Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/27

In a wide-ranging interview, Irina Tsukerman, Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, outlines a systematic reshuffling within the National Security Council during Trump’s second term. Unlike his first term, the dismissals are deliberate, driven by loyalty tests and distrust of experts. Seasoned professionals are being replaced by underqualified loyalists, leading to leadership gaps, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and intelligence leaks. Figures like Laura Loomer, though fringe, gained influence, further destabilizing national security. The erosion of trust extends to international allies, threatening the integrity of intelligence-sharing frameworks. Tsukerman warns this ideological purge could cause long-term damage to U.S. global standing and operational coherence.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Irina Tsukerman. She’s the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider. So, yes, I wanted to talk about key National Security Council officials in the second Trump administration.

Many dismissals have been in this second term, especially within the first hundred days. It’s always strange to count time like that—first hundred days, sixty, or ninety—it feels a bit arbitrary, like counting half-years as an adult. But what is the strategic rationale for dismissing National Security Council officials so far in this term?

Irina Tsukerman: This second term differs significantly from the first because what’s happening now isn’t random. It’s very systematic. Outside sources are prompting events—I’ll get to that moment—but overall, the approach is planned and strategic, unlike the more chaotic, reactive shuffling of personalities we saw in the first term.

In the first term, Trump didn’t fire many people who weren’t his own personal appointees. He chose not to fill many appointed positions, especially in diplomacy, but he didn’t mass-fire entire categories of personnel.

Now, however, he’s systematically targeting intelligence agencies. He’s calling them out directly. This process is both distinct and interconnected. First, there’s the broader emptying of personnel from general intelligence agencies. This included a buyout plan, which offered eight months’ worth of back pay to anyone willing to leave voluntarily. Those who stayed and fell into specific categories identified by the administration were then subject to unceremonious dismissal.

That aspect was framed as an efficiency measure and included administrative staff, technical personnel, and intelligence officers. So, it was a combination of things: first, a claim of improving efficiency by eliminating duplicative roles across major agencies; second, an attempt to purge what they consider the entrenched “deep state” within intelligence services.

That’s one major component. The NSC shake-up is slightly different but tied to another long-standing trend: loyalty tests. Trump and his close circle have applied these tests since he took office. What we’re seeing now is an extension of this approach—expanding the expectation of personal loyalty across the federal government, effectively redefining national security policy around it.

Unlike in the first term, where we saw more dramatic firings of high-profile figures like John Bolton and Rex Tillerson, this term is about building a structure where personal loyalty to Trump, rather than institutional or constitutional loyalty, becomes the foundation of U.S. national security.

The reshuffling in the second term is more insidious. It systematically sidelines qualified experts—not necessarily the top names you hear about in the news but the actual subject matter experts. These people do the core work.

We’re seeing the rise of political appointees with little to no national security experience. And that lack of knowledge has, disturbingly, become almost a qualification. The underlying logic in these circles—driven by a paranoid worldview—is that individuals who do have expertise may have been “hijacked” by the so-called deep state or maybe disloyal because they have institutional knowledge and competence.

By contrast, someone with no skills or experience owes their entire position to the Trump administration. They must remain loyal because, without Trump, they would not be there. That’s literally the rationale behind some of these staffing decisions.

This shift has raised serious alarms about the future of U.S. diplomacy and national security, both domestically and internationally.

Jacobsen: And what about the broader implications for cybersecurity and intelligence?

Tsukerman: The most concerning impact is the growing vulnerability of U.S. intelligence systems, cybersecurity protocols, and global influence. Multiple concerning trends compound this. First, efforts have been made to extract vast amounts of data for unclear purposes. Second, unsafe cybersecurity practices are emerging, even at the highest levels.

For instance, just last week, there was a reported case in which Elon Musk reportedly modified a cybersecurity protocol that allowed a Russian-linked entity access to sensitive systems, resulting in what could be a massive security breach.

We still do not know how that story will unfold. Still, we know widespread concern about how sensitive data is handled and how cybersecurity protocols are being weakened under current leadership.

Jacobsen: So when it comes to well-known figures, who stands out?

Tsukerman: One notable case is Timothy Haugh. He’s a U.S. Air Force general recently appointed by President Biden as the head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command. He has been dismissed. There is speculation and concern about the political targeting of career professionals like him. His distinguished service in intelligence and counterterrorism has earned him respect across the aisle, including from many Republicans in Congress.

The fear is that there is a growing pattern—an administration preference for personal loyalty over expertise.

His career exemplifies professionalism and meticulous intelligence work, which some perceive as “too establishment” or out of sync with the populist, anti-establishment rhetoric from certain corners of the administration.

His hypothetical removal would not be an isolated event—it would be part of a broader trend in which highly experienced professionals, particularly in intelligence and security roles, are replaced by those who echo the administration’s messaging.

To prove their loyalty, it is no longer enough for officials to avoid leaks and perform competently. Increasingly, they are expected to parrot the rhetoric and mirror the ideological tone set by the administration’s top—even if it is not formally part of their role. Unless someone operates entirely in the background, they must actively demonstrate their alignment.

The official in question had served in various roles at the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. He was known for his commitment to intelligence, integrity, and protecting U.S. national security from foreign threats. However, he was also a pragmatist—and that pragmatic approach increasingly clashed with the internal atmosphere at the White House, which had become marked by growing paranoia and distrust of traditional expertise.

This wasn’t just limited to the national security sector. Similar patterns could be seen in agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. It was part of a broader trend. Individuals who were once respected, experienced professionals became casualties of what I would call a political purge—one that prioritized loyalty and ideology above competence and experience.

That particular dismissal and the firing of six National Security Council staffers—all considered competent, pragmatic, and level-headed—did not happen accidentally, randomly, or in isolation.

