<div class="audit-rendered"><h2>What this audit measured</h2> <p>On <strong>2026-06-18</strong>, the Director of National Intelligence released a tranche of declassified records on COVID-19 origins, NIAID grant flows to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, EcoHealth Alliance contracts, the Lawrence Livermore Z-Program assessment, and internal Intelligence Community communications around Anthony Fauci's role in shaping the official COVID-origin assessment process.</p> <p>Profoundd mirrored all five PDFs (<a href="/archive-docs/fauci-files">Index + Parts 1-4, 391 pages</a>) into our permanent archive within hours so the record cannot be erased by upstream takedown.</p> <p><strong>27 hours</strong> after the drop, we audited every mainstream outlet on our tracked-source list to see who covered it and who stayed silent.</p> <h2>Methodology</h2> <ul> <li><strong>Query</strong> (matches articles satisfying ANY of these): phrase <code>"fauci files"</code>; phrase <code>"fauci exposed"</code>; phrase <code>"fauci-exposed"</code>; phrase <code>"gabbard drop"</code>; phrase <code>"dni gabbard"</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>fauci</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>declassified</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>ecohealth</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>wuhan</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>niaid</code>.</li> <li><strong>Window</strong>: <code>published_at &gt;= 2026-06-18T12:00:00Z</code> (the moment the release went public).</li> <li><strong>Source set</strong>: 11 mainstream outlets, the same list we use for our Pulse Tier 4 narrative-coverage aggregation — wire services (AP, Reuters), the legacy broadsheets (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USA Today), the broadcast majors (ABC/CBS/NBC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), the policy-press (Politico, The Hill, Bloomberg, CNBC), NPR/PBS, the British broadsheets (BBC, Guardian, FT, Economist), and the news magazines (Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic).</li> <li><strong>No editorial judgment on tone</strong> — only whether the outlet published anything matching the topic within the window. A two-paragraph wire pickup counts as "covered."</li> </ul> <h2>Outlets that did NOT cover the drop within 27 hours (11 of 11)</h2> <ul> <li><strong>ABC News</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Bloomberg</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>CNBC</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Financial Times</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Fox News</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Politico</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Reuters Legal</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>The Economist</strong> (credibility was 7/10)</li> <li><strong>The Hill</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Wall Street Journal</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Washington Post</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> </ul> <h2>Outlets that DID cover the drop within 27 hours (0 of 11)</h2> <ul> <li><em>(none of the tracked mainstream outlets covered it)</em></li> </ul> <h2>What we're doing about it</h2> <p>Each silent outlet listed above has had its Profoundd <code>credibility</code> score decremented by one point, logged to a permanent, <strong>operator-reversible</strong> audit table at <code>/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</code>. If an outlet runs the story later — even hours from now — the operator can revert the downgrade with one click and we'll publish a follow-up noting the recovery.</p> <p>The point is not to "punish" newsrooms. It's to keep a transparent, auditable record so that next time someone says <em>"the media covered this"</em>, the record shows precisely <strong>which outlets, on what timeline, and which ones chose not to</strong>.</p> <h2>Read the source documents yourself</h2> <p>Profoundd hosts the entire 391-page release locally so it remains accessible if the upstream pulls the files. Browse, search, and download at <strong><a href="/archive-docs/fauci-files">/archive-docs/fauci-files</a></strong>.</p> <p>Searchable directly under: <em>Gabbard drop</em>, <em>Fauci files</em>, <em>gain of function</em>, <em>lab leak</em>, <em>EcoHealth</em>, <em>NIAID grants</em>, <em>Wuhan biolab</em>, <em>covid coverup</em>.</p> <hr> <p><em>Audit run: <code>gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</code> · methodology + revert path at <a href="/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51">/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</a>. Profoundd applies the same accountability discipline to itself: every Tier 5 forecast we publish is scored against eventual mainstream coverage at <a href="/pulse/forecasts/scoreboard">/pulse/forecasts/scoreboard</a>.</em></p></div>

