for regulation will arguably be a boon in the short term for some parts of the tech industry, including crypto and AI. But the federal workers said the president’s and Musk’s undermining of basic science research will hurt American innovation in the long run. “Rather than investing in the future, you’re burning through scientific capital,” an employee at the State Department said. “You can build off the things you already know, but you’re not learning anything new. Twenty years later, you fall behind because you stopped making new discoveries.” A global currency The government doesn’t just give money, either. It supports American science in numerous other ways, and the US reaps the returns. The Department of State helps attract the best students from around the world to American universities. Amid stagnating growth in the number of homegrown STEM PhD graduates, recruiting foreign students remains one of the strongest pathways for the US to expand its pool of technical talent, especially in strategic areas like batteries and semiconductors. Many of those students stay for years, if not the rest of their lives; even if they leave the country, they’ve already spent some of their most productive years in the US and will retain a wealth of professional connections with whom they’ll collaborate, thereby continuing to contribute to US science. The State Department also establishes agreements between the US and other countries and helps broker partnerships between American and international universities. That helps scientists collaborate across borders on everything from global issues like climate change to research that requires equipment on opposite sides of the world, such as the measurement of gravitational waves. The international development work of USAID in global health, poverty reduction, and conflict alleviation—now virtually shut down in its entirety—was designed to build up goodwill toward the US globally; it improved regional stability for decades. In addition to its inherent benefits, this allowed American scientists to safely access diverse geographies and populations, as well as plant and animal species not found in the US. Such international interchange played just as critical a role as government funding in many crucial inventions. Several federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also help collect and aggregate critical data on disease, health trends, air quality, weather, and more from disparate sources that feed into the work of scientists across the country. The National Institutes of Health, for example, has since 2015 been running the Precision Medicine Initiative, the only effort of its kind to collect extensive and granular health data from over 1 million Americans who volunteer their medical records, genetic history, and even Fitbit data to help researchers understand health disparities and develop personalized and more effective treatments for disorders from heart and lung disease to cancer. The data set, which is too expensive for any one university to assemble and maintain, has already been used in hundreds of papers that will lay the foundation for the next generation of life-saving pharmaceuticals. Beyond fueling innovation, a well-supported science and technology ecosystem bolsters US national security and global influence. When people want to study at American universities, attend international conferences hosted on American soil, or move to the US to work or to found their own companies, the US stays the center of global innovation activity. This ensures that the country continues to get access to the best people and ideas, and gives it an outsize role in setting global scientific practices and priorities. US research norms, including academic freedom and a robust peer review system, become global research norms that lift the overall quality of science. International agencies like the World Health Organization take significant cues from American guidance. US scientific leadership has long been one of the country’s purest tools of soft power and diplomacy as well. Countries keen to learn from the American innovation ecosystem and to have access to American researchers and universities have been more prone to partner with the US and align with its strategic priorities. Just one example: Science diplomacy has long played an important role in maintaining the US’s strong relationship with the Netherlands, which is home to ASML, the only company in the world that can produce the extreme ultraviolet lithography machines needed to produce the most advanced semiconductors. These are critical for both AI development and national security. International science cooperation has also served as a stabilizing force in otherwise difficult relationships. During the Cold War, the US and USSR continued to collaborate on the International Space Station; during the recent heightened economic competition between the US and China, the countries have remained each other’s top scientific partners. “Actively working together to solve problems that we both care about helps maintain the connections and the context but also helps build respect,” Seligsohn says. The federal government itself is a significant beneficiary of the country’s convening power for technical expertise. Among other things, experts both inside and outside the government support its sound policymaking in science and technology. During the US Senate AI Insight Forums, co-organized by Senator Chuck Schumer through the fall of 2023, for example, the Senate heard from more than 150 experts, many of whom were born abroad and studying at American universities, working at or advising American companies, or living permanently in the US as naturalized American citizens. Federal scientists and technical experts at government agencies also work on wide-ranging goals critical to the US, including building resilience in the face of an increasingly erratic climate; researching strategic technologies such as next-generation battery technology to reduce the country’s reliance on minerals not found in the US; and monitoring global infectious diseases to prevent the next pandemic. “Every issue that the US faces, there are people that are trying to do research on it and there are partnerships that have to happen,” the State Department employee said. A system in jeopardy Now the breadth and velocity of the Trump administration’s actions has led to an unprecedented assault on every pillar upholding American scientific leadership. For starters, the purging of tens of thousands—and perhaps soon hundreds of thousands—of federal workers is removing scientists and technologists from the government and paralyzing the ability of critical agencies to function. Across multiple agencies, science and technology fellowship programs, designed to bring in talented early-career staff with advanced STEM degrees, have shuttered. Many other federal scientists were among the thousands who were terminated as probationary employees, a status they held because of the way scientific roles are often contractually structured. Some agencies that were supporting or conducting their own research, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, are no longer functionally operational. USAID has effectively shuttered, eliminating a bastion of US expertise, influence, and credibility overnight. “Diplomacy is built on relationships. If we’ve closed all these clinics and gotten rid of technical experts in our knowledge base inside the government, why would any foreign government have respect for the US in our ability to hold our word and in our ability to actually be knowledgeable?” a terminated USAID worker said. “I really hope America can save itself.” Now the Trump administration has sought to reverse some terminations after discovering that many were key to national security, including nuclear safety employees responsible for designing, building, and maintaining the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal. But many federal workers I spoke to can no longer imagine staying in the public sector. Some are considering going into industry. Others are wondering whether it will be better to move abroad. “It’s just such a waste of American talent,” said Fiona Coleman, a terminated federal scientist, her voice cracking with emotion as she described the long years of schooling and training she and her colleagues went through to serve the government. Many fear the US has also singlehandedly kneecapped its own ability to attract talent from abroad. Over the last 10 years, even as American universities have continued to lead the world, many universities in other countries have rapidly leveled up. That includes those in Canada, where liberal immigration policies and lower tuition fees have driven a 200% increase in international student enrollment over the last decade, according to Anna Esaki-Smith, cofounder of a higher-education research consultancy called Education Rethink and author of Make College Your Superpower. Germany has also seen an influx, thanks to a growing number of English-taught programs and strong connections between universities and German industry. Chinese students, who once represented the largest share of foreign students in the US, are increasingly staying at home or opting to study in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UK. During the first Trump administration, many international students were already more reluctant to come to the US because of the president’s hostile rhetoric. With the return and rapid escalation of that rhetoric, Esaki-Smith is hearing from some universities that international students are declining their admissions offers. Add to that the other recent developments—the potential dramatic cuts in federal research funding, the deletion of scores of rich public data sets on health and the environment, the clampdown on academic freedom for research that appears related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and the fear that these restrictions could ultimately encompass other politically charged topics like climate change or vaccines—and many more international science and engineering students could decide to head elsewhere. “I’ve been hearing this increasingly from several postdocs and early-career professors, fearing the cuts in NIH or NSF grants, that they’re starting to look for funding or job opportunities in other countries,” Coleman told me. “And then we’re going to be training up the US’s competitors.” The attacks could similarly weaken the productivity of those who stay at American universities. While many of the Trump administration’s actions are now being halted and scrutinized by US judges, the chaos has weakened a critical prerequisite for tackling the toughest research problems: a long-term stable environment. With reports that the NSF is combing through research grants for words like “women,” “diverse,” and “institutional” to determine whether they violate President Trump’s executive order on DEIA programs, a chilling effect is also setting in among federally funded academics uncertain whether they’ll get caught in the dragnet. To scientists abroad, the situation in the US government has marked American institutions and researchers as potentially unreliable partners, several federal workers told me. If international researchers think collaborations with the US can end at any moment when funds are abruptly pulled or certain topics or keywords are suddenly blacklisted, many of them could steer clear and look to other countries. “I’m really concerned about the instability we’re showing,” another employee at the State Department said. “What’s the point in even engaging? Because science is a long-term initiative and process that outlasts administrations and political cycles.” Meanwhile, international scientists have far more options these days for high-caliber colleagues to collaborate with outside America. In recent years, for example, China has made a remarkable ascent to become a global peer in scientific discoveries. By some metrics, it has even surpassed the US; it started accounting for more of the top 1% of most-cited papers globally, often called the Nobel Prize tier, back in 2019 and has continued to improve the quality of the rest of its research. Where Chinese universities can also entice international collaborators with substantial resources, the US is more limited in its ability to offer tangible funding, the State employee said. Until now, the US has maintained its advantage in part through the prestige of its institutions and its more open cultural norms, including stronger academic freedom. But several federal scientists warn that this advantage is dissipating. “America is made up of so many different people contributing to it. There’s such a powerful global community that makes this country what it is, especially in science and technology and academia and research. We’re going to lose that; there’s not a chance in the world that we’re not going to lose that through stuff like this,” says Brigid Cakouros, a federal scientist who was also terminated from USAID. “I have no doubt that the international science community will ultimately be okay. It’ll just be a shame for the US to isolate themselves from it.”