It stemmed from a bizarre and frankly alarming incident involving Laura Loomer, a well-known 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Laura Loomer never held an official position with the National Security Council, thankfully. She is a fringe writer and political activist who calls herself a journalist. However, “social media personality” would be a more accurate description. She has a long history of promoting unfounded conspiracy theories and, by her own accounts, has struggled with mental health issues.

Jacobsen: And she gained influence during the second term?

Tsukerman: Surprisingly, yes. She emerged as a bizarre but increasingly visible figure during Trump’s second presidential campaign and continued gaining proximity to key figures. She began appearing at campaign events and became a symbolic voice for a particular ideological faction.

She is now 32 years old and rose from the margins of the internet as an online provocateur. She often promoted extremely outlandish and baseless conspiracy theories—some so fringe that, under normal circumstances, they would have rendered her persona non grata in any serious media or political circles.

But that’s no longer the case. Platforms like Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) and other pro-Trump media ecosystems have given her a new stage. Her unhinged rhetoric—centred on accusations of government corruption and the so-called “deep state”—was entirely devoid of substantiated evidence.

To be clear, legitimate government corruption does exist, and we should address it through proper investigative and legal means. But Loomer promotes a world of fiction—an alternate reality fueled by paranoia and misinformation.

Her growing influence in Trump’s inner circle is disturbing. Sometimes, I wonder if her presence was truly influential or was being used as a cover—a mouthpiece for ideologies already brewing within the administration. Either way, the fact that her rhetoric helped shape or justify real staffing decisions is deeply troubling.

But Loomer’s vocal support for Trump’s populist agenda and her penchant for spreading disinformation made her a frequent and convenient ally for those in the administration who viewed professional national security experts with disdain. That contempt resulted in the unceremonious dismissal of several qualified staffers.

The rise of figures like Loomer has been deeply problematic. It encourages an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility toward intelligence agencies, diplomatic services, and other professional institutions—rather than fostering dialogue, reform, or strategic reorientation.

Of course, any administration will have individuals whose views conflict with the president’s agenda, and replacements are sometimes necessary. That is a regular part of governance. But what we are seeing here is categorically different. This is not about political disagreements—it’s about eroding the foundations of evidence-based governance.

Loomer’s presence exacerbated Trump’s growing distrust of experts and analysts, driving the administration further from fact-based decision-making. The more Trump embraced voices like hers, the less he relied on the extensive networks of national security experts—including many loyal conservatives who supported his policy goals.

That left the United States more vulnerable to global threats and internal instability. In one alarming incident, Loomer reportedly arrived uninvited at the White House and met with Trump. After that meeting, she allegedly voiced concerns about disloyalty within the National Security Council. Soon afterward, six NSC staffers were dismissed.

When asked about the decision, Trump gave a vague response—saying things like, “Well, I listen to everyone… I respect people’s opinions.” This rhetoric aligned with his broader pattern of valuing personal impressions and emotional loyalty over institutional integrity.

Jacobsen: So, was she driving policy?

Tsukerman: That’s the question. I don’t believe she has real policymaking power. She could have been used as a stand-in or proxy by far more influential individuals within or adjacent to the administration. Trump appears to trust her—or perhaps she reinforces his instincts—which makes her a useful intermediary for advancing ideological goals.

What matters just as much as actual power is the optics. Her visibility shifts the Overton window—acceptable discourse on issues like national security. Even if she isn’t the one pulling the strings, her influence alters the political climate to facilitate dangerous decisions.

And if anyone wanted to weaken U.S. national security—whether a hostile foreign actor or someone with malign intentions—this would be a very effective way to undermine professionals, elevate loyalists, and reduce critical oversight.

Jacobsen: What is the impact of all this in the long term?

Tsukerman: At the end of the day, it puts national security at serious risk. The mass departure of seasoned professionals—including many people of colour—is not just the result of differing policy views. It reflects a broader trend of decision-making driven by ideology and personal loyalty rather than merit or national interest.

That is incredibly dangerous. The system becomes more vulnerable when a leader surrounds himself with yes-men, afraid to challenge flawed decisions, push back on incorrect information, or question poorly implemented policies.

The persecution—or prosecution, metaphorically—of experts stems from Trump’s belief that many institutions, including the national security apparatus, are inherently opposed to him. There is no evidence that General Timothy Haugh or the other dismissed NSC staffers acted in a way that undermined Trump’s goals. But they were removed nonetheless, caught in the tide of a loyalty-driven purge.

He accused them anyway. Trump is increasingly alienating himself from traditional sources of expertise by choice, which means that key positions are either left completely unfilled or are staffed with individuals lacking the requisite knowledge and experience to address critical issues. That creates a serious vulnerability that any adversary could easily exploit.

This trend is weakening the United States’ ability to respond to growing threats from adversarial state actors like China and Russia. It is also fracturing the coherence of U.S. foreign policy. As the White House becomes increasingly consumed by internal loyalty tests and political infighting—among individuals vying for power and Trump’s approval—national security practices, which once functioned as somewhat bureaucratic but effective machinery for maintaining global stability, are becoming fragmented and inefficient.

Ironically, decision-making is slowing down, not because of excessive bureaucracy but because no one is left with the authority, backing, or expertise to make critical decisions and act swiftly. That vacuum creates a system that is highly susceptible to manipulation—by outside actors like foreign adversaries or even by internal operatives with their own agendas.

The ideological shift away from professionalism toward political loyalty has made U.S. systems more vulnerable to cyber espionage by China, disinformation campaigns from Russia, and other forms of political and financial exploitation. The internal fragmentation creates openings for the exploitation of internal divisions, weakening the country’s defence infrastructure from within.

And here’s the ultimate irony: all these internal loyalty tests helped create the conditions that led to the Signal Leaks Scandal, often referred to as Signalgate. This reshuffling—the removal of competent staff and replacement with ideologically loyal but unqualified individuals—laid the groundwork for one of the most serious breaches of classified intelligence in recent history.

Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on the leak and what happened?

Tsukerman: Trump had long accused his staff of leaking information returning to his first term. But in this most recent case, he alleged that intelligence about internal communications—signals intelligence—was revealed through a chat group that an Atlantic journalist infiltrated.

Trump claimed the journalist had been invited inadvertently and that it was the fault of several staffers with ties to HECSES—a loosely affiliated internal group. Ultimately, three NSC staffers were arrested in connection with this incident. One was a deputy chief of staff who was quietly reassigned to another agency. The other two remain under investigation.

However, there’s no public evidence that they leaked classified information beyond what eventually surfaced in the media due to infighting between journalists and national security officials. Despite this, those three individuals became scapegoats.

Meanwhile, others—including figures like Waltz, Hegseth, Gabbard, & Ratcliffe who were reportedly responsible for serious breaches of security protocols—have not faced any consequences. They retained their positions, were not publicly reprimanded, and avoided accountability. They could even shift the blame to others, protecting themselves at the expense of those without involvement.

This left the Office of the Secretary of Defense with virtually no senior staff to implement or execute policy, adding to an already chaotic atmosphere inside the Pentagon and the broader national security apparatus.

So now, we find ourselves in a situation where the very administration that has long been accused of undermining national security is operating in an environment where leaks—both real and fabricated—are proliferating at an unprecedented rate. The structures that once maintained order and security are now in disarray.

In the case of the signal leaks, that incident became a public story. However, in other situations, we deal with leaks that point to serious internal security failings that are not adequately addressed through official channels.

Some of these are quasi-official leaks, meaning people within the system leak information not out of malice but out of desperation. They are unable to get the attention of their superiors to implement the correct protocols or address significant security concerns. So, ironically, they turn to the media—not because they want to undermine national security but because they are trying to protect it.

These individuals are, in effect, acting as whistleblowers. They are revealing the administration’s failures because there is no functional internal process to report and resolve those issues discreetly. If proper oversight mechanisms were in place—and if senior officials were competent, experienced, or even open to fixing problems—these leaks would not be happening.

Jacobsen: So it’s a breakdown of internal systems?

Tsukerman: This is the environment that has been created. Trump has been paranoid about leaks since his first term. At that time, he viewed them as evidence of a so-called deep state conspiracy to undermine his agenda. But the reality is more nuanced.

Yes, there were leaks under Trump. However, there were also leaks under Biden—from individuals who were not Trump supporters but who opposed Biden’s policies for being too centrist or insufficiently progressive. These people were often far to the left of Biden himself. That historical context fuels Trump’s paranoia: He sees leaks as proof that the government is inherently disloyal or corrupt.

While that view is not entirely irrational—leaks can indicate dysfunction—the way he chooses to address the issue is counterproductive. Instead of reforming internal processes or improving oversight, he replaces experienced professionals with loyalists, which worsens the situation.

The irony is striking: his actions to prevent leaks are contributing to the security failures that lead to more leaks. This self-reinforcing cycle further destabilizes the administration and damages the United States’ global credibility.

Jacobsen: How does this impact national security?

Tsukerman: These leaks—whether officially sanctioned, unauthorized, or somewhere in between—not only embarrass the administration but also harm the U.S.’s standing on the world stage. Foreign intelligence services, particularly Russia and China, exploit the situation.

The structural vulnerabilities created by this breakdown in process, trust, and professionalism have led to significant consequences. Chinese cyber operations, in particular, have capitalized on this dysfunction. China has leveraged its cyber capabilities to infiltrate U.S. government systems and private corporations.

They view U.S. cybersecurity infrastructure as significantly weakened—an unfortunately inaccurate assessment. The erosion of influence and authority among seasoned national security professionals has left significant gaps in defence, and these gaps have been exploited by both formal and informal Chinese actors, including hackers and intelligence operatives.

As a result, China can carry out cyber espionage campaigns with relative impunity. The combination of internal disarray and external threats is dangerous, and it is undermining U.S. resilience at a time when we can least afford it.

Just last week, in a tit-for-tat maneuver, China openly retaliated against the United States following a reported National Security Agency (NSA) operation that allegedly infiltrated secure Chinese government systems during the Asian Games—a regional equivalent of the Olympics for Asian countries.

In response, China publicly “burned” three NSA officers, naming them and accusing the U.S. of undermining China’s cybersecurity. This was particularly notable given that China’s cyber operations regularly target U.S. systems. Their retaliation, while framed as defensive, was part of the ongoing cyber warfare dynamics between both countries.

That is just one aspect of the broader China–U.S. cyber hostility. But another equally concerning aspect is the systematic dismantling of anti-Russian cybersecurity protocols within the U.S. government. This is not happening by accident, it is not a bureaucratic oversight, and it is a deliberate, high-level policy decision.

Jacobsen: They’re dismantling those protocols formally?

Tsukerman: Yes. Officially and formally, anti-Russian cybersecurity operations are being scaled back or dissolved across the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies. It is another disastrous consequence of the recent reshuffles in national security leadership.

This raises a critical question: What does all of this say about the current integrity of the U.S. security apparatus, and where is it heading?

It is difficult to fully assess the extent of the damage without a comprehensive review. Unfortunately, no one seems to be in a position—or willing—to make that assessment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), for example, has been more focused on budgetary issues than operational capability, and even then, it lacks the specialized expertise to evaluate strategic security breakdowns properly.

But judging by observable outcomes, the impact is already quite severe. The mass firings and resignations of key staff—including those responsible for executing complex intelligence and defence operations—are taking their toll. We do not yet know the exact number or nature of the personnel losses, but what we can see from the top-level dysfunction is deeply troubling.

We have a Secretary of Defense operating without a whole staff. Top national security officials are making questionable and, at times, damaging decisions, ignoring basic safety and intelligence protocols. Meanwhile, highly competent and dedicated professionals are either leaving or being forced out—many have yet to be replaced.

