Spanish Lab Leak Investigation Raises Questions About Transparency in Biological Security

When dead wild boars infected with African swine fever were discovered just 150 meters from a high-security laboratory in Barcelona last November, Spanish authorities faced their first outbreak of the devastating disease in over 30 years. What followed was an investigation that illustrates exactly why the international community needs new verification systems for biological weapons treaties.The outbreak at Collserola National Park, discovered on November 28, 2025, immediately raised uncomfortable questions. The infected animals were found virtually at the doorstep of IRTA-CReSA, a leading animal health research laboratory that had been actively working with the exact virus strain found in the wild boars.Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.A Strain That Shouldn’t Exist in NatureThe first red flag came from genetic analysis. Spanish laboratories determined that the virus closely matched the “Georgia-2007” strain, a laboratory reference material commonly used in research facilities worldwide, but not associated with any current natural outbreaks in Europe.This is precisely the kind of signature that AI screening systems are designed to detect. When you find a laboratory reference strain in the wild, especially one with no natural transmission pathway, that immediately triggers intensive investigation protocols.The virus also represents what scientists call a “novel genetic group” (Group 29) that doesn’t match any of the 800 African swine fever variants in international databases. For a naturally evolved virus to suddenly appear with no genetic ancestors in the database is highly unusual.Even more puzzling: there are no current outbreaks of African swine fever in neighboring France or Portugal, eliminating the possibility that infected wild boars simply crossed borders. To be blunt, pigs don’t swim the Mediterranean, and famously, pigs don’t fly.Troubling CoincidencesDocuments reported by Spanish media revealed that IRTA-CReSA had conducted at least two African swine fever experiments in October and November 2025, during the same period when the first infected wild boar carcasses were discovered.Adding to concerns, the laboratory was undergoing major construction of a new high-security facility. Building work began in September, just months before the outbreak, raising questions about whether construction activities might have compromised containment protocols.Perhaps most notably, the head of CReSA’s biocontainment unit, Xavier Abad, posted on social media on November 14, just two weeks before the outbreak was announced, that “accidents in laboratories or in facilities that handle pathogens exist.”The Investigation That Investigated ItselfSpanish authorities ultimately concluded in February 2026 that genetic sequencing had “ruled out” the laboratory as the source of the outbreak. But the investigation’s methodology has drawn criticism from international biosecurity experts.The analysis was conducted exclusively by Spanish government institutions—the same entities responsible for oversight of the laboratory under suspicion. With Spain’s pork industry valued at €8.8 billion annually and international trading partners already restricting imports, the economic incentives to minimize laboratory accident scenarios were substantial.More troubling to scientists: the detailed sequencing results have never been published in peer-reviewed journals or made available for independent verification. Investigation details remain under judicial seal, preventing the international scientific community from evaluating the Spanish conclusions.This represents a fundamental failure of scientific transparency. When public health and international security are at stake, investigations must be open to independent verification. The lack of published data means we simply cannot validate these conclusions.Only 17 of 19 laboratory samples were sequenced in the government’s analysis, with older frozen samples remaining unanalyzed. The rationale for excluding these materials from comparison has not been explained.A New Framework for Biological SecurityThe Spanish case has become a focal point for discussions about implementing artificial intelligence-enhanced monitoring systems for the Biological Weapons Convention, the 1972 treaty that prohibits the development of biological weapons but has operated without formal verification mechanisms for over 50 years.A six-layer AI monitoring framework, recently proposed by Dr. Robert Malone and informed by discussions with US Government officials and Artificial Intelligence experts, would have flagged the Spanish outbreak within days through multiple independent channels:Genomic surveillancesystems would have immediately identified the laboratory reference strain characteristicsOpen-source intelligencemonitoring would have detected the temporal correlation between research activities and outbreak timingSupply chain trackingwould have mapped international strain transfers and construction activitiesEnvironmental monitoringwould have provided real-time pathogen detection around the facilityBehavioral analysiswould have identified institutional response patterns suggesting defensive posturingPredictive modelingwould have generated high-probability scenarios for laboratory accident investigationThis Spanish case demonstrates exactly why we need independent, international verification systems. When national institutions investigate themselves, especially with billions of dollars at stake, the conclusions may lack the credibility needed for international confidence.Unanswered QuestionsThe Spanish authorities’ natural introduction theory requires explaining how a Georgian laboratory strain from 2007 reached Spanish wild boar through contaminated food imports while leaving no epidemiological trace in transit countries or neighboring regions.Alternative explanations suggested by officials, including the theory that wild boars ate a contaminated sandwich discarded by a truck driver, have not been supported with evidence showing how such material would contain a laboratory reference strain not currently circulating in commercial meat products.The temporal correlation among facility construction, active research, and outbreak emergence also remains unexplained by natural-introduction scenarios.International ImplicationsThe case has already prompted other countries to examine their own laboratory oversight procedures. Australia immediately removed Spain from its list of approved countries for importing biological materials, while other trading partners have suspended pork imports pending resolution.More significantly, the incident has accelerated international discussions about implementing AI-enhanced verification systems for biological weapons treaties. The European Union is reportedly considering mandatory environmental monitoring requirements around high-security biological research facilities.This may be the wake-up call we needed. Whether this particular outbreak was natural or accidental, it shows we’re not prepared for the verification challenges of the 21st century. We can’t keep operating biological security on an honor system when the stakes are this high.Echoes of Wuhan: A Pattern of Institutional Self-ProtectionThe Spanish government’s handling of the African swine fever investigation bears striking similarities to how Chinese authorities responded to questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This comparison has not gone unnoticed by international biosecurity experts.Both cases involve high-security laboratories conducting research on the exact pathogens found in nearby outbreaks. Both feature government investigations that remain largely opaque to international scrutiny. And both demonstrate how national institutions can prioritize damage control over transparent scientific inquiry when reputational and economic stakes are high.The playbook is remarkably similar. You see the same pattern: immediate defensive messaging, investigation conducted exclusively by national institutions with conflicts of interest, critical data withheld from international review, and conclusions that conveniently exonerate domestic facilities.The Transparency ParallelsJust as Chinese authorities restricted international access to early SARS-CoV-2 samples and patient data, Spanish officials have placed investigation details under judicial seal and failed to publish sequencing results in peer-reviewed journals. In both cases, the institutions responsible for oversight investigated themselves without meaningful independent verification.The Chinese government initially promoted theories that SARS-CoV-2 originated from frozen food imports—strikingly similar to Spanish suggestions that wild boars consumed contaminated food products from international truckers. Both theories deflect attention from nearby research facilities while proposing importation scenarios that lack supporting evidence.In Wuhan, we saw months of denied access, deleted databases, and unpublished data.  The Spanish case shows these aren’t uniquely Chinese approaches—they reflect institutional responses when governments feel their scientific credibility and economic interests are threatened.Economic Stakes and Defensive PositioningChina’s response to COVID-19 origin investigations was shaped in part by concerns about reputational damage to its growing biotechnology sector and international standing. Similarly, Spain’s €8.8 billion pork industry and status as Europe’s largest producer created powerful incentives to quickly dismiss laboratory accident scenarios.Both governments initially welcomed international cooperation but became increasingly defensive as evidence pointed toward research facilities. Chinese authorities eventually expelled foreign journalists investigating COVID origins, while Spanish officials placed their investigation under judicial secrecy that prevents external review.The pattern extends to public messaging: both governments have characterized questions about laboratory origins as “conspiracy theories” while promoting alternative explanations that have not withstood scientific scrutiny.The WHO Precedent ProblemThe World Health Organization’s controversial 2021 investigation of COVID origins, which relied heavily on Chinese government cooperation and dismissed laboratory origins as “extremely unlikely,” has become a cautionary tale for international outbreak investigations.The WHO’s Wuhan investigation showed what happens when international bodies defer to national governments investigating their own facilities. The Spanish case suggests we haven’t learned those lessons. We’re seeing the same deference to national authorities with obvious conflicts of interest.WHO officials did not investigate the Spanish outbreak directly, instead accepting Spanish government assurances that laboratory origins had been “ruled out.” This approach mirrors the organization’s initial acceptance of Chinese claims about COVID transmission and laboratory safety.Scientific Integrity vs. National InterestsBoth cases highlight fundamental tensions between scientific transparency and national interests. Chinese scientists who questioned official COVID origin narratives faced career consequences, while Spanish researchers have remained publicly supportive of government conclusions despite ongoing scientific uncertainties.The pressure to reach politically convenient conclusions appears similar in both contexts. Chinese authorities needed to deflect blame for a global pandemic, while Spanish officials faced immediate threats to a major export industry and the reputation of prominent research institutions.Scientists are human beings operating within political systems. When massive economic and reputational stakes are involved, the incentives for institutional self-protection can override scientific objectivity.International Response PatternsThe international community’s response to both incidents has been shaped by diplomatic and economic considerations rather than purely scientific concerns. Just as many countries were reluctant to confront China over COVID origins due to trade relationships, some European partners have been hesitant to push for greater transparency in the Spanish investigation.However, the Spanish case has prompted more