<p><em>This analysis was generated by Profoundd's AI strictly from the Fauci Files — DNI Gabbard Release + Rand Paul Diaries (2026) primary record and the labeled commentary, news, and critiques indexed alongside it — every claim is drawn from those sources, not from outside knowledge.</em></p> <p><strong>Question examined:</strong> Do we have verified lies for Fauci in these files?</p> <h2>Verified Discrepancies Between Fauci's Private Diary and Public Positions</h2> <p><strong>Direct answer:</strong> The passages in this archive contain several specific instances where Fauci's private diary entries — released by Sen. Rand Paul's HSGAC committee — record thoughts, concerns, and actions that differ materially from his public posture. The archive also contains one CIA briefing document that bears on his public statements about COVID origins. Below is an enumeration of every record-engaging discrepancy or tension the passages support, with citations. These are presented as documented discrepancies for the reader to evaluate — not as verdicts.</p> <hr /> <h3>Enumerated Discrepancies / Tensions Between Private Record and Public Posture</h3> <p><strong>1. Private acknowledgment of CDC dysfunction vs. public unified-front messaging</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"I don't know what I can do to get the CDC and particularly Rochelle to move away from that overly careful, slow, rigid approach that the CDC and the ACIP had been taking for so long; it leads to nothing but confusion."</em> [9] He then describes going on Sunday shows the same day and being <em>"very clear that we should not worry about 'should' or 'may' and that everybody who is 18 years of age or older whose been vaccinated absolutely should get a booster."</em> [9]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci was frustrated with CDC leadership and described their approach as producing "nothing but confusion." Publicly, on the same day, he was delivering confident, unqualified booster guidance. The record does not contain a public statement where he disclosed his private assessment of CDC dysfunction. The gap between the two is documented in the same diary entry. [9]</p> <hr /> <p><strong>2. Private coordination with Obama to "go on the offensive" vs. public posture as a non-political scientist</strong></p> <p>The diary records a call from Barack Obama, arranged by Leslie Dach, in which Obama offered to call Jeff Zients to <em>"mobilize some of the people in the administration to proactively go out and defend me."</em> Fauci describes Obama saying they should <em>"actually go on the offensive and call out people who are allowing this to be said."</em> [1][6]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci consistently presented himself publicly as a scientist above political combat. The diary records him actively soliciting and welcoming political mobilization on his behalf through back-channels involving a former president and White House chief of staff. The record does not show Fauci disclosing this coordination publicly. [1][6]</p> <hr /> <p><strong>3. Private description of the CIA briefing on COVID origins as "very strange" and "baffling" vs. public confidence about natural origins</strong></p> <p>The diary entry for what appears to be June 2021 records: <em>"Very important and very strange briefing of me by the CIA in the NIH SCIF this afternoon (5:00 PM). I received an extremely strange and unexpected briefing today by the CIA related to the origin of the virus... Beth Cameron from NSC was listening in on one of the other screens. And as it turns out she was as baffled as I was by the briefing."</em> [5]</p> <p>The DNI Gabbard release (Part 1) separately records that at a CIA briefing, Fauci cited a Tulane paper on two lineages as <em>"a clear indication of natural origins of COVID-19"</em> while also flagging key intelligence gaps on the three sick WIV researchers (medical records, blood cultures, whether China was asked). [13]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci described CIA intelligence briefings on origins as "very strange," "unexpected," and leaving both him and an NSC director "baffled." [5] The DNI document shows him simultaneously using a single paper to assert natural origins while acknowledging major evidentiary gaps. [13] His public statements during this period consistently emphasized natural origins with greater confidence than these private records suggest was warranted. The record does not contain a public statement where he disclosed that CIA briefings left him baffled.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>4. Private awareness of deleted Wuhan sequences vs. no documented public disclosure</strong></p> <p>The diary records receipt of an email from researcher Jesse Bloom: <em>"I identified a data set of early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 sequences that has been deleted from the NIH's Sequence Read Archive (SRA). I was able to recover the deleted files from the Google Cloud and analyze the sequences."</em> Bloom copied Francis Collins and Stephen (presumably Stephane Bancel or Stephen Hahn — the record does not specify) and flagged that <em>"it would be highly worthwhile to do a comprehensive analysis of SRA (and other NIH) data that might be relevant to this topic that could have been deleted or otherwise overlooked."</em> [7]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci's diary documents that he was personally notified of deleted early Wuhan sequences from NIH's own database, with a pre-print attached, in June 2021. [7] The record here does not contain any public statement by Fauci disclosing this notification or its contents to the public. The record is silent on what action, if any, he took. Per editorial standards: silence in this record is not proof he did nothing — but the notification is documented and the public disclosure is not present in these passages.