Jacobsen: So, who’s running the show?

Tsukerman: That’s the terrifying part. In many cases, no one knows. We are seeing leadership gaps in critical areas like the NSA, where no director is in place. These positions are left vacant or filled with temporary acting officials who may not remain in place long.

This creates a massive vulnerability. Foreign intelligence agencies—especially those from adversarial countries—track these developments closely. Personnel monitoring is a significant part of their job. They look at who is in, who is out, and who holds what position. It is fundamental to their infiltration strategy through social engineering or direct hacking efforts.

When they see key U.S. positions left vacant or handed over to underqualified loyalists, it sends a signal: the system is unstable. The United States appears to be operating without sufficient staffing, subject-matter expertise, and robust security protocols or frameworks to manage the threats we face.

Jacobsen: So, from a foreign intelligence perspective, is it open season?

Tsukerman: In many ways, yes. We are dealing with a combination of political purges, loyalty tests, and leadership gaps compromising national security at a structural level. It is a dangerous situation—one that is already being exploited. The impact of these developments extends beyond adversaries—it also affects our allies, particularly within the Five Eyes alliance. This is the core intelligence-sharing network between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It has long been regarded as one of the most effective and trusted cooperative frameworks in the world, especially in counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and global surveillance.

Now, that trust is eroding. There have already been public and private complaints from allies, including unusual remarks from UK intelligence about specific U.S. officials. One name mentioned is Tulsi Gabbard. However, it’s important to clarify that she was confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). So, there may be confusion or misreporting on that front. Still, the broader point stands: U.S. allies are voicing concerns about the competence and reliability of current leadership within American intelligence.

When top-level officials are reckless, inexperienced, and lack the judgment or background to manage complex operations—and when they are not supported by skilled, experienced personnel beneath them—the result is a weakened national security apparatus. That instability puts U.S. intelligence at risk and the sensitive, shared intelligence entrusted to us by our allies.

Jacobsen: So it’s not just about America—about global trust and cooperation?

Tsukerman: It creates a ripple effect. Shared intelligence operations become vulnerable. Protocols get broken. Operations get exposed. These structural weaknesses cannot be fully understood unless you’re working inside those agencies and witnessing the deterioration firsthand.

Among our closest allies, there is a growing concern that the United States can no longer be considered a reliable partner. And it is not just ideological discomfort—it is practical and operational. If your senior staff consists primarily of political loyalists with no relevant qualifications, the actual quality of intelligence will decline. Oversight becomes nonexistent or is conducted by individuals who do not understand what they oversee.

This damages the integrity of U.S. intelligence and frays the trust our partners once had in us. I am not just talking about the formal frameworks of cooperation—I’m talking about the intelligence itself: its reliability, sourcing, and handling. Partners will begin withholding critical information if you cannot guarantee that sensitive material will be handled appropriately. And who could blame them?

There’s also increasing concern that, with U.S. leadership becoming more unpredictable, intelligence shared with us might be misused, mishandled, or even inadvertently exposed. These chaotic, ideology-driven reshuffles raise the risk that U.S. agencies could become a weak link, endangering not just our operations but also our allies—such as undercover agents and field officers embedded in high-risk environments.

Jacobsen: Here’s my final question. Given the current trajectory, what will the standing of the United States be at the end of this administration’s four-year term? Is there any historical precedent for countries rebuilding trust with their allies after such a significant breakdown—not just in intelligence but also in trade, economics, and diplomacy?

Tsukerman: That’s a profound and essential question. Trust is one of the most challenging things to build, straightforward to break, and exponentially harder to repair. That said, there’s so much strategic interdependency between the U.S. and its closest allies that some degree of cooperation will persist—especially at the professional and operational levels—even through political upheaval.

However, long-term damage will need to be repaired. When this administration ends, a thorough reassessment will be essential. That includes rebuilding not just personnel but frameworks, protocols, and confidence.

We will need to offer strong guarantees and structural reforms to show that a breakdown of this scale cannot happen again. Only then can we regain our allies’ trust and reposition the United States as a dependable leader in global security.

The United States has made comebacks before—and so have other countries. Take the Edward Snowden scandal, for example. That leak exposed highly sensitive intelligence operations, not just from the U.S. but also involving its closest allies. It caused a public backlash, diplomatic strain, and internal reassessments of intelligence-sharing protocols.

There was much grumbling, international criticism, and calls for reform. But eventually, the dust settled. The Five Eyes alliance and other security partnerships resumed their cooperative roles—more or less back to business as usual. Yes, there were adjustments. Some trust was lost. However, the underlying infrastructure of cooperation survived because it had long proven its value.

What makes the current situation under Trump so different—so much more destabilizing—is that this is not a scandal caused by an individual leak or a rogue actor. What Trump is attempting is a comprehensive dismantling of the post–World War II security framework that has governed intelligence relationships between the U.S., Europe, Canada, and other allied nations for the past seventy-five years.

Jacobsen: So it’s not just disruption—it’s redefinition?

Tsukerman: Exactly. He is not just disrupting it—he is trying to redefine it from the ground up. He’s attempting to reframe and rebuild the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States based not on institutional integrity or operational excellence but on loyalty to him personally.

This is a seismic shake-up—far more sweeping than even major historical intelligence crises, such as the Church Committee investigations in the 1970s. That was a monumental moment of oversight and reform, but it was ultimately about accountability within the existing framework. It did not aim to destroy or purge the intelligence community itself.