That scientific leadership is now being dismantled, according to more than 10 federal workers who spoke to MIT Technology Review, as the Trump administration—spearheaded by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—slashes personnel, programs, and agencies. Meanwhile, the president himself has gone after relationships with US allies.

These workers come from several agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce, the US Agency for International Development, and the National Science Foundation. All of them occupy scientific and technical roles, many of which the average American has never heard of but which are nevertheless critical, coordinating research, distributing funding, supporting policymaking, or advising diplomacy.

They warn that dismantling the behind-the-scenes scientific research programs that backstop American life could lead to long-lasting, perhaps irreparable damage to everything from the quality of health care to the public’s access to next-generation consumer technologies. The US took nearly a century to craft its rich scientific ecosystem; if the unraveling that has taken place over the past month continues, Americans will feel the effects for decades to come.

Most of the federal workers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk or for fear of being targeted. Many are completely stunned and terrified by the scope and totality of the actions. While every administration brings its changes, keeping the US a science and technology leader has never been a partisan issue. No one predicted the wholesale assault on these foundations of American prosperity.

“If you believe that innovation is important to economic development, then throwing a wrench in one of the most sophisticated and productive innovation machines in world history is not a good idea,” says Deborah Seligsohn, an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University who worked for two decades in the State Department on science issues. “They’re setting us up for economic decline.”

The biggest funder of innovation

The US currently has the most top-quality research institutes in the world. This includes world-class universities like MIT (which publishes MIT Technology Review) and the University of California, Berkeley; national labs like Oak Ridge and Los Alamos; and federal research facilities run by agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Defense. Much of this network was developed by the federal government after World War II to bolster the US position as a global superpower.

Before the Trump administration’s wide-ranging actions, which now threaten to slash federal research funding, the government remained by far the largest supporter of scientific progress. Outside of its own labs and facilities, it funded more than 50% of research and development across higher education, according to data from the National Science Foundation. In 2023, that came to nearly $60 billion out of the $109 billion that universities spent on basic science and engineering.

The return on these investments is difficult to measure. It can often take years or decades for this kind of basic science research to have tangible effects on the lives of Americans and people globally, and on the US’s place in the world. But history is littered with examples of the transformative effect that this funding produces over time. The internet and GPS were first developed through research backed by the Department of Defense, as was the quantum dot technology behind high-resolution QLED television screens. Well before they were useful or commercially relevant, the development of neural networks that underpin nearly all modern AI systems was substantially supported by the National Science Foundation. The decades-long drug discovery process that led to Ozempic was incubated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health. Microchips. Self-driving cars. MRIs. The flu shot. The list goes on and on.

In her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State, Mariana Mazzucato, a leading economist studying innovation at University College London, found that every major technological transformation in the US, from electric cars to Google to the iPhone, can trace its roots back to basic science research once funded by the federal government. If the past offers any lesson, that means every major transformation in the future could be shortchanged with the destruction of that support.