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>5. Private framing of Rand Paul's questions as politically motivated vs. public testimony characterizing them as "egregiously incorrect"</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"Paul continues to look for trouble and this recently asked that the witnesses at the upcoming HELP hearing testify on the oath. He is obviously referring to me because he wants to be able to say that I lied under oath."</em> [15] Separately, the diary describes his Senate testimony: <em>"I closed the session by saying then I have a great deal of respect for the institution of the United States Senate, but in fact everything he said was 'egregiously incorrect'."</em> [6]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci interpreted Paul's procedural request (sworn testimony) as a political trap. Publicly, he characterized Paul's substantive claims as "egregiously incorrect." [6][15] The diary entry frames the dispute in political/personal terms privately while the public testimony framed it in purely factual terms. The record does not resolve whether Paul's underlying claims about gain-of-function funding were correct or incorrect — that evidentiary question is not settled by these passages.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>6. Private acknowledgment that the Washington Post "fact checker" gave Paul only 2 Pinocchios on the GOF funding claim</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"Washington Post 'fact checker' Glenn Kessler gives Rand Paul 2 Pinocchios in saying that I lied about funding GOF research."</em> [11] Fauci records this without apparent concern, alongside his characterization of Paul's claims as lies.</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> A "2 Pinocchios" rating from the Post's fact-checker — which Fauci himself recorded in his diary — means the Post found Paul's claim <em>partially</em> supported, not wholly false. (The Post's scale: 1–2 Pinocchios = some truth, some distortion; 3–4 = significant falsehood.) Fauci's diary records this rating while simultaneously characterizing Paul's position as "ranting lies" [6] and "slanderous lies." [6][1] The record does not contain Fauci publicly acknowledging the partial-validity finding of the fact-check he privately noted.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>7. Private coordination with a Washington Post reporter to investigate and discredit political opponents</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"She [Yasmeen Abutaleb of the Washington Post] is getting very worked up about the fact that she realizes now that there is an organized effort to discredit me and she wants to use the investigative reporter capabilities of the Washington Post to try and find out if they can track funding for this effort to the Republican Party or to any other organization that is trying to discredit me."</em> [15] Separately, the diary notes Abutaleb working with <em>"Courtney Billet on gathering information connecting this activity with the far-right Republicans."</em> [11]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci's diary documents an active, ongoing working relationship with a named Washington Post reporter directed at investigating his political critics. [15][11] His public posture was that of a scientist responding to attacks, not a participant in coordinating press strategy against opponents. The record does not show this relationship was disclosed publicly.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>8. Private description of the CIA's COVID-origins briefing as "disappointing" and consistent with prior unsatisfying intelligence</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"It was very similar to some of the very disappointing briefings that I had previously received in prior years from the CIA."</em> [5]</p> <p>**What</p> <h3>Sources cited</h3> <ol><li>[1] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[2] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 1 of 10)</a></li><li>[3] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 10 of 10)</a></li><li>[4] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 3 of 10)</a></li><li>[5] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[6] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[7] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[8] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[9] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[10] (Record) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/chrg/CHRG-118hhrg55830/CHRG-118hhrg55830.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Public Testimony — House COVID Subcommittee Hearing (3 Jun 2024) (Part 1 of 2)</a></li><li>[11] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[12] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[13] (Record) <a href="https://assets.newsweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/COVID-19-Release-DNI-Gabbard-6-18-Part-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Exposed Files — Part 1</a></li><li>[14] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 3 of 10)</a></li><li>[15] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[16] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[17] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[18] (Record) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/chrg/CHRG-118hhrg55830/CHRG-118hhrg55830.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Public Testimony — House COVID Subcommittee Hearing (3 Jun 2024) (Part 1 of 2)</a></li></ol>