What we are witnessing now is different. This is a deliberate attempt to purge and replace—not through a careful process of reform or transition, but through chaotic, politically motivated upheaval. And the replacements are not necessarily qualified. In many cases, they are chosen for loyalty over competence, which leaves critical security gaps and undermines institutional knowledge that has taken decades to build.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/26

Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez, Deputy Director of Sylvester’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative, discusses the unique hazards of electric vehicle (EV) fires. Unlike conventional fires, EV fires release toxic metals from battery combustion, posing long-term health risks to firefighters. His research examines exposure levels through environmental and biological sampling, including toenail analysis. He emphasizes the need for improved decontamination protocols, PPE, and long-term tracking of occupational cancer risks. Future studies will leverage AI for predictive modeling to assess cumulative exposure risks. With increasing EV adoption, understanding these hazards is crucial for firefighter safety and public health policies.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez. He is the Deputy Director of Sylvester’s Firefighter Cancer Initiative at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. He holds a Ph.D., D.O., M.P.H., C.H.P., F.C.R., and F.A.C.E., specializing in occupational and environmental health, focusing on firefighter cancer research. His work aims to assess and mitigate cancer risks associated with occupational exposures, particularly in high-risk professions like firefighting. Thank you for joining me. I appreciate it.

Dr. Alberto Caban-Martinez: Yes, no problem.

Jacobsen: What unique chemical hazards are present in electric vehicle fires compared to conventional gas vehicle fires? This topic has only come up in one other interview, and that discussion was highly critical of a prominent EV figure, focusing on how hot these vehicles can get. However, this conversation is different—it’s about the chemical hazards that arise from those fires.

Martinez: Yes, that is the focus of the research we’re conducting at Sylvester—to understand how electric vehicle fires differ from traditional combustion engine fires. Our primary interest is metals, as they are present in all vehicles, whether they have a combustion engine or an electric powertrain. The key questions are: Are there different types of metals? Do they release in different quantities when a battery fire occurs?

From our firefighter colleagues, we’ve learned that EV battery fires can take a long time to suppress once ignited. So, are the smoke plume and the effluent from an electric vehicle fire different? That’s what we’re investigating—analyzing what firefighters are exposed to and the effects on soil, water, and the broader environment in the areas where these fires occur.

Jacobsen: Something I recently learned—relevant here, trust me—is that Coolio, the rapper behind Gangsta’s Paradise, trained as a firefighter in his youth. Before his music career, he worked trained as a firefighter in San Jose, California. He passed away in 2022 from an accidental fentanyl overdose. He also had a history of asthma.

Martinez: I had no idea.

Jacobsen: Yes. The shift over time has been interesting. It used to be that gangsters pretended to be rappers. Now, it’s the other way around—rappers pretending to be gangsters.

He passed away in 2022. He trained as a firefighter. I, however, am not a firefighter. I have never taken part in firefighting outside of a live simulation. That said, I would assume that firefighters experience significantly more exposure to fires than I do.

With that increased exposure, are firefighters at greater risk for cancer due to prolonged exposure to effluents and fumes from electric vehicle fires?

Martinez: You bring up an important point for your readers: The fire service is comprised largely of volunteer firefighters. Many think firefighters are full-time first responders working in major metropolitan areas. However, about 65 percent of firefighters are volunteers in the United States.

These volunteers have primary jobs outside of firefighting. Some might be musicians, some work in trade professions, and others have entirely different careers. This dynamic makes studying firefighter cancer risk particularly interesting from a research perspective.

Examine and determine what people are exposed to in their primary and secondary jobs. Even in rural settings, electric vehicles are present, and firefighters are exposed to them.

What’s interesting, Scott is that there are many different types of firefighters. In the press, we often see wildland firefighters on TV, especially when wildfires rage across the West Coast of the United States. That situation isn’t much different from an entire community being exposed to a fire because the air pollution from large-scale brush fires affects the general population’s air quality.

In the firefighting world, though, firefighters are on the front lines, getting a first-row seat to those fires and experiencing intense exposure. The personal protective equipment (PPE) used by firefighters varies. Wildland firefighters, for instance, often use a gaiter—a cloth or sock-like covering over their face—rather than an air tank. This is because they work in the field for hours or even days and can’t refill an air tank every 30 minutes.

One positive outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the general public is now more familiar with PPE. However, it’s important to note that the broader community is also exposed to these fire-related contaminants.

Regarding electric vehicle fires, we recently conducted a case study in July here at Sylvester that provided insights into the specific hazards associated with these fires. This study focused on a single electric vehicle fire involving a Nissan LEAF. We examined the presence of metals before and after the fire in different environmental samples—water, soil, ambient air—and the biological samples of the firefighters involved.

We are learning that the metals found in EV batteries, as well as those from other burning materials inside the vehicle—such as electronics, tire rims, and structural components—are released into the environment. The challenge with EV battery fires is that they involve thousands of small cells, akin to 8,000 AA batteries igniting in a chain reaction. This domino effect leads to prolonged burning, potentially increasing the concentration and types of metals released.

We know that some metals are essential for human health—calcium is critical for bones and nails, while zinc plays a key role in metabolism. However, other metals are harmful and can be carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identifies certain metals as hazardous when exposure exceeds specific concentrations.

We aim to support first responders by understanding what they are exposed to. This research helps determine whether their current PPE is adequate or needs to be modified for EV fire responses, considering the potentially higher concentrations of toxic metals and other hazardous substances.

Jacobsen: Do you notice a difference between short-term acute exposure and long-term cumulative exposure?

Martinez: That’s the million-dollar question right now, right? Research is just beginning on the health effects and environmental impacts of these hazards, so the long-term effects are still uncertain. At Sylvester, one innovative way we track long-term heavy metal exposure is by collecting firefighters’ toenail clippings. I know it sounds gross—that’s why we have graduate students helping with these research projects. But if you think about the nails on our fingers and toes, they resemble the rings on a tree. When you cut a tree stump, you can see rings that indicate the tree’s age and environmental conditions. The same applies to fingernails and toenails—when they form at the base, whatever is circulating in the blood then gets incorporated into the nail. As the nail grows to the tip, it captures approximately six to nine months of exposure history.