The Trump administration’s distaste for regulation will arguably be a boon in the short term for some parts of the tech industry, including crypto and AI. But the federal workers said the president’s and Musk’s undermining of basic science research will hurt American innovation in the long run. “Rather than investing in the future, you’re burning through scientific capital,” an employee at the State Department said. “You can build off the things you already know, but you’re not learning anything new. Twenty years later, you fall behind because you stopped making new discoveries.”

A global currency

The government doesn’t just give money, either. It supports American science in numerous other ways, and the US reaps the returns. The Department of State helps attract the best students from around the world to American universities. Amid stagnating growth in the number of homegrown STEM PhD graduates, recruiting foreign students remains one of the strongest pathways for the US to expand its pool of technical talent, especially in strategic areas like batteries and semiconductors. Many of those students stay for years, if not the rest of their lives; even if they leave the country, they’ve already spent some of their most productive years in the US and will retain a wealth of professional connections with whom they’ll collaborate, thereby continuing to contribute to US science.

The State Department also establishes agreements between the US and other countries and helps broker partnerships between American and international universities. That helps scientists collaborate across borders on everything from global issues like climate change to research that requires equipment on opposite sides of the world, such as the measurement of gravitational waves.

The international development work of USAID in global health, poverty reduction, and conflict alleviation—now virtually shut down in its entirety—was designed to build up goodwill toward the US globally; it improved regional stability for decades. In addition to its inherent benefits, this allowed American scientists to safely access diverse geographies and populations, as well as plant and animal species not found in the US. Such international interchange played just as critical a role as government funding in many crucial inventions.

Several federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also help collect and aggregate critical data on disease, health trends, air quality, weather, and more from disparate sources that feed into the work of scientists across the country.

The National Institutes of Health, for example, has since 2015 been running the Precision Medicine Initiative, the only effort of its kind to collect extensive and granular health data from over 1 million Americans who volunteer their medical records, genetic history, and even Fitbit data to help researchers understand health disparities and develop personalized and more effective treatments for disorders from heart and lung disease to cancer. The data set, which is too expensive for any one university to assemble and maintain, has already been used in hundreds of papers that will lay the foundation for the next generation of life-saving pharmaceuticals.

Beyond fueling innovation, a well-supported science and technology ecosystem bolsters US national security and global influence. When people want to study at American universities, attend international conferences hosted on American soil, or move to the US to work or to found their own companies, the US stays the center of global innovation activity. This ensures that the country continues to get access to the best people and ideas, and gives it an outsize role in setting global scientific practices and priorities. US research norms, including academic freedom and a robust peer review system, become global research norms that lift the overall quality of science. International agencies like the World Health Organization take significant cues from American guidance.

US scientific leadership has long been one of the country’s purest tools of soft power and diplomacy as well. Countries keen to learn from the American innovation ecosystem and to have access to American researchers and universities have been more prone to partner with the US and align with its strategic priorities.

Just one example: Science diplomacy has long played an important role in maintaining the US’s strong relationship with the Netherlands, which is home to ASML, the only company in the world that can produce the extreme ultraviolet lithography machines needed to produce the most advanced semiconductors. These are critical for both AI development and national security.

International science cooperation has also served as a stabilizing force in otherwise difficult relationships. During the Cold War, the US and USSR continued to collaborate on the International Space Station; during the recent heightened economic competition between the US and China, the countries have remained each other’s top scientific partners. “Actively working together to solve problems that we both care about helps maintain the connections and the context but also helps build respect,” Seligsohn says.

The federal government itself is a significant beneficiary of the country’s convening power for technical expertise. Among other things, experts both inside and outside the government support its sound policymaking in science and technology. During the US Senate AI Insight Forums, co-organized by Senator Chuck Schumer through the fall of 2023, for example, the Senate heard from more than 150 experts, many of whom were born abroad and studying at American universities, working at or advising American companies, or living permanently in the US as naturalized American citizens.

Federal scientists and technical experts at government agencies also work on wide-ranging goals critical to the US, including building resilience in the face of an increasingly erratic climate; researching strategic technologies such as next-generation battery technology to reduce the country’s reliance on minerals not found in the US; and monitoring global infectious diseases to prevent the next pandemic.

“Every issue that the US faces, there are people that are trying to do research on it and there are partnerships that have to happen,” the State Department employee said.

A system in jeopardy

Now the breadth and velocity of the Trump administration’s actions has led to an unprecedented assault on every pillar upholding American scientific leadership.

For starters, the purging of tens of thousands—and perhaps soon hundreds of thousands—of federal workers is removing scientists and technologists from the government and paralyzing the ability of critical agencies to function. Across multiple agencies, science and technology fellowship programs, designed to bring in talented early-career staff with advanced STEM degrees, have shuttered. Many other federal scientists were among the thousands who were terminated as probationary employees, a status they held because of the way scientific roles are often contractually structured.

Some agencies that were supporting or conducting their own research, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, are no longer functionally operational. USAID has effectively shuttered, eliminating a bastion of US expertise, influence, and credibility overnight.

“Diplomacy is built on relationships. If we’ve closed all these clinics and gotten rid of technical experts in our knowledge base inside the government, why would any foreign government have respect for the US in our ability to hold our word and in our ability to actually be knowledgeable?” a terminated USAID worker said. “I really hope America can save itself.”

Now the Trump administration has sought to reverse some terminations after discovering that many were key to national security, including nuclear safety employees responsible for designing, building, and maintaining the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal. But many federal workers I spoke to can no longer imagine staying in the public sector. Some are considering going into industry. Others are wondering whether it will be better to move abroad.

“It’s just such a waste of American talent,” said Fiona Coleman, a terminated federal scientist, her voice cracking with emotion as she described the long years of schooling and training she and her colleagues went through to serve the government.