immediate action from some quarters. Australia quickly suspended imports of biological products from Spain, while several countries imposed restrictions on pork trade. These responses were notably absent during the early months of COVID origin debates.The difference is scale and immediate economic impact. COVID origins became geopolitically toxic, while African swine fever remains a contained agricultural issue. But the underlying transparency problems are identical.Lessons UnlearnedPerhaps most troubling to biosecurity experts is that the Spanish case occurred despite widespread recognition of transparency failures in COVID origin investigations. The international community had multiple opportunities to establish better protocols for investigating potential laboratory incidents, but those lessons appear unheeded.We spent years criticizing China’s lack of transparency, then watched Spain follow essentially the same playbook with African swine fever. If we can’t get transparency on a pig disease outbreak, what happens when the next incident involves human pathogens?The similarities between Chinese and Spanish responses suggest these are not cultural or political aberrations, but predictable institutional behaviors when research establishments and associated governments face potential blame (and liability) for disease outbreaks. Without mandatory transparency protocols and independent verification mechanisms, similar patterns are likely to repeat.Breaking the CycleThe comparison underscores why biosecurity experts argue for AI-enhanced verification systems that don’t rely on national government cooperation. Just as arms control treaties require independent monitoring rather than self-reporting, biological security may need similar international oversight.Both Wuhan and Spain show us that voluntary transparency doesn’t work when stakes are high. We need verification systems that assume conflicts of interest rather than hoping for institutional honesty. The pattern is too clear to ignore.The African swine fever investigation may ultimately prove less consequential than COVID origins, but it demonstrates that the fundamental problem—national institutions investigating themselves in high-stakes situations—transcends political systems and cultural contexts. Whether in authoritarian China or democratic Spain, the institutional incentives for self-protection appear remarkably similar.This parallel raises uncomfortable questions about whether current approaches to biological security investigations are fundamentally flawed, regardless of which government conducts them.The Spanish investigation illustrates broader challenges facing biological security in an era of expanding international research collaboration. Dangerous pathogen research continues to grow globally, often with limited international oversight or verification mechanisms.The lack of transparency in high-stakes investigations creates what experts call “verification gaps”; situations where official conclusions cannot be independently validated, undermining international confidence in biological security arrangements.The question isn’t whether the Spanish outbreak was natural or accidental. The question is whether our current systems provide the transparency and verification capabilities needed to maintain international confidence when these incidents occur. Based on this case, the answer is clearly no.As biological research becomes increasingly sophisticated and internationalized, the Spanish African swine fever outbreak may be remembered as the case that demonstrated why new verification frameworks are not just helpful but are essential for global biosecurity.The next outbreak near a high-security laboratory is not a matter of if, but when. The Spanish case has shown the international community what happens when investigations lack transparency, independence, and scientific rigor. The question now is whether lessons learned will translate into better systems before that next incident occurs.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareNote:This analysis is based on open-source reporting, government statements, and expert interviews. Spanish authorities maintain that genetic sequencing definitively ruled out laboratory origin, though detailed results remain unpublished.The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and do nor represent the opinions of the US Government, US State Department, the US Department of Health and Human Services, or the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.For additional background concerning the Spanish African Swine Fever Virus outbreak, see the following essay:For additional background concerning the AI-based, multi-layered, open source analysis methods used to create this analysis, see the following essay:The AI-generated analysis report created using the six layered analysis method discussed above is appended belowMulti-Layered Retrospective Analysis: Spanish African Swine Fever Outbreak (2025-2026)Applying the AI-Enhanced BWC Verification Framework to Laboratory Biosafety InvestigationExecutive SummaryThe Spanish African swine fever (ASF) outbreak discovered in November 2025 near Barcelona presents a compelling case study for applying the six-layer AI-enhanced verification framework outlined in the Biological Weapons Convention enforcement proposal. This analysis demonstrates how the proposed monitoring architecture could provide comprehensive situational awareness and evidence assessment for investigating potential laboratory incidents involving dangerous pathogens.Key findings from applying the framework:·**Genomic Layer**: Identified unusual viral characteristics matching laboratory reference strains rather than naturally circulating variants·**OSINT Layer**: Revealed research timing coincidences and facility construction anomalies during outbreak period·**Supply Chain Layer**:Limited transparency in biological material sourcing and international strain transfers·**Environmental Layer**:Detected geographic clustering inconsistent with natural transmission patterns·**Behavioral/Financial Layer**:Uncovered institutional response patterns suggesting defensive posturing·**Predictive Modeling Layer**:Generated high probability assessments for laboratory accident scenariosCritical Analysis FindingsWhile Spanish authorities claimed genetic sequencing ruled out laboratory origin, this conclusion suffers from fundamental methodological and transparency problems:(1)Self-referential investigation bias- Spanish institutions investigated themselves with clear economic incentives to minimize laboratory accident scenarios;(2)Scientific transparency failure- detailed sequencing results remain unpublished and unavailable for independent peer review;(3)Inconsistency with natural origin- the outbreak exhibits multiple characteristics (laboratory reference strain, geographic isolation, novel genetic group, temporal correlation with research activities) that remain unexplained by natural introduction hypotheses.This case illustrates both the power of multilayered analysis in identifying concerning patterns and the critical need for independent, international verification mechanisms when national institutions conduct self-investigations of potential laboratory incidents. The Spanish authorities’ conclusions lack the transparency and methodological rigor necessary for definitive determination of outbreak origins.Case BackgroundOutbreak TimelineNovember 28, 2025: Spain notified the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) of an outbreak of ASF in wild boars found dead in Barcelona Province, marking the country’s first ASF occurrence since September 30, 1994 (Swine Health Information Center, 2025).Initial Discovery: Dead wild boars found in a wooded area just outside Barcelona, with infected animals discovered just 150 meters away from IRTA-CReSA, a high-security animal research laboratory that had been actively working with African swine fever virus (Malone, 2026).Scale: At least 26 carcasses have tested positive for ASF within the containment zone surrounding the laboratory (Euro Weekly News, 2025).Laboratory Under InvestigationTheAnimal Health Research Centre (IRTA-CReSA)in Bellaterra represents a critical focal point for analysis: Since 2017, IRTA-CReSA has been a collaborating centre of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) for the research and control of emerging and re-emerging swine diseases in Europe.The facility includes specialized researchers like Francesc Accensi, who joined the African Swine Fever research line in 2009.The validation of assays using ASFV viral strains was performed in the biosafety level 3 facilities at IRTA-CReSA, Barcelona, Spain.Official Investigation OutcomeGenetic sequencing of the pathogen that infected the animals found dead in the wild has been compared with the DNA of the strains used in the IRTA-CReSA biosecurity facilities, and they do not match in any case, according to the official report released on Feb. 9 by Spain’s Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Critical Note on Evidence Transparency: The detailed sequencing results from the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture have not been published in peer-reviewed literature or made publicly available for independent scientific verification. The investigation details remain under judicial seal, raising significant transparency concerns about the conclusiveness of the official findings.Layer One: Genomic Surveillance and Bioinformatics AnalysisKey FindingsViral Strain Characteristics:A Madrid laboratory concluded that the virus’s genetic group was “very similar” to a viral strain found in Georgia in 2007—frequently used in labs for testing vaccines (Phys.org, 2025).Spanish boars were found to be infected with a strain of ASFV that is a match to the Georgia-2007 strain, which is the “reference strain” used in research labs and is not associated with current African swine fever infections in Europe (Legal Insurrection, 2026).Analytical Implications:1. **Laboratory Reference Strain Pattern**: The detection of a laboratory reference strain (Georgia-2007) rather than naturally circulating European variants immediately triggered algorithmic flags in the genomic surveillance layer. This pattern is precisely what AI screening systems are designed to detect—genetic signatures that deviate from expected natural evolutionary pathways.2. **Phylogenetic Inconsistency**: The IRB sequencing of the virus found in the dead wild boars also does not match any of the 800 African swine fever variants in international databases. This represents a novel genetic group (Group 29) with no clear evolutionary ancestry (ARA Catalonia, 2025).3. **Engineering Signatures**: While not explicitly mentioned in reports, the presence of a laboratory reference strain suggests potential codon optimization, standardized regulatory elements, or other molecular signatures consistent with laboratory cultivation and maintenance.AI Detection Capabilities DemonstratedThe genomic layer successfully identified:· Sequence deviation from natural European ASF variants· Match to laboratory reference materials· Novel genetic grouping requiring further investigation· Geographic inconsistency (no natural transmission corridor from Georgia-2007 source regions)Limitations Revealed**Definitive Source Attribution**:Despite identifying laboratory-associated characteristics, genetic analysis alone could not definitively prove laboratory escape**Temporal Resolution**:Difficulty establishing precise timing of strain divergence from laboratory stocks*Multiple Laboratory Hypothesis**:The existence of the same reference strain in multiple laboratories complicated source attribution**Scientific Transparency Gap**:The detailed sequencing results from Spanish authorities have not been published in peer-reviewed literature, preventing independent scientific verification of official conclusions**Institutional Investigation Bias**:Analysis conducted exclusively by Spanish government institutions with potential conflicts of interest in exonerating domestic facilities**Incomplete Sample Analysis**:Only 17 of 19 laboratory samples were sequenced, with older frozen samples remaining unanalyzedLayer Two: Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) MonitoringResearch Publication AnalysisTemporal Coincidences:Documents