One of our ongoing studies involves systematically collecting toenails from firefighters responding to electric vehicle fires, hazardous material incidents, and explosions. This allows us to analyze how heavy metals accumulate and change in the human body over time. The nails act as a “frozen-in-time” biological matrix, helping us assess long-term exposure. However, scientific research takes time, and that’s a challenge when working with first responders who want immediate results. The reality is that science moves much slower than operational demands. But in the future, studies like this will help answer your key question: Are there significant differences between acute, short-term exposure and long-term cumulative exposure to the metals and toxins released in EV fires?

Jacobsen: Based on early indications, what safety protocols and protective equipment can reduce firefighters’ exposure to carcinogens known to be released from EV fires?

Martinez: Yes, we know that decontamination procedures are highly effective. In fact, our colleagues at NIOSH have shown that using basic soap and water—despite what commercial cleaning product ads may suggest—is one of the most effective ways to remove a variety of toxins encountered during fire suppression. The key is to start decontamination immediately at the fire scene, right after the fire is suppressed. This helps prevent the transfer of toxic residues from the fire site into fire trucks and back to the fire station, where secondary exposure could occur. It’s similar to how a surgeon wouldn’t leave the operating room covered in blood—you don’t want to bring contaminants from the fire scene into clean spaces. Implementing preliminary decontamination procedures at the fire site is critical.

Another important safety measure is the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), even for those who are not directly entering a fire. Firefighters establish hazmat zones, which are colour-coded to indicate levels of risk. The red zone is the immediate area where the fire is burning. A certain distance away is the yellow zone, where fire service leaders typically stand to evaluate fire suppression efforts. Beyond that is the green zone, where community observers, including people like you and me, might be standing. Our research has shown that toxic particles travel beyond the red zone, reaching the yellow and green zones.

A common misconception is that open air provides adequate protection from harmful substances, but low-dose particle exposure still occurs. This is similar to what happens in wildland firefighting—when large areas of land burn, people in surrounding areas still inhale harmful particulates. This means that firefighters who are not directly inside a burning structure but positioned in the yellow zone should still be equipped with PPE to minimize exposure.

Jacobsen: Do you think that with wider EV adoption, this research will become increasingly relevant?

Martinez: I do. The reason is that renewable energy sources and rechargeable batteries are now integrated into many aspects of our daily lives. Think about where we use them—scooters, mopeds, micro-mobility devices, and cell phones. We hear warnings about carrying lithium-ion batteries every time we board a plane. As these batteries become more prevalent, so does the need to study their risks.

Urban planning also plays a role. Many buildings now have parking garages with EV charging stations underneath residential spaces. If a fire occurs in an underground parking garage, the resulting smoke plume can become trapped in that confined space, making it even more hazardous. This means we must be thoughtful in designing urban environments and public spaces to ensure first responders have proper access to mitigate fires involving high-energy rechargeable sources.

There is also a significant public education component to this issue, Scott. People must know how to use the correct chargers for their electronic devices. I don’t know about you, but I often see people buying cheap $2 chargers at gas stations because they lost their original ones. These low-quality chargers may not be properly manufactured, and when used, they can cause overheating and even battery fires. First responders are now emphasizing public awareness campaigns about proper charging practices, avoiding overcharging devices, and recognizing potential risks associated with battery misuse.

This is why our research at Sylvester is critical. We are working to understand the environmental and health hazards associated with exposure to high concentrations of metals and other toxins released during EV fires, particularly regarding long-term cancer risks for firefighters.

Jacobsen: Are there any legislative or policy initiatives to address the health risks associated with EV fires for first responders?

Martinez: Yes, thankfully, here in Florida, we have strong legislative support for firefighter cancer research. Our state legislature has provided funding to study cancer risks within the fire service. What makes me especially proud is that our research follows a community-based participatory approach—meaning that firefighters themselves nominate the research topics that are most important to them from a practical, real-world perspective.

For example, the study on EV fires occurred because firefighters asked us to investigate their exposure risks. About three months ago, they said, “We want to know what we’re exposed to during EV fires and how it impacts the environment, including the ground contamination.” Because of their input, we launched this research in response to their concerns.

This process is essential because, as you know, scientific research often takes a long time—usually three to five years of planning. However, by focusing on firefighter-nominated topics, we can apply research more nimbly and responsively. The findings from our studies don’t just stay in academic journals; they directly inform policies and best practices for fire departments and public health officials.

Let me give you an example that I’m particularly proud, I was telling you that someone could work for 30 years as a scientist and only contribute to a small piece of a much larger puzzle. But with the Firefighter Cancer Initiative (FCI), because we are a translational research group, we bridge the gap between basic science—what we learn in the lab—and real-world applications at fire stations. This approach has allowed us to influence policy at both small and large scales.

On the small “p” policy level, we’ve impacted Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) within fire stations. Our research has demonstrated that decontamination (DECON) procedures are highly effective, especially when implemented early. We’ve shown that proper DECON significantly reduces firefighters’ exposure to carcinogens. This has led to SOP changes at fire departments to improve firefighter safety.

On the big “P” policy level, at the state level, we’ve influenced cancer presumption laws. We track which cancers firefighters develop through our Cancer Epidemiology (Cancer Epi) Program. While this may sound simple, it requires complex legislative coordination, statistical modelling, and extensive data matching to identify cancer cases among firefighters accurately. This research allows us to generate firefighter-specific cancer rates, meaning we can determine which types of cancer occur at higher rates among firefighters compared to the general population.

Our findings confirm that firefighters experience elevated risks for specific cancers, which means something in their work environment is increasing their risk. This has been a humbling yet impactful experience—being able to contribute to state-level policy changes that recognize and address occupational cancer risks for firefighters.