Many fear the US has also singlehandedly kneecapped its own ability to attract talent from abroad. Over the last 10 years, even as American universities have continued to lead the world, many universities in other countries have rapidly leveled up. That includes those in Canada, where liberal immigration policies and lower tuition fees have driven a 200% increase in international student enrollment over the last decade, according to Anna Esaki-Smith, cofounder of a higher-education research consultancy called Education Rethink and author of Make College Your Superpower.

Germany has also seen an influx, thanks to a growing number of English-taught programs and strong connections between universities and German industry. Chinese students, who once represented the largest share of foreign students in the US, are increasingly staying at home or opting to study in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UK.

During the first Trump administration, many international students were already more reluctant to come to the US because of the president’s hostile rhetoric. With the return and rapid escalation of that rhetoric, Esaki-Smith is hearing from some universities that international students are declining their admissions offers.

Add to that the other recent developments—the potential dramatic cuts in federal research funding, the deletion of scores of rich public data sets on health and the environment, the clampdown on academic freedom for research that appears related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and the fear that these restrictions could ultimately encompass other politically charged topics like climate change or vaccines—and many more international science and engineering students could decide to head elsewhere.

“I’ve been hearing this increasingly from several postdocs and early-career professors, fearing the cuts in NIH or NSF grants, that they’re starting to look for funding or job opportunities in other countries,” Coleman told me. “And then we’re going to be training up the US’s competitors.”

The attacks could similarly weaken the productivity of those who stay at American universities. While many of the Trump administration’s actions are now being halted and scrutinized by US judges, the chaos has weakened a critical prerequisite for tackling the toughest research problems: a long-term stable environment. With reports that the NSF is combing through research grants for words like “women,” “diverse,” and “institutional” to determine whether they violate President Trump’s executive order on DEIA programs, a chilling effect is also setting in among federally funded academics uncertain whether they’ll get caught in the dragnet.

To scientists abroad, the situation in the US government has marked American institutions and researchers as potentially unreliable partners, several federal workers told me. If international researchers think collaborations with the US can end at any moment when funds are abruptly pulled or certain topics or keywords are suddenly blacklisted, many of them could steer clear and look to other countries. “I’m really concerned about the instability we’re showing,” another employee at the State Department said. “What’s the point in even engaging? Because science is a long-term initiative and process that outlasts administrations and political cycles.”

Meanwhile, international scientists have far more options these days for high-caliber colleagues to collaborate with outside America. In recent years, for example, China has made a remarkable ascent to become a global peer in scientific discoveries. By some metrics, it has even surpassed the US; it started accounting for more of the top 1% of most-cited papers globally, often called the Nobel Prize tier, back in 2019 and has continued to improve the quality of the rest of its research.

Where Chinese universities can also entice international collaborators with substantial resources, the US is more limited in its ability to offer tangible funding, the State employee said. Until now, the US has maintained its advantage in part through the prestige of its institutions and its more open cultural norms, including stronger academic freedom. But several federal scientists warn that this advantage is dissipating.

“America is made up of so many different people contributing to it. There’s such a powerful global community that makes this country what it is, especially in science and technology and academia and research. We’re going to lose that; there’s not a chance in the world that we’re not going to lose that through stuff like this,” says Brigid Cakouros, a federal scientist who was also terminated from USAID. “I have no doubt that the international science community will ultimately be okay. It’ll just be a shame for the US to isolate themselves from it.”

Stay Ahead

Explore More Insights

Stay ahead with more perspectives on cutting-edge power, infrastructure, energy, bitcoin and AI solutions. Explore these articles to uncover strategies and insights shaping the future of industries.

Golar contracts CIMC Raffles for fourth FLNG

Golar LNG Ltd. last week executed an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract with Yantai CIMC Raffles Offshore Ltd. (CIMC Raffles) for its fourth floating LNG (FLNG) and second MKII design FLNG vessel with an annual liquefaction capacity of 3.5 million tonnes/year (tpy). Golar’s fourth FLNG is expected to be

Cerebras reimagines AI cluster design with switchless CS-4 architecture

Inside the Cerebras fabric, the trade-off is different. Direct Wafer Links are proprietary, so third-party accelerators cannot be added to the fabric. Scaling it requires additional Cerebras systems, Shah said. Faruqui said the operational divide may be more significant than the physical networking challenge. Existing orchestration environments are generally designed

IBM moves closer to fault-tolerant quantum computing at scale

“This is our first shared ultra cold environment that allows multiple chips within to be connected together, and it really provides enough space for all the high-density wiring that’s needed,” explained IBM Fellow Jerry Chow, CTO, quantum-centric supercomputing, during a media briefing. “So we’re really starting to architect the entire

Reports: Google partnering with AMD for next-gen hybrid TPU

For AMD, meanwhile, a role in Google’s next-generation TPU program would provide another indication that its CPU and chip-design technologies are becoming relevant to the rapidly expanding custom AI accelerator market. One analyst approved of the proposed alliance. “I think it makes good sense. AMD has more than proven that they’re

Energy Department Announces $500 Million to Secure America’s Critical Mineral and Battery Supply Chains

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation (CMEI) today announced $500 million for seven selected projects to expand critical mineral and material processing, battery manufacturing, and recycling capacity in the United States. In accordance with President Trump’s Executive Order, Unleashing American Energy, the selected projects advance the President’s agenda to strengthen America’s domestic critical minerals and materials supply chains, reduce reliance on foreign sources, bolster national security, and advance American energy dominance. “For too long, America has depended on foreign actors for critical materials essential to modern life that underpin our economy, energy security, and national security,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “President Trump is reversing that dependence by securing our critical supply chains, unleashing American industry, and bringing critical materials production and processing back to the United States.” “DOE is taking decisive action to secure the critical supply chains necessary to power our nation,” said Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson. “These projects underscore DOE’s commitment to driving innovation, reducing reliance on foreign sources, and promoting American energy dominance.” This is the third round of funding from DOE’s Battery Materials Processing and Battery Manufacturing and Recycling programs, which support battery materials processing, recycling, and manufacturing projects. These include demonstration projects, construction of commercial-scale facilities, and retrofitting or retooling existing facilities. Critical minerals and materials are essential to American industry, energy production, and national security. Expanding domestic capacity will help ensure the resources America needs are processed, manufactured, and recycled in the United States. Information on the selected projects is available here and here.