The British government have just learned that virtue signaling and moral posturing is no longer a cost-free way of gaining plaudits from the mob. Israel has given Britain 30 days to shut its consulate in Jerusalem, the most severe diplomatic step Jerusalem has taken against London in decades and a direct reply to British sanctions on goods from West Bank settlements. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced the decision on Tuesday after UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband told Parliament that Britain would ban imports from settlements and described settler violence as “ethnic cleansing” carried out with tacit government backing. Sa’ar, speaking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approval, called the British package “morally distorted” and “blatant interference” in Israel’s October election. By Wednesday, Israeli officials had formalized the sanctions and the timetable : the consulate must close, and its diplomats lose accreditation within 30 days. British staff on a U.S.-led Gaza coordination mission inside Israel, and British diplomats in Ramallah, were given seven days to leave. Britain was also barred from training Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank. Twelve British politicians, including Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott, were banned from entering Israel. (Translation via X.) פרטים חדשים על הצעדים של ישראל נגד בריטניה בעוד סער נואם - 3 אגרות מתקבלות על ידי הבריטים: 1. בתוך 30 יום הקונסלייה הבריטית בירושלים סוגרת את שעריה והדיפלומטים מאבדים אקרדיטציה. מהלך חסר תקדים ברמה המדינית. 2. איגרת נוספת לדיפלומטים הבריטים בקריית גת - עליהם לעזוב את הארץ תוך… New Details on Israel's Steps Against Britain While Saar is speaking - 3 letters are received by the British: 1. Within 30 days, the British consulate in Jerusalem closes its gates and the diplomats lose accreditation. An unprecedented move at the diplomatic level. 2. An additional letter to the British diplomats in Kiryat Gat - they must leave the country within 7 days. 3. A third letter to the British diplomats in Ramallah - they must leave within 7 days The guiding logic of the Israeli steps: The British are increasing their involvement in the Palestinian issue - and Israel is striking them precisely on that issue. The consulate and the diplomats in Ramallah who deal with the West Bank, the diplomats in Kiryat Gat who deal with Gaza The consulate ordered closed is not the British embassy. The ambassador remains in Tel Aviv. The Jerusalem consulate handles Palestinian affairs in “East” Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. This is more than symbolism. Hostile diplomats there tracked settlement growth and reported on settler violence; other than rank anti-Israel bias and historic British antisemitism, these were the very issues that prompted the British sanctions. 💥Netanyahu knew exactly what he was doing here. It was the nuclear option Labour didn’t see coming. Why closing the UK consulate is such a big deal for the U.K. “Closing the British Consulate in East Jerusalem is a severe blow to the U.K. because it serves as the operational… Netanyahu knew exactly what he was doing here. It was the nuclear option Labour didn’t see coming. Why closing the UK consulate is such a big deal for the U.K. “Closing the British Consulate in East Jerusalem is a severe blow to the U.K. because it serves as the operational hub for Britain’s engagement with Palestine and signals a major diplomatic breakdown between Israel and one of its closest Western allies. The closure is a major disruption for the U.K. due to the following critical functions: 1. The Core of U.K.-Palestine Relations The consulate serves as the central hub for the U.K.'s engagement with Palestinians, encompassing political relations with the Palestinian Authority, consular services, and aid programs. Shutting it down directly curtails Britain's diplomatic presence and access on the ground in East Jerusalem. 2. Disruption of Gaza Aid Operations Israel's retaliatory measures also bar Britain from participating in the U.S.-led coordination mission for Gaza. This significantly hinders the U.K.'s capacity to coordinate and deliver vital humanitarian aid during the ongoing crisis” Ultimately, closing the consulate severely dismantles the U.K.'s principal infrastructure for advancing a two-state solution, leaving London with sharply diminished leverage and visibility in the region” (Reuters. Global Banking) I think that’s called shooting yourselves in the foot @Ed_Miliband Miliband said he regretted the order but was not surprised. “We weighed the costs and benefits of acting … and we thought we simply could not stand by because we feared Israeli action,” he told the BBC. Britain now faces a choice: accept the loss of its Jerusalem platform or retaliate and risk a wider rupture with the embassy in Tel Aviv. A dozen countries, including France and Canada (naturally), have also announced plans to ban goods produced in Israeli settlements. None of those nations has a consulate as prominent as Israel's in Jerusalem. In August , Israel expelled two Dutch diplomats, one from the embassy in Tel Aviv and one from the Ramallah mission. Foreign Minister Sa’ar cited a Dutch law banning trade in settlement goods, due to take effect on September 22, and earlier “anti-Israel measures.” The pair were given a week to leave the country One of the major impulses behind this new round of sanctions against Israel is that since the October 7 massacre of Israelis near Gaza, the Israeli government has approved over 100 new settlements and over 27,000 housing units in territory the Palestinians claim belongs to a Palestinian ethnostate. It is also treating “unauthorized” settlements much more leniently. This is hardly surprising as the “two-state solution” was taken off the table by Hamas terrorists. Numbers vary, but the total of authorized and unauthorized settlements created since the Hamas attack may reach 400. Whether France or others lose their Jerusalem consulates depends on how far Netanyahu’s government chooses to escalate before the October 27 elections. Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has asked the U.S. government to ban several hack-for-hire firms — companies that carry out cyberattacks on behalf of paying clients. The lawmakers accuse the firms of targeting Americans and abusing foreign courts to silence U.S. reporting on their activities. Democratic senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Republican congressman Pat Harrigan, on Wednesday sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, urging him to add three Indian companies to the department’s economic sanctions “ entity list .” The list effectively bars U.S. businesses from transacting with a named entity, with the aim of restricting the companies from accessing critical technology needed to function, including software licenses and cloud infrastructure. In the letter sent to Lutnick and shared with TechCrunch, the lawmakers say BellTroX, CyberRoot, and Sunkissed Organic Farms (which previously operated under its former name, Appin) have for more than a decade conducted cyberattacks and targeted espionage against Americans, business owners, and their lawyers, to “manipulate ongoing litigation.” The lawmakers say that these mercenary hacking companies have stolen data from thousands of Americans, and accuse the hackers of an “aggressive censorship campaign” to suppress public awareness of their alleged activities. “This coordinated effort effectively allows foreign entities to use foreign courts to keep the American public in the dark about cyber threats to their own country and undermines the fundamental constitutional rights of U.S. citizens,” the lawmakers said. It’s not clear if the Commerce Department will add the companies to its entity list, and a spokesperson did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment. The letter’s request to add the companies to the entity list follows extensive reporting and media investigations on the hack-for-hire industry, documenting how hackers are paid to break into the inboxes and devices of executives, lawmakers, and military officials to gain an advantage in lawsuits or influence their outcomes. One of the companies, Appin, previously secured a global court order from an Indian court forcing Reuters to take down its reporting on the company while Reuters appealed the order. The notice that appeared on the page at the time said that Reuters “stands by its reporting.” The order was later lifted and the report republished. The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation previously defended two news organizations, Techdirt and the MuckRock Foundation, from legal threats after Appin engaged in “a campaign of bullying and censorship seeking to wipe out stories” about the company’s involvement in mercenary hacking. The lawmakers’ letter said that the hack-for-hire companies “operated at the behest of the Qatari government” and that their targets included a former senior Republican lawmaker. Appin has been linked to Qatar before. Earlier reporting tied Appin to a campaign of cyberattacks against FIFA officials, reportedly directed by Qatar as part of an effort to protect its plans to host the 2022 World Cup. A representative from the Qatari government in Washington, D.C. did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment. An email from TechCrunch to Anuj Khare, a director at Sunkissed Organic Farms, went unreturned. Separate reporting by The New Yorker and digital investigative unit The Citizen Lab has also documented espionage activity by the two other hack-for-hire firms named in the lawmakers’ letter, BellTroX and CyberRoot. TechCrunch sought comment from representatives at CyberRoot, but did not hear back prior to publication. BellTroX could not be reached for comment. Topics Commerce Department , cyberattack , cybersecurity , Government & Policy , Ron Wyden , Security When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission . This doesn’t affect our editorial independence. Zack Whittaker Security Editor Zack Whittaker is the security editor at TechCrunch. He also authors the weekly cybersecurity newsletter, this week in security . He can be reached via encrypted message at zackwhittaker.1337 on Signal. You can also contact him by email, or to verify outreach, at [email protected] . View Bio