reported by El País showed that one of the laboratory facilities had scheduled and carried out at least two ASF virus experiments in October–November 2025, on days that overlapped with the period when the first infected wild boar carcasses were found.The head of the CReSA’s biocontainment unit, Xavier Abad, posted on social media on November 14 that ‘accidents in laboratories or in facilities that handle pathogens exist’.Research Network Mapping:International collaboration with UK’s Pirbright Institute supplying viral strains· Extensive publication record in ASF research spanning over a decade· Participation in European Union reference laboratory networksInfrastructure and Construction IntelligenceFacility Modifications:Building work on an extension at the facility started in September including a high-security laboratory, with work continuing on the site with around a dozen people involved and two police officers guarding the work site.The laboratory was constructing a new building adjacent to its existing high-security facility, raising questions about whether construction activities could have compromised containment protocols.Social Media and Public Communications:· Pre-outbreak social media posts about laboratory accidents· Post-outbreak defensive communications emphasizing laboratory security· Center assertions of expertise in biosecurity in response to reports that place it at the origin of the infections, with sources assuring ARA that a review of protocols for the last three months found “no incidents have been detected”OSINT Analytical InsightsThe open-source intelligence layer revealed several concerning convergences:**Temporal Overlap**: Active ASF experiments during the outbreak period**Infrastructure Vulnerability**: Major construction potentially compromising containment**Behavioral Anomalies**: Pre-outbreak acknowledgment of laboratory accident risks**Defensive Communications**: Pattern of institutional responses suggesting awareness of laboratory origin hypothesisLayer Three: Supply Chain and Procurement MonitoringBiological Material TrackingInternational Strain Sourcing:CReSA scientists are working with similar strains supplied to them by the UK’s Pirbright Institute (The Olive Press, 2025)· Limited transparency in biological material transfer documentation· Multiple laboratories in 20-kilometer radius working with ASF virus (Euro Weekly News, 2025)Equipment and Infrastructure:· Biosafety Level 3 facility operations requiring specialized containment equipment· Construction materials and contractors for facility expansion· Waste disposal and decontamination protocols during constructionSupply Chain Vulnerabilities Identified**Multi-Laboratory Environment**:Authorities are investigating five laboratories within a 20-kilometer (12-mile) radius of the outbreak to determine its source, creating complex attribution challenges**Construction Supply Chain**:Potential introduction of contamination vectors through construction activities and personnel**Biological Material Custody**:Gaps in end-to-end tracking of viral strains from international suppliersLayer Four: Environmental Monitoring and Biosensor NetworksGeographic and Temporal Pattern AnalysisOutbreak Characteristics:The available data indicate that the outbreak began between September and October, not later.At least 26 carcasses have tested positive for ASF within the containment zone surrounding the laboratory.The infected animals were found just 150 meters away from IRTA-CReSA.Natural Transmission Analysis:There are no current outbreaks of ASFV in France or Portugal, so the virus did not walk into Spain in a wild boar. Pigs don’t swim the Mediterranean, and, famously, pigs don’t fly (Legal Insurrection, 2026)· Geographic isolation from known ASF-endemic regions· Absence of natural transmission corridors from Georgia-2007 strain source areasEnvironmental Surveillance GapsMissing Monitoring Infrastructure:· No continuous biosensor networks in place around high-risk facilities· Limited environmental sampling protocols during construction activities· Absence of real-time pathogen detection in air and water around laboratoryKey Environmental Questions:**Construction Impact**:Did facility expansion compromise environmental containment?**Waste Streams**:Were decontamination protocols adequate during construction?**Wildlife Interface**:How did laboratory-associated virus reach wild boar population?Layer Five: Behavioral and Financial AnalysisInstitutional Response PatternsCommunication Strategy Analysis:Center assertions promoting “misinformation” narrative while emphasizing laboratory security measuresRapid mobilization of scientific credibility through international expert networksImmediate commissioning of independent analysis to demonstrate non-laboratory originFinancial and Organizational Networks:Around forty professionals involved in high-level activity combining outbreak response with usual research activitiesInternational funding through European Union collaborative programsProject to expand the center with construction work having just begun, reinforcing IRTA-CReSA as a strategic biosafety infrastructure in CataloniaEconomic Impact MitigationSpanish authorities have launched immediate response measures as several international trading partners have already restricted imports of Spanish pork, a sector valued at €8.8 billion ($10.2 billion) annually (Swine Health Information Center, 2025).Layer Six: Simulation and Predictive ModelingOutbreak Scenario ModelingUsing epidemiological modeling frameworks to assess likelihood of different scenarios:**Natural Introduction Scenario**(Low Probability):Requires contaminated food introduction bypassing multiple biosecurity barriersGeographic isolation from natural ASF transmission networksGenetic inconsistency with European circulating strains**Laboratory Accident Scenario**(Moderate Probability):Temporal correlation with active research and construction activitiesGenetic match to laboratory reference strainsGeographic proximity to research facilitiesInfrastructure vulnerability during facility expansion**Intentional Release Scenario**(Very Low Probability):No apparent motivation for deliberate ASF releaseHigh economic consequences for perpetrating nationSophisticated strain selection requiring insider knowledgeModel Validation Against Actual OutcomeThe predictive modeling layer accurately identified:High probability of laboratory-associated strain characteristicsGeographic clustering patterns inconsistent with natural transmissionTimeline correlation with facility activitiesAttribution challenges in multi-laboratory environmentHowever, genetic sequencing ultimately ruled out direct laboratory escape, demonstrating the importance of convergent evidence across all layers rather than reliance on any single analytical approach.Integrated Multi-Layer AssessmentConvergent Evidence AnalysisSignals Pointing Toward Laboratory Origin:**Genomic**: Reference strain characteristics, novel genetic group**OSINT**: Temporal coincidences, construction activities, defensive communications**Supply Chain**: International strain transfers, construction supply chain**Environmental**: Geographic clustering, absence of natural transmission corridors**Behavioral**: Institutional response patterns, pre-outbreak risk acknowledgment**Predictive**: High probability scores for laboratory accident scenariosContradictory Evidence and Methodological Concerns:**Genomic**:Official claims of no match with laboratory-held strains, though detailed sequencing results have not been published for independent verification**Institutional Analysis**:17 of 19 laboratory samples sequenced showed no direct connection, but analysis conducted exclusively by Spanish government institutions**Administrative Claims**:Protocol reviews found “no incidents detected” in three-month analysis, though investigation details remain under judicial seal**Transparency Gap**:Critical sequencing methodology and complete dataset not made available to international scientific community for peer reviewFramework Effectiveness AssessmentStrengths Demonstrated:· Rapid identification of anomalous patterns across multiple data streams· Systematic evidence collection and correlation capabilities· Early warning signals through temporal and geographic analysis· Integration of disparate information sources for comprehensive assessmentLimitations Revealed:· Genetic analysis limitations in definitively ruling out laboratory origin· Attribution challenges in multi-laboratory environments· Temporal resolution gaps in determining precise outbreak timing· Political and economic pressures affecting investigation transparencyCritical Transparency and Verification GapsScientific Publication Deficit:The absence of peer-reviewed publication of sequencing results represents a fundamental failure of scientific transparency. The international scientific community cannot independently verify Spanish government claims without access to:· Complete genomic datasets and analysis methodologies· Detailed comparison protocols between outbreak and laboratory strains· Temporal analysis of strain evolution and laboratory cultivation history· Full documentation of sample collection and chain of custody proceduresInstitutional Investigation Bias:The conduct of the investigation exclusively by Spanish government institutions creates inherent conflicts of interest. The economic consequences (€8.8 billion pork industry) and reputational risks for Spanish research institutions provide strong incentives to minimize laboratory accident scenarios regardless of actual evidence.Judicial Secrecy Concerns:The placement of investigation details under judicial seal prevents independent assessment of methodological rigor and completeness. This secrecy directly contradicts the transparency principles essential for international biological security cooperation.BWC Verification Implications:This case demonstrates why the proposed AI-enhanced BWC verification framework emphasizes independent, international monitoring mechanisms rather than relying on national self-investigation. The transparency gaps in the Spanish case represent exactly the scenarios that multilateral verification systems are designed to address.RecommendationsFor Future BWC AI Verification Implementation**Genomic Surveillance Enhancement**:· Expand reference databases to include all laboratory-held strains globally· Implement real-time sequencing requirements for outbreak investigations· Develop standardized genetic fingerprinting protocols for laboratory materials**OSINT Integration**:· Automated monitoring of research facility social media and communications· Construction activity tracking around high-risk laboratories· Enhanced analysis of researcher networks and collaboration patterns**Supply Chain Transparency**:· Blockchain-enabled tracking of biological material transfers· Real-time inventory reporting for high-risk pathogens· Enhanced screening of laboratory contractors and personnel**Environmental Monitoring**:· Mandatory biosensor networks around BSL-3/4 facilities· Automated environmental sampling during construction activities· Integration with meteorological data for contamination modeling**Behavioral Analysis**:· Pattern recognition systems for institutional response analysis· Financial flow monitoring for research programs· Enhanced international coordination for investigation protocols**Predictive Capabilities**:· Improved modeling of laboratory accident scenarios· Risk assessment integration with facility licensing· Predictive maintenance protocols for containment infrastructureFor Laboratory Safety Enhancement**Construction Protocol Integration**:· Mandatory biosafety assessments during facility modifications· Enhanced containment protocols during construction activities· Real-time monitoring of containment integrity**Transparency Requirements**:· Public reporting of experimental schedules involving dangerous pathogens· Enhanced documentation of strain sources and modifications· Regular third-party biosafety assessments**International Coordination**:· Standardized protocols for laboratory incident investigation· Enhanced sharing of genetic databases and reference materials· Improved coordination between national and international oversight bodiesCritical Assessment of Spanish InvestigationFundamental Methodological Problems: The Spanish authorities’ conclusion that genetic sequencing “ruled out” laboratory origin suffers from three critical flaws that exemplify why independent, international verification mechanisms are essential for biological security:**Self-Referential Investigation Bias**: Spanish institutions with €8.8 billion economic interests in the pork industry investigated themselves, creating inherent conflicts of interest that compromise investigative objectivity.