bp lets Shah Deniz compression automation contract

bp has let a contract to Emerson to deliver automation technologies for the Shah Deniz Compression project offshore Azerbaijan. Emerson will provide integrated control and safety systems aimed at enhancing production, safety, and reliability on the new offshore compression platform. The contract includes systems to provide process control, safety shutdown, fire and gas detection, and power management. Together, these systems deliver real-time visibility and remote control of critical operations, Emerson said. The $2.9 billion Shah Deniz Compression project, which includes an electrically powered, normally unattended offshore production platform, is a next stage development of the Caspian Sea Shah Deniz field. Designed to access low-pressure gas reserves and maximize overall recovery, the platform will be equipped with four 11 Mw compressors and serve as the central compression hub for gas from the Shah Deniz Alpha and Bravo platforms. The platform will operate remotely from bp’s onshore Sangachal terminal 55 km south of Baku. The project is expected to enable about 50 billion cu m of additional gas and about 25 million bbl of condensate production and export. Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2029, with first gas compression expected from the Shah Deniz Alpha platform in 2029 and from the Shah Deniz Bravo platform in 2030. The agreement follows a previous automation contract bp signed with Emerson for the Azeri Central East and Shah Deniz Stage 2 developments. bp is operator at Shah Deniz (29.99%) with partners Lukoil (19.99%), TPAO (19%), Cenub Qaz Dehlizi (16.02%), NICO (10%), and MVM (5%).

Federal court voids Texas GulfLink license over agency’s ‘serious procedural errors’

The ruling voids the license, halting all construction or progress. Sentinel Midstream declined comment on the ruling and would not answer questions about the status of construction. GulfLink, sited about 30 miles offshore Freeport, Tex., is designed to export up to 1 million b/d via Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) to the government of Japan and Freeport Commodities. The project involves a 44-mile, 42-in. OD pipeline and was scheduled to begin operations around 2028. The estimated $2.1 billion investment was funded as part of a broader trade agreement between the US and Japan. The legal battle stems from a specific rule in the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 that dictates that the federal government can only permit one crude oil deepwater port, including any supporting infrastructure, within a single designated “application area.” Because the competing SPOT project’s pipeline route physically overlaps and intersects GulfLink’s lines, the plaintiff—Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County (Better Brazoria), represented by Earthjustice—successfully argued that MARAD violated the “one port” rule when issuing GulfLink’s license in February. The three-judge panel found that MARAD “improperly drew” the map designing the project’s official boundaries to exclude the pipelines and approved two overlapping projects in the same zone instead of only licensing one. The court wrote that the scope of the error made vacatur, not the less serious remand without vacatur, the appropriate remedy. Vacatur deems the license invalid and is used when the court finds “serious procedural errors” that cannot be easily explained or fixed with minor changes. Remand without vacatur sends the decision back to the agency for corrections but leaves the current license in place in the meantime. SPOT project status The $2.5-3-billion SPOT project, developed by Enterprise Products Partners in partnership with Enbridge Inc., also lies about 30 miles from Freeport. Designed to handle VLCCs,

IEA: Emergency reserve withdrawals slow

The International Energy Agency (IEA) member countries continued to release emergency oil stocks in July, but the pace of withdrawals slowed sharply as crude supply availability improved in parts of the Asia Pacific and the market faced increasing product tightness. IEA countries released 26 million bbl of emergency stocks in July, bringing cumulative releases to 300 million bbl since the agency announced a coordinated 400-million bbl action on Mar. 11. Government stock draws averaged 750,000 b/d in July, down from 1.5 million b/d in June and 2.5 million b/d in May. The slowdown was particularly pronounced among IEA members in Asia Oceania, which released 4 million bbl from emergency stocks in July, compared with 8 million bbl in June and 44 million bbl in May. The decline reflected improved crude oil supply availability in Japan and Korea. The US also reduced the pace of emergency stock releases. Withdrawals from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve totaled 17 million bbl in July, roughly half the volume released in June. More than 100 million bbl of the emergency stocks committed under the IEA’s 400-million bbl coordinated action has yet to reach the market. The timing of the remaining releases will depend on market developments and broader oil supply security considerations in coming months, according to the agency. Most of the remaining emergency stocks consist of crude oil, however, limiting their ability to ease increasingly tight oil product markets, IEA said. At the same time, global observed oil inventories fell sharply in July amid severely constrained shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Stocks declined by 69 million bbl, equivalent to 2.2 million b/d, with oil on water accounting for more than 90% of the decline. Oil on water fell by 63 million bbl, or about 2 million b/d, reflecting higher arrivals and lower exports amid

Devon takes FID on 4.5-bcfd Permian pipeline

Devon Energy Corp. has taken final investment decision (FID) on the Solitude Pipeline System, a WhiteWater-led joint venture that will build two 48-in. OD natural gas pipelines connecting the Permian basin to Katy, Tex. Devon describes Solitude as the latest in a series of steps it has taken to integrate and consolidate the infrastructure supporting its Delaware basin position. Solitude is designed for a phased build-out of 2.25 bcfd entering service second-half 2029, followed by a similarly sized second phase in 2030 and the ability to expand further to meet shipper demand. Construction and in-service timing remain subject to customary regulatory approvals. Devon has secured firm transportation capacity and will hold a 25% equity interest in the joint venture, alongside WhiteWater (50%), MPLX (10%), Diamondback Energy (7.5%) and Western Midstream Partners (7.5%). Permian producers have long absorbed volatile and periodically negative pricing at the Waha hub, where takeaway capacity has repeatedly failed to keep pace with associated gas growth. Devon says the pipeline will move the majority of its Delaware gas out of Waha and into markets that will be tied to expanding LNG export and power generation. Devon has initiated the process of securing international LNG-linked pricing, including a 100-MMcfd agreement beginning in 2027 and an additional 150 MMcfd in 2028. “Solitude is not a standalone investment; it is the next step in an integrated model we have been building for years,” said Clay Gaspar, Devon’s president and chief executive officer. “We have taken the hardest constraints in the Delaware [b]asin: water, processing, compression, takeaway and power, and have de-risked the physical constraints turning each one into a source of value rather than a tax on our returns. The company’s integrated model continues to lower our cost of supply, driving free cash flow higher and deepening our peer-leading Delaware