This article was originally published inEdSource.California’s mandate requiring later start times for middle and high schools is already yielding results, with students sleeping more, reporting better mental health and scoring higher math and English scores, according to a new study.The new workingpaperfrom the National Bureau of Economic Research examines the effects of Senate Bill 328, California’s statewide mandate for later school start times. The law, which went into effect in 2022, requires most middle schools to start no earlier than 8 a.m. and high schools no earlier than 8:30 a.m.Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox.Sign up for The 74 NewsletterThe study found that the new law increased the share of students sleeping at least eight hours per night by 13%, meeting the minimum recommended for adolescents byhealth experts. The largest jump was among boys.The study shows that “rest and sleep are incredibly important in the function of schools,” said Osea Giuntella, an author of the report. Although the short-term increase in sleep is moderate, it has led to significant improvements in mental health and academic outcomes, he said.Giuntella, a University of Pittsburgh researcher who studies sleep and economics, said the study’s first-year results are consistent with previous research linking better sleep to improved student well-being and academic performance. The study used changes in teachers’ commute arrival times from the American Community Survey as a proxy for later school start times, comparing sleep and mental health data before and after SB 328 took effect in the 2022-2023 school year and tracking academic gains from 2022 through 2025.Gains in sleep, mental health, English and mathStudents reported experiencing better mental health since schools shifted to later start times, with boys reporting the largest reductions in sadness, hopelessness and suicidal ideation, and Hispanic students reporting the biggest drop in difficulties concentrating.Terra Ziporyn, executive director at nonprofit Start Schools Later and longtime advocate of later school start times, said SB 328 was a key part of California’s response to what schools have described as a student mental health crisis.RelatedAs Transitional-K Takes Root, California Preschool Providers Must Adapt or Close“The first step in addressing student mental health problems is to not create them in the first place,” Ziporyn said. “You can get a lot of counselors, but systematically depriving an entire adolescent population of adequate sleep is a surefire way to hurt their mental health.”The study also found significant improvements in academic achievement, with eighth grade students making measurable gains in math and English, particularly among Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students.Giuntella, the study’s author, said the improvement in scores was likely “largely driven by the change in sleep” based on comparablestudieswhere increased sleep led to higher GPAs. That’s also why Hispanic students, who are already less likely to get adequate sleep than white students due to lower family income and family and work responsibilities, improved their math and English scores the most, Giuntella said.Parents struggle with new schedulesThe state mandate is the only one in the nation.“California set a huge precedent for the whole nation by saying, ‘We cannot leave what is essentially a public health decision in the hands of local districts,’ ” Ziproyn said. “It’s not just a negotiable school budget item that you trade off against anything else.”But some parents have said later start times complicate work commutes, push back sports and extracurricular activities and lead to some students simply pushing back the time they go to bed.The study found that sports and extracurricular activities did start later after the change to later start times, but the changes were “marginal and not statistically significant,” Giuntella said.“And it’s true that, yes, students may even go to bed a little later than they were, but they are definitely sleeping in more in the morning,” she said.Guintella described later start times as just “one institutional factor” that may help address a complex sleep-deprivation problem, pointing to issues like the rise in nighttime screen use.‘Too hard and too expensive’ for some districtsSome school districts found the transition to later school start times “too hard and too expensive,” Ziporyn said. Ziporyn said district administrators could have received more guidance from the state Department of Education to explain the benefits of later start times, and involve families in finding solutions to logistical problems.“(Schools) have to fully understand why this is being done and communicate it with confidence to the community that they’re doing the right thing for kids,” Ziporyn said.San Francisco Unified, for example, worked with operations experts at the Yale School of Management, Georgia Tech University and Northwestern University to redesign their bus routes in response to the change. With more than 120 schools and 18 different start times, the district generated about 1,000 new feasible bus schedules, which ended up saving the district about $5 million and with a majority of families and staff members satisfied with the transition to later start times, according to a report byYale Insights.But most schools in California did not have access to dedicated consultants to ease the transition, Ziporyn said.“California could have improved making these resources more readily available to the districts,” Ziporyn said. “Built into the law was that there was supposed to be help from the state Department of Education about getting this done, and building that community buy-in is part of it.”Giuntella said the state can improve its implementation of SB 328 by collecting statewide data on later school start times to “assess the impact of the reform.” In the meantime, schools can take from the study that later start times are “effective and powerful tools” for student outcomes.“This happens often with some shock to individual and families’ habits, and so it also requires the ability to navigate this transition in a way that doesn’t backfire,” Giuntella said.This story was originally published byEdSource. Sign up for theirdaily newsletter.