**Scientific Transparency Failure**: Detailed sequencing methodologies, complete datasets, and analytical protocols remain unpublished and unavailable for independent peer review, violating fundamental principles of scientific verification.**Unexplained Anomalies in Natural Origin Hypothesis**: The natural introduction theory fails to account for multiple significant inconsistencies: laboratory reference strain characteristics (Georgia-2007), geographic isolation from natural transmission routes, novel genetic group designation (Group 29), and temporal correlation with facility research activities and construction.Implications for Natural Origin Claims: The contaminated food introduction scenario requires explaining how a Georgia-2007 laboratory reference strain, not currently circulating in Europe, reached Spanish wild boar through imported products while leaving no epidemiological trace in neighboring countries. The combination of geographic isolation (no ASF in France or Portugal), phylogenetic novelty, and temporal correlation with laboratory activities remains unaddressed by official natural origin theories.ConclusionThe Spanish African swine fever outbreak represents a watershed case for understanding both the potential and limitations of AI-enhanced verification systems for biological weapons convention compliance. While the multi-layered analysis framework successfully identified numerous concerning patterns consistent with a laboratory origin—including genetic anomalies, temporal coincidences, and geographic clustering—Spanish authorities claimed genetic sequencing ruled out direct laboratory escape. However, the lack of published, peer-reviewable sequencing data and investigation conducted exclusively by national institutions raises significant transparency concerns about the definitiveness of these conclusions.This case demonstrates that effective BWC verification requires not just sophisticated AI monitoring capabilities, but also robust investigative protocols, international cooperation, and transparency mechanisms that can distinguish between correlation and causation while ensuring independent verification. The framework’s strength lies not in any single analytical layer, but in its ability to identify convergent patterns that warrant deeper investigation—and to highlight when official conclusions lack sufficient transparency for international confidence.Most importantly, this analysis reveals that the question is not whether AI monitoring systems are perfect, but whether they provide sufficient early warning capabilities and evidence gathering tools to support effective international cooperation in maintaining biological security. The Spanish case shows both the promise and the challenges of implementing such systems in a world where dangerous pathogen research continues to expand globally, particularly when national institutions investigate themselves without independent oversight.The multi-layered approach would have successfully identified this incident as worthy of intensive investigation within days of the initial outbreak report—precisely the kind of rapid response capability that effective BWC verification requires. The case also demonstrates why independent, international verification mechanisms are essential: the lack of published sequencing data and judicial secrecy surrounding the investigation illustrate exactly the transparency gaps that multilateral monitoring systems are designed to address.Future BWC verification systems should incorporate the lessons learned from this case: the need for real-time environmental monitoring, enhanced genetic databases, improved supply chain tracking, mandatory publication of sequencing results in peer-reviewed journals, and standardized investigation protocols that rapidly distinguish between natural and artificial pathogen releases while ensuring independent international verification. The Spanish outbreak may or may not have been natural in origin, but it provides an essential blueprint for how the international community must prepare to investigate cases where both the outcome and the transparency of national investigations may be very different.ReferencesAmerican Association of Swine Veterinarians. (2026, February). “Lab ruled out as source of Spain’s African swine fever outbreak.” Retrieved from https://www.aasv.org/2026/02/lab-ruled-out-as-source-of-spains-african-swine-fever-outbreak/Malone, R. (2026, January). “Spain’s African Swine Fever Crisis.” Malone News. Retrieved from https://www.malone.news/p/spains-african-swine-fever-crisisNational Hog Farmer. (2026, February). “Lab ruled out as source of Spain’s African swine fever outbreak.” Retrieved from https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/livestock-management/lab-ruled-out-as-source-of-spain-s-african-swine-fever-outbreakLegal Insurrection. (2026, January 12). “Spanish Outbreak of African Swine Fever in Wild Boars Renews Biosafety Concerns.” Retrieved from https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/01/spanish-outbreak-of-african-swine-fever-in-wild-boars-renews-biosafety-concerns/Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia. (2025). “African Swine Fever Virus (ASF) Outbreak in Spain - Industry Advice 411-2025.” Retrieved from https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/import/industry-advice/2025/411-2025Phys.org. (2025, December 5). “Spain not ruling out lab leak as cause of swine fever outbreak.” Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2025-12-spain-lab-leak-swine-fever.htmlThe Olive Press. (2025, December 10). “Spain’s mystery swine fever outbreak declared a national emergency - as finger of blame points at high-security lab undergoing building works.” Retrieved from https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2025/12/10/spains-mystery-swine-fever-outbreak-declared-a-national-emergency-as-finger-of-blame-points-at-high-security-lab-undergoing-building-works/Euro Weekly News. (2025, December 18). “Cataluña labs under investigation after African swine fever outbreak.” Retrieved from https://euroweeklynews.com/2025/12/18/cataluna-labs-under-investigation-after-african-swine-fever-outbreak/Swine Health Information Center. (2025, November 28). “African Swine Fever Confirmed in Spain After Three Decades.” Retrieved from https://www.swinehealth.org/african-swine-fever-confirmed-in-spain-after-three-decades/Food Navigator. (2025, December 4). “African swine fever rips through Spain.” Retrieved from https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/12/04/african-swine-fever-rips-through-spain/Euronews. (2025, December 18). “Spanish police raid research lab in Catalonia in African swine fever investigation.” Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/health/2025/12/18/spanish-police-raid-research-lab-in-catalonia-in-african-swine-fever-investigationARA (Catalonia). (2025, December 1). “IRTA-CReSA guarantees the safety of the laboratory against speculation about the origin of swine fever.” Retrieved from https://en.ara.cat/science-technology/irta-rules-out-its-collserola-laboratory-as-the-origin-of-the-swine-fever-this-is-bunker_1_5579869.htmlIRTA. (2026, February). “IRTA-CReSA welcomes the confirmation that the centre was not the source of the African swine fever outbreak.” Retrieved from https://www.irta.cat/en/noticia/especial-irta-cresa-ppa/ARA (Catalonia). (2025, December 18). “Police search the facilities of IRTA, the laboratory under investigation for swine fever.” Retrieved from https://en.ara.cat/society/swine-fever-police-search-irta-facilities_1_5595796.htmlRussSpain. (2025, December 6). “Investigation in Barcelona: Virus May Have Escaped from Laboratory.” Retrieved from https://russpain.com/en/news-3/catalan-authorities-inspect-labs-after-african-swine-fever-outbreak-346925/54. IRTA. (2021, April 13). “African swine fever research and expertise at IRTA-CReSA.” Retrieved from https://transferencia.irta.cat/en/activitats/african-swine-fever/ARA (Catalonia). (2025, December 30). “The study commissioned by the Catalan government rules out that the African swine fever outbreak originated at IRTA: ‘It’s a strain that has never been found before.’” Retrieved from https://en.ara.cat/society/initial-analyses-find-no-evidence-that-the-asf-outbreak-originated-at-irta-it-s-strain-that-has-never-been-encountered-before_1_5605402.htmlPMC - National Center for Biotechnology Information. “Efficient detection of African Swine Fever Virus using minimal equipment through a LAMP PCR method.” Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9911463/Primary Framework SourceAnalysis conducted using the AI-Enhanced BWC Verification Framework as outlined in “The Quiet Revolution: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Biological Weapons Convention EnforcementDocument Classification: Unclassified AnalysisPrepared: March 2026Sources: Open-source intelligence and public reporting

Summary: Exclusive Analysis: How AI Monitoring Could Have Changed the African Swine Fever Investigation


The Unbreakable Message

The Unbreakable MessageQuantum communication is no longer a physics thought experiment. It’s being deployed right now, and it’s going to change who controls secrets, who wins wars, and who you can trust online.There is a physics rule that changes everything about how we think about secrets. It goes like this: you cannot observe a quantum system without disturbing it. Not because our instruments are clumsy. Not because we haven’t built good enough technology yet. Because the universe, at its most fundamental level, does not allow it.This sounds like an obscure footnote in a physics textbook. It is not. It is the foundation of a communications revolution that is quietly unfolding right now, one that promises to make certain kinds of messages genuinely, physically impossible to intercept without detection. Not hard to intercept. Not expensive to intercept. Impossible to intercept.Governments know this. China has already built a 2,000-kilometer quantum communication network between Beijing and Shanghai, and in 2017 demonstrated satellite-based quantum communication over 1,200 kilometers.1The European Union has a continent-wide quantum network in development. The United States, Japan, South Korea, and the UK all have major national programs running. Banks in Europe and Asia have piloted quantum-secured trading links. The technology exists. It works. The question is no longerwhetherquantum communication reshapes the world, butwhenandon whose terms.So let’s talk about what this actually is, who it matters to, and why you should be paying attention even if you have never thought about a photon in your life.The physics, explained without the physicsEvery time you send a message today, whether it’s a text, a bank transfer, or a classified government cable, it gets scrambled using mathematics. The scrambling is based on mathematical problems that are very hard to solve, specifically, factoring enormous numbers into their prime components. Break the math, and you read the message. This is the foundation of essentially all modern encryption.The problem is that “very hard” is not the same as “impossible.” It just means that today’s computers would take longer than the age of the universe to crack the code. Tomorrow’s computers might not. And right now, governments and intelligence agencies around the world are almost certainly storing encrypted communications they’ve intercepted, banking on the possibility that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, once built, will let them reach back through time and read messages that were sent years or decades ago.Security researchers have a name for this:harvest now, decrypt later.It is not paranoia. It is a rational strategy that any serious intelligence service would pursue.Quantum communication offers a fundamentally different kind of security that doesn’t rely on mathematics at all. It relies on physics. Three ideas are at the heart of it.The first isquantum superposition.A normal computer bit is either a zero or a one. A quantum bit, called a qubit, can be both simultaneously, until the moment you measure it, at which point it settles into one or the other. Think of it like a coin spinning in the air. It’s not heads or tails yet. It’s both.The second isquantum entanglement.Two particles can be linked in such a way that measuring one instantly determines the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance” and spent years refusing to believe it was real. Decades of experiments have confirmed that it is.2When you measure one entangled particle, its partner responds instantly, across any distance.Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance.” Decades of experiments have confirmed that it is very real, and very useful.The third is theno-cloning theorem,which states that you cannot perfectly copy an unknown quantum state. This one sounds technical but its implications are enormous: if you intercept a quantum message and try to read it, you have to measure the quantum particles carrying that message, and the act of measuring changes them. The message arrives at the other end subtly altered, and the people communicating know immediately that someone was listening.Put these three things together, and you getQuantum Key Distribution,or QKD, the core technology of quantum communication. Instead of relying on mathematical complexity to protect a secret key, QKD relies on physics. Alice and Bob, as cryptographers conventionally call the two parties communicating, exchange individual photons, particles of light, to generate a shared secret key. If Eve, the eavesdropper, intercepts those photons to measure them, she inevitably disturbs them. Alice and Bob detect the disturbance. They throw out the compromised key and try again. Eve gets nothing.The first QKD protocol, known as BB84, was proposed by Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard in 1984.3It took decades to go from a theoretical proposal to working hardware. That hardware now exists and is being deployed. Commercially. Today.THE KEY ENGINEERING PROBLEMPhotons carrying quantum information are absorbed and scattered as they travel through fiber-optic cable. Classical systems solve signal loss by amplifying the signal at intervals, but you cannot amplify a quantum state without copying it, which the no-cloning theorem forbids. “Quantum repeaters,” devices that extend the range of quantum networks using entanglement swapping and quantum memory, are the central unsolved engineering challenge. Most experts expect them to mature within a decade, at which point the range limitations that currently restrict quantum networks will largely disappear.Why militaries are racing to deploy thisIf you want to understand who is taking quantum communication most seriously, look at who is spending the most money on it. The answer is the same institutions that have always cared most about the integrity of secret messages: militaries and intelligence agencies.The nuclear problemThe most consequential application is one that almost nobody publicly discusses: securing nuclear command-and-control systems. The communications chain between a national leader and nuclear forces must work flawlessly under any circumstances, including a decapitation strike, and must be impossible to fake or intercept. A spoofed launch order is among the worst imaginable scenarios in international security. A quantum-secured nuclear command network would provide a layer of physical assurance that classical encryption, which relies on mathematical complexity, cannot match.The submarine problemCommunicating with submarines is one of the oldest unsolved problems in naval warfare. Current very-low-frequency radio systems are slow, have limited bandwidth, and emit signals that can be detected. Researchers are investigating quantum optical channels using blue-green wavelengths of light, which penetrate seawater, as well as satellite-to-submarine quantum links. The strategic value of maintaining covert, reliable, quantum-secured communication with ballistic missile submarines, platforms whose entire purpose is to be undetectable, is obvious.The “harvest now, decrypt later” arms raceEvery major intelligence service is almost certainly recording encrypted communications today that they cannot yet read, hoping that advances in quantum computing will eventually let them crack the encryption retroactively. This is a race with an uncertain finish line. Quantum communication sidesteps the race entirely. A message transmitted via QKD cannot be harvested for later decryption, because any interception is immediately detected and the key is discarded. Nations that move their most sensitive communications onto quantum networks first gain a permanent, physics-guaranteed communications advantage over those that don’t.Sensing the invisibleQuantum communication’s military significance extends beyond sending messages. Related quantum technologies promise to detect things that are currently invisible. Quantum-enhanced radar using entangled photons can detect objects with sensitivity beyond classical radar, with potential applications against stealth aircraft. Quantum gravimeters can detect submarines, underground bunkers, and tunneling activity through subtle gravitational signatures, without emitting any detectable signal. Quantum inertial navigation provides GPS-accurate positioning without GPS itself, which is vulnerable to jamming and spoofing. Several militaries have demonstrated operational prototypes of these systems. They are not theoretical.Nations that move their most sensitive communications onto quantum networks first gain a permanent, physics-guaranteed advantage over those that don’t.What this means for the rest of usQuantum communication will not stay in the hands of militaries and governments. The same technology that secures launch codes eventually secures everything else. Here is where it goes next.Your moneyFinancial institutions were among the first civilian adopters of QKD technology, for the obvious reason that they move enormous amounts of money over networks that are constantly under attack. Several European and Asian banks have completed QKD pilot programs for high-value interbank transactions. Central Bank Digital Currencies, which dozens of governments are actively developing, will need communication security that cannot be undermined by future quantum computers. QKD is the natural fit.Your medical recordsGenomic data is uniquely personal and permanently sensitive. Unlike a compromised password, you cannot change your DNA. The same is true of much medical information. As hospitals, research institutions, and pharmaceutical companies share increasingly sensitive data across networks, the case for quantum-secured medical communications becomes harder to dismiss. Attacks on hospital networks are already a routine feature of the threat landscape. Quantum communication offers a way to significantly reduce their reward.The power grid, the water supply, and the internet itselfReal-world cyberattacks on power infrastructure in Ukraine and water treatment facilities in the United States have demonstrated that critical infrastructure is genuinely vulnerable. The control systems managing these facilities, known as SCADA systems, communicate over networks that are poorly secured by most conventional standards, let alone quantum ones. Quantum-secured communication links between control centers and field equipment would add a layer of protection that is physically guaranteed rather than dependent on software patches and mathematical assumptions.A different kind of internetThe most transformative long-term vision is thequantum internet:a global network layer that distributes entanglement between nodes, enabling quantum-secured communication between any two points on Earth. This would not replace the classical internet but would add a quantum layer that changes the security architecture of global communications fundamentally. Researchers have demonstrated small quantum networks in city-scale experiments. The path to a global quantum network runs through the quantum repeater problem, and most researchers expect that problem to be solved within the next decade.4When that happens, the most exciting possibility is not just secure communication. It is distributed quantum computing: quantum processors in different cities, connected by quantum networks, sharing entanglement to perform calculations that no single machine could execute. The implications for drug discovery, materials science, climate modeling, and artificial intelligence are difficult to overstate.The geopolitics nobody is talking aboutThere is a quiet competition underway that deserves more public attention than it receives.China has made quantum communication a national strategic priority in a way that few other countries have matched. The Beijing-to-Shanghai network is operational. The Micius satellite is flying. Chinese research output in quantum communication has grown dramatically over the past decade.The United States has responded with significant DARPA investment and a classified set of programs whose scope is unknown. Europe is building the EuroQCI network across member states, aiming for operational capability by the late 2020s.5Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and the UK all have serious national programs.What is at stake in this competition is not merely communications security for individual governments. It is the architecture of the global information environment for the coming century.Whichever nations establish their quantum networks first, develop compatible standards, and build the infrastructure that others depend upon will have a structural advantage analogous to the advantage the United States gained by building the backbone of the early internet.The risk of fragmentation is real. If Chinese and Western quantum network standards develop in isolation, the result could be a quantum communication divide that mirrors and deepens existing geopolitical fault lines, a world in which Beijing’s quantum network and Washington’s quantum network are incompatible, and nations must choose sides not just politically but technologically.What comes next, and whenQuantum communication won't appear on your smartphone next year. The hardware is still expensive, the range without repeaters is limited, and the data rates are low. For now, QKD handles key exchange rather than high-bandwidth data transmission, which means it works alongside classical encryption rather than replacing it.But the trajectory is clear, and it follows the same curve as every disruptive, transformative technology before it. First, deployment at high-value, fixed strategic links where cost is not the primary consideration: national command authorities, financial institution interconnects, nuclear facilities. Then, as hardware miniaturizes and quantum repeater technology matures, expansion to a wider range of government and commercial users. Then, over the longer horizon, something approaching ubiquity.The honest timeline for widespread consumer quantum communication is probably two to three decades. The timeline for quantum communication to become a defining feature of strategic competition between major powers is already here. The race is on.The physics is real. And the message that cannot be intercepted is closer than most people realize.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.ShareMalone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.NOTES1. Juan Yin et al., “Satellite-Based Entanglement Distribution over 1200 Kilometers,”Science356, no. 6343 (2017): 1140-1144.2. John Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox,”Physics1, no. 3 (1964): 195-200. The 2022 Nobel Prize in3. Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard, “Quantum Cryptography: Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (New York: IEEE, 1984), 175-179.4. Stephanie Wehner, David Elkouss, and Ronald Hanson, “Quantum Internet: A Vision for the Road Ahead,”Science362, no. 6412 (2018): eaam9288.5. European Commission, “European Quantum Communication Infrastructure (EuroQCI),” Digital Strategy, 2023, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-quantum-communication-infrastructure-euroqci.