There is still much work to be done. Cancer isn’t caused solely by exposure to hazardous materials like metals; it results from workplace exposures, diet, nutrition, genetics, and lifestyle factors. That’s why we have multiple ongoing research projects at FCI to understand these different risk factors. Our goal is twofold: prevent cancer before it develops and reduce exposure to carcinogens in the hazardous environments firefighters encounter.

Jacobsen: Lithium-ion batteries, as far as I understand, are the most commonly used type of battery in electric vehicles. Given their widespread adoption, does this present a unique national test case for studying the health effects of a specific type of battery? Since most EV-related fires involve lithium-ion batteries, does this provide researchers with a broad dataset to analyze their impact on firefighter health?

Martinez: Yes. Let me start by saying that I am not a battery expert. I am trained as a physician and an epidemiologist, so we would need to consult some of my colleagues from the College of Engineering for a deeper understanding of battery composition. However, battery technology is constantly evolving. Even as you and I speak, new vehicles are rolling off assembly lines with battery compositions that differ from those used five years ago.

This presents a significant challenge for firefighters. They often ask us, “Is this exposure normal? Is this what we should expect at an EV fire?” I always explain that in medicine, we determine normal ranges—such as systolic and diastolic blood pressure—by measuring them in the general population. But what is “normal” exposure at an EV fire? That depends on many factors: What kind of car is burning? Is it a large SUV? Is it a hybrid? What type of battery does it have?

The global firefighting community is still working to characterize EV fires, analyzing the composition of these batteries and identifying the emissions they release during combustion. Right now, even the basics of EV fire suppression remain inconsistent. Some first responders here in Florida have told me they sometimes don’t even know where the battery is located in a burning vehicle because every manufacturer places it differently. When firefighters arrive at a fire scene, they first see a massive smoke plume. Before effectively suppressing the fire, they need to identify the vehicle type and the battery.

For example, in some city buses, the batteries are mounted on the roof, while in others, they are located under the chassis—the fire suppression strategy changes depending on battery placement. Firefighters are still working to refine best practices for EV fire response—understanding how to contain fires, protect human life, and minimize toxic exposure.

As scientists, we enter this space and characterize the carcinogens firefighters are exposed to. However, the challenge is that exposure levels vary widely, and we do not yet have clear reference points for what is considered “normal” exposure at an EV fire. That is why we are researching to establish these benchmarks.

At Sylvester, we use silicone-based wristbands—similar to the Lance Armstrong Livestrong bracelets—as an innovative tool for measuring environmental exposure. Traditionally, exposure monitoring involved using bulky, vacuum-powered air samplers attached to firefighters. These old-school methods are impractical in real-world firefighting conditions because they are heavy, noisy, and cumbersome. Instead, we’ve found that silicone wristbands can passively capture airborne toxins.

When firefighters wear these wristbands during a real-life fire response, the chemicals and carcinogens in their environment adhere to the silicone. Afterward, we analyze the wristbands to comprehensively overview the firefighter’s exposure—a “37,000-foot view” of what hazardous substances they encountered. Right now, we are in the phase of determining what firefighters are exposed to specifically in EV fires. The goal is to provide clear guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE) and long-term health risks, especially for firefighters who develop symptoms after suppressing an EV fire.

Jacobsen: Let’s imagine this is a paper presentation—where do you see the greatest need for future research?

Martinez: Oh, gosh. You hit the nail on the head—it’s all about long-term tracking. When you consider the career of a first responder, they may work for 30 years, responding to a wide variety of fires every week—a kitchen fire one day, a car fire the next, then a large residential or commercial fire. If you aggregate all those exposures over three decades, you begin to develop a risk profile for cancer and other occupational health concerns.

The long-term focus of our research needs to be on tracking these first responders throughout their careers. Our studies focus on a single fire event, collecting data from that scene. However, as technology advances, we will have greater opportunities to track exposures over time, allowing us to study cumulative exposure risks, which we are not yet fully capable of. We’re still piecing together insights from various individual case studies, but the future of firefighter health research must emphasize longitudinal exposure tracking.

Jacobsen: Could AI and big data sets from all these individual studies be used to develop something like a Firefighter Cancer Risk Index, mapping exposure patterns over time?

Martinez: You should be a scientist on our team! That is exactly where the field is heading. AI and predictive modelling have huge potential to create personalized risk profiles for firefighters. In my field, we use Job Exposure Matrices (JEMs)—which essentially map workers’ exposure histories to various hazards and predict associated risks.

AI can enhance our ability to model and forecast risks by analyzing large datasets from multiple fire events. This can help us predict which firefighters may be at higher risk for certain health conditions based on their cumulative exposure history. We are currently applying generative AI to risk-based modelling, and I believe that in the coming years, AI will play an even bigger role in assessing, mitigating, and responding to occupational cancer risks for first responders.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Alberto, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was great to meet you.

Martinez: Same, Scott. Thank you for your work and for helping us share these findings. You can reach me if you ever need anything.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you. Bye! Have a great day.

Martinez: Stay warm. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/25

Vanessa Frazier, Malta’s Permanent Representative to the UN since 2020, is a trailblazing diplomat. The first woman in her role, she has served in Washington, London, and Rome. Fraser champions gender parity in AI and credits Malta’s UN initiative, the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, for promoting women in STEM. She advances Malta’s priorities on equality and ethics.

Christian Veske serves as Estonia’s Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner, driving policies to advance equity across member states. Veske highlights ethical AI through transparency and accountability. Veske emphasizes its relevance to gender parity, advocating for inclusive technology governance. Veske represents Estonia’s commitment to fairness and innovation in various fora.

Rebecca Buttigieg is Malta’s Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms and Equality, shaping policies to promote social justice under the Prime Minister’s Minister’s Office. In 2025, she urges proactive digital safety measures for women, warning that AI risks regressing gender equality without intentional design. Buttigieg highlights threats to global equality gains since the Beijing Platform, advocating for robust advocacy spaces. She represents Malta as a G20 guest, pushing for inclusive, human-centered AI and equality frameworks.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One the topic of the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. So, what is the framework that the European Union has developed? Specifically, could you describe the ethical framework guiding AI development?