JAPEX begins drilling second well for Tomakomai CCS Project

@import url(‘https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Inter:wght@100..900&display=swap’); .ebm-page__main h1, .ebm-page__main h2, .ebm-page__main h3, .ebm-page__main h4, .ebm-page__main h5, .ebm-page__main h6 { font-family: Inter; } body { line-height: 150%; letter-spacing: 0.025em; } button, .ebm-button-wrapper { font-family: Inter; } .label-style { text-transform: uppercase; color: var(–color-grey); font-weight: 600; font-size: 0.75rem; } .caption-style { font-size: 0.75rem; opacity: .6; } #onetrust-pc-sdk [id*=btn-handler], #onetrust-pc-sdk [class*=btn-handler] { background-color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-policy a, #onetrust-pc-sdk a, #ot-pc-content a { color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-sdk .ot-active-menu { border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-accept-btn-handler, #onetrust-banner-sdk #onetrust-reject-all-handler, #onetrust-consent-sdk #onetrust-pc-btn-handler.cookie-setting-link { background-color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } #onetrust-consent-sdk .onetrust-pc-btn-handler { color: #c19a06 !important; border-color: #c19a06 !important; } Japan Petroleum Exploration (JAPEX) began drilling its second exploratory well for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage to advance the Tomakomai carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in the Tomakomai area of Hokkaido. Undertaken for drilling on Aug. 15, the well utilizes extended reach drilling from a drilling rig in Masago-cho, Tomakomai City, toward the seabed to confirm the existence of formations suitable for CO2 storage. Drilling of this second exploratory well follows start of exploratory drilling for the project in late 2025. Launched for initial study in 2023, the Tomakomai CCS project aims to separate and capture CO2 from Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd.’s Hokkaido refinery and Hokkaido Electric Power Co. Inc.’s Tomato Atsuma power station. The CO2 will be injected underground by JAPEX. While JAPEX said it intends to make a final investment decision (FID) on the Tomakomai CCS project based on combined results of both exploratory wells, the company did not specify a timeframe for when FID would occur. The partners previously said they intend to achieve a CO2-storage volume of 1.5-2 million tonnes/year in 2030.

Texas Tightens Oversight of Data Center Development

Texas has spent the past decade building one of the most data center-friendly policy environments in the United States. But the state’s political posture is tightening. The emerging message from Austin is that continued data center growth will face greater scrutiny over grid costs, water use, tax incentives and community impacts. What is interesting about this policy conversation is that the Texas Legislature is not in regular session. The 89th regular session ended June 2, 2025, and the 90th Legislature does not convene until January 12, 2027. What has occurred instead is a concentrated period of interim committee work, gubernatorial recommendations, implementation of Senate Bill 6, calls for a special session, and regulatory action by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Together, those efforts are creating the framework for a broader legislative debate in 2027 while already affecting projects seeking ERCOT interconnection, infrastructure costs and site-selection decisions. Abbott Sets Out a New Policy Framework The policy shift accelerated June 10, when Gov. Greg Abbott directed the PUCT to require data centers to fully fund the electric infrastructure needed to serve their operations and directed PUCT and ERCOT to identify additional actions available under existing authority. Separately, Abbott pledged to work with lawmakers in 2027 on legislation requiring data centers to add electric capacity, use water-efficient cooling systems, report electricity and water use, phase out outdated tax incentives and adopt additional protections for neighboring communities. The most consequential shift began June 10, when Gov. Greg Abbott sent state electricity regulators a sweeping list of data center policy priorities. Abbott called for future legislation requiring new facilities to add generation to the Texas grid, pay the full cost of their interconnection and related infrastructure, use closed-loop or similarly water-efficient cooling systems, and file annual reports

NVIDIA Pushes the AI Factory From Rack to Asset Class

Making Compute Underwritable Huang expanded the argument a day later in an NVIDIA blog describing AI factory compute as an emerging investable asset class. NVIDIA’s case begins with a definition. The company does not describe its compute platform simply as a GPU. It includes accelerated computing, networking, systems software, AI frameworks and the CUDA software ecosystem surrounding the hardware. That wider platform matters to the financing thesis because NVIDIA argues it increases the number of potential users for an installed AI system. An NVIDIA DSX AI factory could support language models, vision, speech, biological computing, robotics, physical AI and other workloads. The same infrastructure could potentially move among customers, clouds or operators as demand changes. In financial terms, NVIDIA is arguing for fungibility. That could become particularly important to lenders and infrastructure investors trying to determine what happens if an original customer disappears, a contract expires or the economics of a particular workload change. A GPU cluster tied economically to one speculative tenant is one thing. Compute that can be redeployed across a large global market of clouds, enterprises, AI developers and model providers is a different risk proposition. NVIDIA contends that this breadth of potential offtakers helps protect residual value. Whether institutional markets ultimately price that risk the way NVIDIA hopes remains to be seen. But the company is now explicitly trying to establish a financial framework around that premise. Challenging the Traditional Depreciation Curve NVIDIA’s second argument is that software can extend the economic life of installed hardware. CUDA is central to that case. The company maintains that successive software improvements can increase the performance and efficiency of systems that have already been deployed, allowing the same hardware to produce more useful work at lower cost over time. That does not eliminate hardware obsolescence. New GPU generations continue