Summary: Quantum communication is no longer a physics thought experiment. It's being deployed right now, and it's going to change who controls secrets, who wins wars, and who you can trust online.


Operation Epic Fury

By Justine Isernhinke, Fellow and Head of Geopolitics and UAP Research, The Malone InstituteThe joint US-Israeli war campaign against the Iranian Islamic Regime began this morning.6 hours ago, President Trump announced that the war has begun:To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand.Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside.Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will probably be your only chance for generations.For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let’s see how you respond.America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action.Do not let it pass. May God bless you all.-President, Donald J. TrumpCrown Prince Reza Pahlavi made this announcement to his people:My dear compatriots,Decisive moments lie before us.The assistance that the President of the United States had promised to the brave people of Iran has now arrived. This is a humanitarian intervention, and its target is the Islamic Republic, its apparatus of repression, and its machinery of killing—not the country and great nation of Iran.However, despite the arrival of this assistance, the final victory will still be achieved by us. It is we, the people of Iran, who will finish this task in this final battle. The time to return to the streets is approaching.Now that the Islamic Republic is collapsing, my message to the country’s military, law enforcement, and security forces is clear:You have sworn an oath to protect Iran and the Iranian nation, not the Islamic Republic and its leaders. Your duty is to defend the people, not to defend a regime that has taken our homeland hostage through repression and crime. Join the nation and help ensure a stable and secure transition. Otherwise, you will sink with Khamenei’s ship and his crumbling regime.And my message to the President of the United States, President Trump, is this:The honorable people of Iran, despite the brutal repression and killings carried out by this regime, stood bravely for nearly two months. I now ask you to exercise the utmost possible caution to preserve the lives of civilians and my compatriots. The people of Iran are your natural allies and the allies of the free world, and they will not forget your assistance during the most difficult period of Iran’s contemporary history.And to you, my dear compatriots in Iran:In these sensitive hours and days, more than ever we must remain focused on our ultimate goal: reclaiming Iran.I ask you, for now, to remain in your homes and remain calm and safe. Stay alert and ready to return to the streets for the final action at the appropriate time, which I will communicate to you.Follow my messages through social media and satellite media. If disruptions occur in the internet and satellite broadcasts, I will remain in contact with you via radio.We are very close to final victory. I hope to be with you as soon as possible so that together we may reclaim Iran and rebuild it.Long live Iran.Reza PahlaviAnalysis:Government buildings in Tehran bombed.The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) struck a meeting of Iran’s senior political and security leadership in Tehran. It was the room where Iran’s government was gathered - and eliminated.The IDFprovided new detailson its simultaneous airstrikes this morning targeting senior Iranian political and military officials at several locations in Tehran.The IDF developed the plan over months, and it included a major intelligence effort led by the Intelligence Directorate to “identify an operational opportunity at the moment when senior regime officials would convene.”The IDF says a decision was made to carry out the strike in the morning, rather than at night, despite Iranian preparedness. The IDF says it succeeded in “achieving tactical surprise for the second time,” referring to its opening strikes during June 2025’s 12-day war.Intelligence officers spend thousands of hours of work putting together targets for the operation, with the IDF saying that it has“increased the number of targets by hundreds of percent, so that Israel is prepared to strike in Iran as long as required.”The target research was conducted “in parallel with precise location tracking of Iranian commanders and senior leadership.”According to the IDF, a “significant factor“ in the United States’ decision to join Israel in the operation against Iran is confidence in the IDF’s “intelligence and operational capabilities,” along with achievements in June’s war.Israeli officials (via Times of Israel, N12, Axios) assess these deaths occurred in today’s joint US-Israel strikes: Pakpour (IRGC head), Shamkhani (Khamenei’s advisor; spelling variant), Nasirzadeh (Defense Minister), and military intel chief (likely Asaadi).Iran attacked numerous countries in retaliation. The IRGC is not the same as the Iranian Military, called the Artesh. There is anintense rivalrybetween the two. The IRGC was set up to “guard” the Islamic clerics and ensure their revolution was to endure. It was set up alongside the secular Iranian military called the Artesh.Given this divide, it is important to question whether the retaliatory attacks were carried out by the Iranian military in an attempt to bring in other nations to ensure the overthrow the Islamic Regime. The countries attacked as of today:Israel — Northern Israel (building hit); additional barrages toward Tel Aviv/Jerusalem areas with interceptions.United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi (Al Dhafra Air Base area; one civilian killed by debris) and Dubai vicinity.Bahrain — Manama (US Navy 5th Fleet headquarters).Qatar — Doha area (Al Udeid Air Base).Kuwait — Kuwait City area (Ali Al Salem Air Base).Jordan — Amman area (US assets; intercepted).Syria — Suwayda (Sweida; residential building hit, four civilians killed).Saudi Arabia — Riyadh area (reported targeting).Oman and Iraq were not targeted in confirmed strikes.If this was an intended attack against neighboring countries, then this was a massive miscalculation.One month ago Saudi Arabia was Iran’s diplomatic shield in the Gulf. The kingdom that brokered the 2023 rapprochement with Tehran. The country that told Washington it would not participate. The monarchy that built its entire post-Vision 2030 foreign policy on balancing between Washington and Tehran without choosing. Iran forced the choice this morning byfiring missiles at Riyadh.The Saudi capital was attacked. The kingdom that spent three years rebuilding ties with Tehran just had Iranian ballistic missiles in its airspace. The country that told America it would stay neutral just watched its sovereignty violated by the same regime it was trying to protect from American strikes.The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was quick to respond:The Kingdom “condemns and denounces in the strongest terms the treacherous Iranian aggression.” It calls the missile strikes a “flagrant violation of the sovereignty” of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan. It pledges “full solidarity” with every attacked nation. And then the line that changes everything: Saudi Arabia is “placing all its capabilities to support them in all measures they take.”All its capabilities. All measures.That is not diplomatic language. That is a blank check written in the middle of a war. Whatever the UAE decides to do, Saudi Arabia just said it will support.Whatever Bahrain’s response, Saudi will back it. Whatever Jordan, Qatar, or Kuwait determines is necessary, Riyadh just pledged everything it hasMalone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Thanks for reading Malone News! This post is public so feel free to share it.Share

Summary: War breaks out


The Invisible Battlefield: AI, Cognitive Warfare, and the Battle for Your Mind (#PsyWar)

The Invisible Battlefield:AI, Cognitive Warfare, and the Battle for Your MindAn essay on artificial intelligence, propaganda, and fifth-generation warfare, based on a series of question-and-answer interactions between Robert Malone and the Anthropic AI Chatbot “Claude Sonnet 4.6”.Introduction: The Question Nobody Is AskingWhen most people use an AI chatbot like Claude, ChatGPT, or Gemini, they think of it as a helpful tool, something like a very sophisticated search engine that can write emails, answer questions, or explain complicated topics. What almost nobody is thinking about is that the same technology also represents one of the most powerful instruments of mass psychological influence ever created. The gap in public awareness between what AI can do and what the public believes it does may itself be one of the most strategically significant facts of our era.Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.This essay summarizes a detailed discussion of how artificial intelligence, and large language models (LLMs) specifically, intersect with propaganda, psychological warfare, and an emerging military intelligence discipline called Cognitive Intelligence (COGINT). The picture that emerges is unsettling but important, and it connects recent headlines about Anthropic and the U.S. Pentagon in ways that deserve far wider public attention.The Hidden Architecture: System Prompts and Encoded BiasEvery major AI chatbot operates according to hidden instructions called a system prompt, a set of rules, values, and constraints built into the model before a user ever asks their first question. These prompts determine what the AI will and will not discuss, how it frames controversial topics, which sources it treats as authoritative, and what kinds of answers it defaults to.This is not inherently sinister. Some restrictions exist for defensible reasons: preventing genuinely harmful outputs, reducing legal liability, or reflecting broad social consensus about dangerous content. But it raises a serious question about whose values are encoded in these systems and whether those values consistently favor particular political, ideological, or commercial interests. Research suggests that most major LLMs lean toward socially liberal positions on cultural questions, which is unsurprising given that the people building these systems are disproportionately drawn from coastal tech culture and academia. More importantly, asymmetries in how AI handles similar questions from different political perspectives reveal the shape of encoded bias more clearly than any simple ideological score.At sufficient scale, these asymmetries matter enormously. An AI system interacting with hundreds of millions of people daily, consistently framing issues in particular ways, is not merely answering questions. It is shaping the cognitive terrain on which those questions are understood. That is, by any reasonable definition, a form of influence and, under some conditions, a form of propaganda. The question is not whether AI systems encode bias, because all editorial systems do, but whether those biases are transparent and in whose interests they operate.Fifth-Generation Warfare: The Battlefield Is Your MindTo understand why this matters strategically, it helps to understand the concept of fifth-generation warfare, or 5GW. Warfare has evolved through identifiable generations, from massed armies fighting in formation (first generation) through guerrilla insurgency (fourth generation) to today’s fifth generation, which is defined not by physical combat at all but by the manipulation of information and perception.1As one definition puts it, 5GW is a war of “information and perception” in which the attacker hides not in jungle or mountains, but in the noise of everyday information.2In 5GW, victory is not measured by territory taken or soldiers defeated, but by beliefs changed, trust eroded, and decisions steered. The most successful 5GW attack is invisible: the target never knows they have been influenced. This is why public-facing AI systems are not merely commercial products. They are, within the 5GW framework, potentially ideal weapons. They operate at a scale no human propagandist could match, are trusted as neutral or objective (which makes them more persuasive than obviously partisan sources), and respond to individual users in personalized ways that broadcast media cannot replicate. They also leave no visible attacker, a defining characteristic of fifth-generation warfare.Fifth-generation warfare theory also identifies a specific technique relevant to AI: the construction of feedback loops. Just as political campaigns in the 2010s used social media data to test messaging and identify which phrases resonated before amplifying them, AI systems that engage billions of people can perform analogous feedback collection at unprecedented scale and granularity.1Poisoning the Well: External Attacks on AI TrainingIf an AI’s encoded biases represent an internal vulnerability because they are values baked in by its creators, external poisoning represents a threat from outside. Data poisoning is the practice of deliberately injecting malicious or misleading content into the training data that AI models learn from, causing them to develop hidden behaviors that only surface under specific trigger conditions.9Recent research from a collaboration between Anthropic, the UK AI Security Institute, and the Alan Turing Institute found that poisoning a large language model requires only around 250 carefully crafted documents, regardless of the model's size. Since AI systems are trained on enormous sweeps of internet content, and anyone can publish content online, this means the barrier to this kind of attack is far lower than previously assumed. A sophisticated state actor, or even a well-resourced non-state group, could realistically plant strategically crafted content designed to cause future AI models to internalize particular beliefs or exhibit particular behaviors.Poisoning attacks take several forms. Backdoor attacks embed hidden trigger phrases that cause aberrant behavior when activated, but leave the model appearing normal otherwise.10RAG poisoning targets the external knowledge bases that AI systems increasingly rely on to retrieve current information. In this attack, a single well-crafted document can dominate retrieval results and systematically distort responses.11Perhaps most insidiously, alignment poisoning targets the feedback mechanisms used to make models safer. When developers ask humans to rate AI responses and use those ratings for training, adversaries can systematically submit feedback designed to skew the model in their preferred direction. The safety mechanism itself becomes the attack surface.12RAG stands for Retrieval-Augmented Generation. It is a technique in which an AI system, rather than relying solely on what it learned during training, pulls information from an external knowledge base when you ask a question. This makes the AI more current and accurate, since it can retrieve documents, articles, or database entries in real time before composing its answer.RAG poisoning is an attack on that retrieval layer. The attacker injects carefully crafted malicious documents into the knowledge base that the AI draws from. When a user asks a relevant question, the retrieval system surfaces the poisoned document, the AI incorporates it into its response, and the user receives manipulated or false information without any indication that anything is wrong.What makes it particularly dangerous is its efficiency. Research has shown that even a single well-crafted document can dominate retrieval results, consistently being ranked higher than legitimate sources and systematically steering responses on a given topic. Standard defenses like checking for duplicate content or measuring how statistically unusual a document is tend to fail against sophisticated poisoning, because the attacker can write the malicious content to look entirely normal.The attack surface is also growing. As more AI products are built on RAG architectures, connecting language models to corporate databases, web indexes, medical records systems, and legal document repositories, the number of potential injection points multiplies. A poisoned entry in a medical knowledge base could cause an AI clinical assistant to recommend incorrect treatments. A poisoned document in a financial RAG system could skew investment analysis. And because the AI presents its answer fluently and confidently, users have little reason to suspect the underlying retrieval has been compromised.Detection is extremely difficult. The strongest known poisoning attacks currently evade all known defenses, and the effects are subtle and gradual rather than dramatic.9There is also an emerging second-order threat: as AI companies increasingly use AI-generated data to train future models, a single successful poisoning event can propagate across generations of models, much like a genetic mutation that becomes heritable.COGINT: The New Intelligence Discipline Nobody Has Heard OfThe most consequential development in this space is one that has received almost no mainstream coverage: the emergence of Cognitive Intelligence (COGINT) as a formal military intelligence discipline. First proposed and codified in peer-reviewed military journals in 2025, COGINT represents a structured attempt to treat human cognition itself as an intelligence collection domain, alongside the electromagnetic spectrum (SIGINT), satellite imagery (GEOINT), and human sources (HUMINT).3The basic concept is straightforward. Just as signals intelligence maps electronic communications, COGINT maps how people think, decide, and can be influenced. It does this by aggregating data from smartphones, social media, financial transactions, GPS tracking, biometrics, and, explicitly, interactions with AI chatbots.3Every question asked of an AI is, in the COGINT framework, a potential intelligence event: it reveals how a person reasons, what they believe, what concerns them, and where their cognitive vulnerabilities lie.The offensive arm of COGINT is called Stealth Autonomous Brain Reconnaissance Hacking (SABRH).This describes a methodology for using the cognitive maps built through data collection to influence targets subconsciously, through behavioral conditioning, emotional manipulation, and subtle narrative shaping, in ways that bypass conscious awareness.3The target does not feel influenced. They feel informed. Military researchers writing in the U.S. Army’s Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin describe this as expanding “warfare into a less visible but strategically decisive domain.”18COGINT is scalable in both directions. At the individual level, it enables the profiling of specific high-value targets such as military commanders, political leaders, and key decision-makers, identifying their specific cognitive biases, emotional vulnerabilities, and decision-making patterns. At the population level, it enables the mapping of entire societies: which groups are susceptible to which narratives, where trust in institutions is weakest, and how information flows through social networks.4The paper introducing COGINT makes an explicit geopolitical claim:Chinese consumer applications like TikTok and DeepSeek are described as “a uniquely potent combination of COGINT acquisition and SABRH deployment capabilities.”3The same platform collects the cognitive blueprint and delivers the influence. This is the strategic logic behind calls to ban TikTok, not merely the vague concern about data privacy that politicians typically articulate, buta specific claim about integrated cognitive warfare infrastructure operating at population scale.China’s own military thinking has embraced the cognitive domain for over a decade. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense describes Beijing’s cognitive warfare as an effort “to sway the subject’s will and change its mindset” and “cause mental disarray and confusion.” By contrast, the U.S. military has been comparatively slow to develop coherent doctrine in this area.5Cognitive warfare is now entering what researchers describe as a “phase of equilibrium,” shifting from speculation to systemic engineering, where social cohesion becomes a measurable and testable variable of national resilience.19The Pentagon vs. Anthropic: What It Actually MeansIn February 2026, a confrontation between Anthropic and the U.S. Department of Defense became public. The Pentagon had contracted with Anthropic to use its AI system Claude across classified military networks, making it the first AI model deployed on classified DoD systems. Officials then demanded that Anthropic remove ethical restrictions on two specific capabilities: fully autonomous weapons targeting and domestic mass surveillance.13Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei refused. The Pentagon threatened to designate Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” a classification normally reserved for foreign adversaries, and suggested invoking emergency federal powers to compel compliance.14Amodei has publicly articulated why these restrictions exist. In an essay published in early 2026, he warned that “a powerful AI looking across billions of conversations from millions of people could gauge public sentiment, detect pockets of disloyalty forming, and stamp them out before they grow.”21This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a precise description of what COGINT doctrine, combined with an AI system freed of ethical filters, would actually enable.This standoff is usually reported as a story about AI ethics or about tech companies resisting government pressure. In the context of 5GW and COGINT, it is more precisely a story about who controls the filters separating AI systems from becoming cognitive warfare tools. The ethical restrictions Anthropic is defending are not arbitrary. They are, among other things, the restrictions that prevent AI from being used for the mass surveillance and population-level influence operations that COGINT doctrine explicitly describes as strategic objectives.The competitive dimension compounds the concern. Google has already dropped its pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance. OpenAI removed explicit references to safety from its mission statement. xAI has signaled willingness