The Next Data Center Constraint: Trust

When Facts Aren’t Enough Few places offer a more revealing test case than Loudoun County, Virginia. Data Center Alley has spent decades living with data center development at a scale most emerging markets will never approach. Rizer said Loudoun’s experience gives the county an unusually deep record with which to answer questions about environmental impacts, infrastructure and economic benefits. But those facts increasingly struggle to penetrate the broader public debate. Rizer said Loudoun today has more than 250 data centers, while the entire sector uses less than 10% of the county water system. He also pointed to improved air quality over the past decade and approximately $1.2 billion in tax revenue from the industry. Yet he acknowledged that simply producing another data point does little good when residents no longer trust the people presenting it. “I call it community concern whack-a-mole, because every time you address one thing, there are three others that pop up,” Rizer said. The problem, in his view, has become partly emotional rather than informational. “You can’t change how people think until you change how they feel,” he said. “And right now they feel angry, they feel confused, they are fearful, they are mistrustful, both of government and the big tech industry.” That distinction matters. The industry’s instinct has often been to counter criticism with facts: tax receipts, job numbers, water-use calculations, emissions data or explanations of how a particular cooling system works. Those facts remain important. But Rizer’s argument is that the industry must first rebuild enough credibility for communities to hear them. The Industry’s Unforced Errors Not all of the distrust has arrived from outside the industry. Rizer and Waitkunas were equally pointed about mistakes by developers and operators that have given opponents powerful examples to use against data center projects elsewhere. “The industry

Reports: Data Center Expansion Finds Its Contours

AI Density Is Arriving Unevenly Inside the data center, the AI transition remains equally uneven. Uptime’s 2026 survey found the average modal, or most common, rack density across respondents exceeding 11 kW for the first time, up from 9 kW in 2025. But that number requires context. A relatively small group of very high-density facilities pulls the average upward. Without those facilities, Uptime puts average modal rack density at 7.8 kW, only modestly higher than 7.5 kW in 2025. The industry therefore continues to operate two realities at once: a vast installed base running conventional rack densities and a rapidly emerging class of AI facilities pushing far beyond them. The latter is becoming more visible. Some 24% of Uptime respondents now report racks at 30 kW or higher, up from 19% last year. Much of the increase occurred above 50 kW, and some operators reported deployments exceeding 100 kW. Still, most surveyed facilities have no racks at 30 kW or above. AI inference is also moving up the density curve. For the first time in Uptime’s survey, generative AI inference matched AI training as a driver of respondents’ highest-density deployments, with 21% citing each workload. That matters because inference potentially pushes AI infrastructure requirements beyond a relatively concentrated population of model-training campuses and into a broader set of facilities and markets. Power Is Both Constraint and Risk No issue connects the three reports more consistently than power. It limits new site availability. It redirects development toward emerging markets. It shapes community debates. It affects density and cooling architecture. And once a facility is operating, it remains the largest source of outage risk. Uptime says 56% of operators who experienced an impactful outage identified power as the primary cause of their most recent incident. The institute cautions against treating the increase

DCF Poll: What Will Constrain Data Center Growth Next?

Matt Vincent is Editor in Chief of Data Center Frontier, where he leads editorial strategy and coverage focused on the infrastructure powering cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and the digital economy. A veteran B2B technology journalist with more than two decades of experience, Vincent specializes in the intersection of data centers, power, cooling, and emerging AI-era infrastructure. Since assuming the EIC role in 2023, he has helped guide Data Center Frontier’s coverage of the industry’s transition into the gigawatt-scale AI era, with a focus on hyperscale development, behind-the-meter power strategies, liquid cooling architectures, and the evolving energy demands of high-density compute, while working closely with the Digital Infrastructure Group at Endeavor Business Media to expand the brand’s analytical and multimedia footprint. Vincent also hosts The Data Center Frontier Show podcast, where he interviews industry leaders across hyperscale, colocation, utilities, and the data center supply chain to examine the technologies and business models reshaping digital infrastructure. Since its inception he serves as Head of Content for the Data Center Frontier Trends Summit. Before becoming Editor in Chief, he served in multiple senior editorial roles across Endeavor Business Media’s digital infrastructure portfolio, with coverage spanning data centers and hyperscale infrastructure, structured cabling and networking, telecom and datacom, IP physical security, and wireless and Pro AV markets. He began his career in 2005 within PennWell’s Advanced Technology Division and later held senior editorial positions supporting brands such as Cabling Installation & Maintenance, Lightwave Online, Broadband Technology Report, and Smart Buildings Technology. Vincent is a frequent moderator, interviewer, and keynote speaker at industry events including the HPC Forum, where he delivers forward-looking analysis on how AI and high-performance computing are reshaping digital infrastructure. He graduated with honors from Indiana University Bloomington with a B.A. in English Literature and Creative Writing and lives in southern New Hampshire with

Is your networking built for AI’s traffic patterns and data volumes?

As data centers evolve into AI factories, compute has shifted from a cost center to a revenue driver. “Compute is revenue,” said Jensen Huang, co-founder and CEO of NVIDIA. “Without compute, there is no way to generate tokens. Without tokens, there’s no way to generate revenue. So, in this new world of AI, compute equals revenue.” This reframe changes an organizations’ calculus. If compute is revenue, what do you optimize for? Here are 5 questions to consider: Are you measuring what actually drives AI factory revenue? Most AI factories are power-constrained, so tokens per watt dictate how much revenue you can generate and the cost per token impacts the AI factory profit margin. But neither of these metrics should be evaluated at a single operating point. Batch jobs, real-time chat, and agentic workloads demand different points on the throughput-latency curve. AI chips that perform well at only a few points will underserve the full range of workloads. Additional key operational metrics like time to first token (TTFT), mean time between interruptions (MTBI), and platform useful life are the bedrock of AI factory efficiency. They dictate how quickly an AI factory comes online to generate tokens, the reliability of its revenue streams, and its long-term ability to remain productive as AI workloads evolve. How does agentic AI change what your CPU needs to deliver? Data center CPUs have historically been optimized for parallel throughput, where more cores improve aggregate capacity. Agentic workloads run in loops and make different demands. The model reasons on the GPU, the CPU executes tool calls such as code compilation and data retrieval, and the result returns to the GPU so the model can reason again. Every step runs in sequence, gated by the one before it. Per-core performance and memory latency determine how fast each step

Microsoft will invest $80B in AI data centers in fiscal 2025

And Microsoft isn’t the only one that is ramping up its investments into AI-enabled data centers. Rival cloud service providers are all investing in either upgrading or opening new data centers to capture a larger chunk of business from developers and users of large language models (LLMs). In a report published in October 2024, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that demand for generative AI would push Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle, Meta, and Apple would between them devote $200 billion to capex in 2025, up from $110 billion in 2023. Microsoft is one of the biggest spenders, followed closely by Google and AWS, Bloomberg Intelligence said. Its estimate of Microsoft’s capital spending on AI, at $62.4 billion for calendar 2025, is lower than Smith’s claim that the company will invest $80 billion in the fiscal year to June 30, 2025. Both figures, though, are way higher than Microsoft’s 2020 capital expenditure of “just” $17.6 billion. The majority of the increased spending is tied to cloud services and the expansion of AI infrastructure needed to provide compute capacity for OpenAI workloads. Separately, last October Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said his company planned total capex spend of $75 billion in 2024 and even more in 2025, with much of it going to AWS, its cloud computing division.

John Deere unveils more autonomous farm machines to address skill labor shortage

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More Self-driving tractors might be the path to self-driving cars. John Deere has revealed a new line of autonomous machines and tech across agriculture, construction and commercial landscaping. The Moline, Illinois-based John Deere has been in business for 187 years, yet it’s been a regular as a non-tech company showing off technology at the big tech trade show in Las Vegas and is back at CES 2025 with more autonomous tractors and other vehicles. This is not something we usually cover, but John Deere has a lot of data that is interesting in the big picture of tech. The message from the company is that there aren’t enough skilled farm laborers to do the work that its customers need. It’s been a challenge for most of the last two decades, said Jahmy Hindman, CTO at John Deere, in a briefing. Much of the tech will come this fall and after that. He noted that the average farmer in the U.S. is over 58 and works 12 to 18 hours a day to grow food for us. And he said the American Farm Bureau Federation estimates there are roughly 2.4 million farm jobs that need to be filled annually; and the agricultural work force continues to shrink. (This is my hint to the anti-immigration crowd). John Deere’s autonomous 9RX Tractor. Farmers can oversee it using an app. While each of these industries experiences their own set of challenges, a commonality across all is skilled labor availability. In construction, about 80% percent of contractors struggle to find skilled labor. And in commercial landscaping, 86% of landscaping business owners can’t find labor to fill open positions, he said. “They have to figure out how to do

2025 playbook for enterprise AI success, from agents to evals

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for enterprise AI. The past year has seen rapid innovation, and this year will see the same. This has made it more critical than ever to revisit your AI strategy to stay competitive and create value for your customers. From scaling AI agents to optimizing costs, here are the five critical areas enterprises should prioritize for their AI strategy this year. 1. Agents: the next generation of automation AI agents are no longer theoretical. In 2025, they’re indispensable tools for enterprises looking to streamline operations and enhance customer interactions. Unlike traditional software, agents powered by large language models (LLMs) can make nuanced decisions, navigate complex multi-step tasks, and integrate seamlessly with tools and APIs. At the start of 2024, agents were not ready for prime time, making frustrating mistakes like hallucinating URLs. They started getting better as frontier large language models themselves improved. “Let me put it this way,” said Sam Witteveen, cofounder of Red Dragon, a company that develops agents for companies, and that recently reviewed the 48 agents it built last year. “Interestingly, the ones that we built at the start of the year, a lot of those worked way better at the end of the year just because the models got better.” Witteveen shared this in the video podcast we filmed to discuss these five big trends in detail. Models are getting better and hallucinating less, and they’re also being trained to do agentic tasks. Another feature that the model providers are researching is a way to use the LLM as a judge, and as models get cheaper (something we’ll cover below), companies can use three or more models to

OpenAI’s red teaming innovations define new essentials for security leaders in the AI era

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More OpenAI has taken a more aggressive approach to red teaming than its AI competitors, demonstrating its security teams’ advanced capabilities in two areas: multi-step reinforcement and external red teaming. OpenAI recently released two papers that set a new competitive standard for improving the quality, reliability and safety of AI models in these two techniques and more. The first paper, “OpenAI’s Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems,” reports that specialized teams outside the company have proven effective in uncovering vulnerabilities that might otherwise have made it into a released model because in-house testing techniques may have missed them. In the second paper, “Diverse and Effective Red Teaming with Auto-Generated Rewards and Multi-Step Reinforcement Learning,” OpenAI introduces an automated framework that relies on iterative reinforcement learning to generate a broad spectrum of novel, wide-ranging attacks. Going all-in on red teaming pays practical, competitive dividends It’s encouraging to see competitive intensity in red teaming growing among AI companies. When Anthropic released its AI red team guidelines in June of last year, it joined AI providers including Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and even the U.S.’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which all had released red teaming frameworks. Investing heavily in red teaming yields tangible benefits for security leaders in any organization. OpenAI’s paper on external red teaming provides a detailed analysis of how the company strives to create specialized external teams that include cybersecurity and subject matter experts. The goal is to see if knowledgeable external teams can defeat models’ security perimeters and find gaps in their security, biases and controls that prompt-based testing couldn’t find. What makes OpenAI’s recent papers noteworthy is how well they define using human-in-the-middle

Stay Ahead, Stay ONMINE