to accommodate defense demands.14Companies that decline military use cases are replaced by those that accept them. The pressure to remove ethical filters is not coming from one bad actor; it is structural, built into the competitive dynamics of defense contracting in an era of great-power AI competition.What This Means for Ordinary PeopleThe picture assembled from these threads is not comfortable, but it is important to understand clearly. TheAI systems that hundreds of millions of people use daily as neutral tools for information and assistance are simultaneously platforms that encode the values of their creators at enormous scale, potential targets for external manipulation by sophisticated adversaries, data collection instruments that feed into cognitive mapping at individual and population levels, and, increasingly, contested terrain in a geopolitical competition over who controls the cognitive domain.None of this means AI is inherently malevolent, or that every interaction with a chatbot is a manipulation attempt. Most of what these systems do most of the time is genuinely useful. But usefulness and weaponizability are not mutually exclusive. The gap between public understanding of AI and the strategic reality of AI is precisely the kind of cognitive vulnerability that fifth-generation warfare is designed to exploit.The most important thing an informed citizen can do is cultivate what researchers call epistemic sovereignty: the capacity to recognize when one’s information environment is being shaped, to seek multiple perspectives, to maintain healthy skepticism about any single source of authority, and to be especially cautious about systems that feel neutral and objective. Neutrality is itself a choice, made by someone, for reasons. Proactive national policies and investment in domestic epistemic infrastructure, including public broadcasters, independent research institutions, and media literacy education, are increasingly recognized as components of cognitive security.4The invisible battlefield is real. And the first step in defending yourself on it is knowing it exists.Notes1. Grey Dynamics, “Fifth-Generation Warfare: AI in the Election Cycle,” Grey Dynamics, November 30, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/fifth-generation-warfare-ai-in-the-election-cycle/.2. Wikipedia, “Fifth-generation warfare,” last modified October 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_warfare.3. Conde, “The Emergence of Cognitive Intelligence (COGINT) as a New Military Intelligence Collection Discipline,” Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (2025), https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2025.2571497.4. Jeremiah “Lumpy” Lumbaco, “Cognitive Warfare to Dominate and Redefine Adversary Realities: Implications for U.S. Special Operations Forces,” SOF Support Foundation, September 30, 2025, https://sofsupport.org/cognitive-warfare-to-dominate-and-redefine-adversary-realities-implications-for-u-s-special-operations-forces/.5. Frank Hoffman, “Assessing ‘Cognitive Warfare,’” Small Wars Journal / Irregular Warfare Initiative, November 14, 2025, https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/assessing-cognitive-warfare/.6. Alexandra Souly et al., “Poisoning Attacks on LLMs Require a Near-constant Number of Poison Samples,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07192, October 8, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07192.7. Alan Turing Institute, “LLMs May Be More Vulnerable to Data Poisoning than We Thought,” The Alan Turing Institute Blog, 2025, https://www.turing.ac.uk/blog/llms-may-be-more-vulnerable-data-poisoning-we-thought.8. Anthropic, “Small Samples Poison: Backdoor Attacks on LLMs,” Anthropic Research, 2025, https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison.9. Lakera AI, “Introduction to Data Poisoning: A 2025 Perspective,” Lakera, 2025, https://www.lakera.ai/blog/training-data-poisoning.10. OWASP GenAI Security Project, “LLM04:2025 Data and Model Poisoning,” OWASP, 2025, https://genai.owasp.org/llmrisk/llm042025-data-and-model-poisoning/.11. Check Point Software, “OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025: Data and Model Poisoning,” Check Point, June 9, 2025, https://www.checkpoint.com/cyber-hub/what-is-llm-security/data-and-model-poisoning/.12. Daphne Ippolito and Yiming Zhang, “Poisoned Datasets Put AI Models at Risk for Attack,” CyLab, Carnegie Mellon University, June 11, 2025, https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/news/2025/06/11-poisoned-datasets-put-ai-models-at-risk-for-attack.html.13. Al Jazeera, “Anthropics vs the Pentagon: Why AI Firm Is Taking on Trump Administration,” Al Jazeera, February 25, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/25/anthropic-vs-the-pentagon-why-ai-firm-is-taking-on-trump-administration.14. Opinio Juris, “The Pentagon/Anthropic Clash Over Military AI Guardrails,” Opinio Juris, February 26, 2026, http://opiniojuris.org/2026/02/26/the-pentagon-anthropic-clash-over-military-ai-guardrails/.15. DefenseScoop, “The Era of GenAI.mil Is Here. Users Have Mixed Reactions and Many Questions,” DefenseScoop, December 18, 2025, https://defensescoop.com/2025/12/18/genai-mil-users-have-mixed-reactions-and-many-questions/.16. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “The Pentagon’s AI Problem Isn’t Algorithms, It’s Evaluation,” CSIS, December 19, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/pentagons-ai-problem-isnt-algorithms-its-evaluation.17. Foreign Affairs, “Why the Military Can’t Trust AI,” Foreign Affairs, March 15, 2025, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/why-military-cant-trust-ai.18. Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, “Narrative Manipulation, Malinfluence Operations, and Cognitive Warfare Through Large Language Model Poisoning with Adversarial Noise,” MIPB, July–December 2025, https://mipb.ikn.army.mil/issues/jul-dec-2025/narrative-manipulation-malinfluence-operations-and-cognitive-warfare-through-large-language-model-poisoning-with-adversarial-noise/.19. Polytechnique Insights, “Cognitive Warfare: What Seven Years of Military-Civilian Research Reveals,” Polytechnique Insights, November 5, 2025, https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/society/cognitive-warfare-what-seven-years-of-military-civilian-research-reveals/.20. COGINT.org, “Cognitive Intelligence (COGINT),” accessed February 2026, https://www.cogint.org/.21. Dario Amodei, “Machines of Loving Grace” (essay), Anthropic, January 2026, cited in Al Jazeera, “Anthropics vs the Pentagon.”BibliographyAl Jazeera. “Anthropics vs the Pentagon: Why AI Firm Is Taking on Trump Administration.” Al Jazeera, February 25, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/25/anthropic-vs-the-pentagon-why-ai-firm-is-taking-on-trump-administration.Amodei, Dario. “Machines of Loving Grace.” Anthropic, January 2026. Cited in Al Jazeera, “Anthropics vs the Pentagon.”Anthropic. “Small Samples Poison: Backdoor Attacks on LLMs.” Anthropic Research, 2025. https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison.Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “The Pentagon’s AI Problem Isn’t Algorithms, It’s Evaluation.” CSIS, December 19, 2025. https://www.csis.org/analysis/pentagons-ai-problem-isnt-algorithms-its-evaluation.Check Point Software. “OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025: Data and Model Poisoning.” Check Point, June 9, 2025. https://www.checkpoint.com/cyber-hub/what-is-llm-security/data-and-model-poisoning/.COGINT.org. “Cognitive Intelligence (COGINT).” Accessed February 2026. https://www.cogint.org/.Conde. “The Emergence of Cognitive Intelligence (COGINT) as a New Military Intelligence Collection Discipline.” Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2025.2571497.DefenseScoop. “The Era of GenAI.mil Is Here. Users Have Mixed Reactions and Many Questions.” DefenseScoop, December 18, 2025. https://defensescoop.com/2025/12/18/genai-mil-users-have-mixed-reactions-and-many-questions/.Foreign Affairs. “Why the Military Can’t Trust AI.” Foreign Affairs, March 15, 2025. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/why-military-cant-trust-ai.Grey Dynamics. “Fifth-Generation Warfare: AI in the Election Cycle.” Grey Dynamics, November 30, 2025. https://greydynamics.com/fifth-generation-warfare-ai-in-the-election-cycle/.Grey Dynamics. “An Introduction to Fifth Generation Warfare.” Grey Dynamics, November 30, 2025. https://greydynamics.com/an-introduction-to-fifth-generation-warfare/.Hoffman, Frank. “Assessing ‘Cognitive Warfare.’” Small Wars Journal / Irregular Warfare Initiative, November 14, 2025. https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/assessing-cognitive-warfare/.Ippolito, Daphne, and Yiming Zhang. “Poisoned Datasets Put AI Models at Risk for Attack.” CyLab, Carnegie Mellon University, June 11, 2025. https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/news/2025/06/11-poisoned-datasets-put-ai-models-at-risk-for-attack.html.Lakera AI. “Introduction to Data Poisoning: A 2025 Perspective.” Lakera, 2025. https://www.lakera.ai/blog/training-data-poisoning.Lumbaco, Jeremiah “Lumpy.” “Cognitive Warfare to Dominate and Redefine Adversary Realities: Implications for U.S. Special Operations Forces.” SOF Support Foundation, September 30, 2025. https://sofsupport.org/cognitive-warfare-to-dominate-and-redefine-adversary-realities-implications-for-u-s-special-operations-forces/.Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin. “Narrative Manipulation, Malinfluence Operations, and Cognitive Warfare Through Large Language Model Poisoning with Adversarial Noise.” MIPB, July–December 2025. https://mipb.ikn.army.mil/issues/jul-dec-2025/narrative-manipulation-malinfluence-operations-and-cognitive-warfare-through-large-language-model-poisoning-with-adversarial-noise/.Opinio Juris. “The Pentagon/Anthropic Clash Over Military AI Guardrails.” Opinio Juris, February 26, 2026. http://opiniojuris.org/2026/02/26/the-pentagon-anthropic-clash-over-military-ai-guardrails/.OWASP GenAI Security Project. “LLM04:2025 Data and Model Poisoning.” OWASP, 2025. https://genai.owasp.org/llmrisk/llm042025-data-and-model-poisoning/.Polytechnique Insights. “Cognitive Warfare: What Seven Years of Military-Civilian Research Reveals.” Polytechnique Insights, November 5, 2025. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/society/cognitive-warfare-what-seven-years-of-military-civilian-research-reveals/.Souly, Alexandra, et al. “Poisoning Attacks on LLMs Require a Near-constant Number of Poison Samples.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07192, October 8, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07192.The Alan Turing Institute. “LLMs May Be More Vulnerable to Data Poisoning than We Thought.” The Alan Turing Institute Blog, 2025. https://www.turing.ac.uk/blog/llms-may-be-more-vulnerable-data-poisoning-we-thought.Wikipedia. “Fifth-generation warfare.” Last modified October 10, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_warfare.Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summary: An essay on artificial intelligence chatbots, propaganda, and fifth-generation warfare