Christian Veske: I serve as Estonia’s Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Commissioner.

Yes, it is a comprehensive policy framework designed to promote the development and use of ethical AI systems. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act is based on a risk-based approach. AI systems are classified according to their risk level—from minimal to limited, high, and unacceptable risk. Depending on the category, there are corresponding regulatory requirements. For example, high-risk AI systems are subject to strict obligations around transparency, data governance, human oversight, and accountability. Each EU member state is also required to establish a national supervisory authority to oversee the implementation and enforcement of the Act. That is the framework’s core—though I should mention I am not a specialist in the AI Act itself—but it is undoubtedly relevant in discussions about ethics, equality, and emerging technologies.

Vanessa Frazier: I am the Permanent Representative of Malta to the United Nations.

Jacobsen: Regarding artificial intelligence and gender parity, specifically in this session, what were your main take-home messages from the panel and the audience’s responses?

Frazier: The key takeaway is that we need more women involved in AI. One of the panelists made the critical point that AI’s answers are generated from often biased datasets. For example, if you ask ChatGPT to describe what it dreamed of last night, and you first identify yourself as either a man or a woman, you will likely get a different response. That is because the programming and training data reflect pre-existing gender biases. The solution is to include more women’s experiences in AI development and programming processes. Malta anticipated this need over a decade ago. We introduced the International Day of Women and Girls in Science at the United Nations, which is now celebrated annually on February 11. It is a day that highlights how crucial it is to encourage girls to aspire to careers in STEM fields. The biggest takeaway from today’s session is that we were right to push for that initiative ten years ago—because we now see just how vital it is.

Rebecca Buttigieg: I am the Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms and Equality of Malta within the Office of the Prime Minister.

Jacobsen: When you came into the session, what did you expect the audience to ask about artificial intelligence and gender parity?

Buttigieg: We had such a diverse audience that it was difficult to predict their perspective on the topic. However, the size of the audience and the level of engagement showed just how timely this discussion is. It also highlighted how proactive we, as governments, need to be. The session was fascinating—there were so many intersectional perspectives on AI and gender equality. And it made clear just how much more work remains to be done.

Jacobsen: What was your biggest takeaway—from the panel, the responses, and the questions?

Buttigieg: That we need to do more. As governments—not only mine but across the board—we tend to be reactive regarding what is happening online. It was well established during the session that the digital world is not a safe place for women. We need urgent action. We need practical policy tools that ensure equality is something we talk about in the physical world and implement meaningfully in the digital world.

Jacobsen: How can artificial intelligence be used to further gender parity efforts?

Buttigieg: AI can absolutely play a role because it already shapes so much of our lives. We often interact with AI more than with people now, whether through chatbots like ChatGPT or other platforms. But if we are not intentional about using AI to enhance equality and promote fairness—values that humans have long fought for—then we risk AI contributing to regression instead of progress. That is why these conversations are so important. We must work together to ensure AI serves inclusive, human-centered goals.

Jacobsen: In your conversations with other experts and leaders in this space, do you think we are progressing or regressing in terms of achieving gender parity through the use of AI?

Buttigieg: Honestly, the political landscape at the moment is concerning. We are witnessing a questioning—even a rollback—of principles the global community had long agreed upon. Since adopting the Beijing Platform for Action 30 years ago, many of our gains are now under threat. We need to ensure that those who have fought for gender equality and human rights continue to have a voice. We must stand up for our progress and protect the space for those advocating for it.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/24

In this wide-ranging interview, Irina Tsukerman, a human rights and national security attorney, analyzes the global implications of the closure of Voice of America (VOA) and the pro-Russia media shift in U.S. politics. She discusses how these developments undermine U.S. soft power, weaken democratic values, and empower adversarial propaganda from Russia, China, and Iran. Tsukerman warns of escalating information warfare and the collapse of independent journalism, noting the rise of state-aligned influencers, AI-powered disinformation, and elite-driven, authoritarian sympathies. She emphasizes that media suppression, geopolitical instability, and policy inconsistency threaten U.S. global leadership and democratic resilience at home.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Irina Tsukerman. She is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm.

Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she holds the position of Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association.

She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

Thank you for joining me again today. I appreciate it.

Irina Tsukerman: I’m glad to be here.

Jacobsen: Today, we will discuss the closure of Voice of America (VOA), U.S. information warfare efforts, Russia, attacks on Canada and other allies, and the broader pro-Russia shift in U.S. relations with NATO, Europe, and others. This will include commentary on leadership, transactional versus selfishness, intelligence sharing, and military concerns. Gender parity may also come up, given the recent Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) event. So, how do you interpret the closure or scaling back of VOA services in certain regions?

Tsukerman: It represents quite a paradigmatic shift in the global media narrative and, of course, in U.S. leadership and its role in information warfare. Voice of America has been operational since 1942, when it was explicitly created to counter Nazi propaganda. It played an important role throughout the Cold War as a beacon of truthful, factual, and accurate information, providing a U.S. perspective to the Soviet bloc. It offered information to families behind the Iron Curtain, including my grandparents, who listened clandestinely to Voice of America and Radio Free Europe on the radio to get past government censorship and propaganda. It gave them an accurate view of the U.S. and what it was doing and saying about world events.

When the Trump administration decided to close it, it was operational in 49 different languages. To be clear, it is not as though Voice of America never had any problems. There had been complaints for years that some of the stations—such as VOA Persian—were infiltrated by pro-Iranian regime apparatchiks and that many of these VOA stations were failing to reflect U.S. interests and perspectives. Instead, they were advancing propaganda promoted by various foreign assets that had managed to get their foot in the door.

There was a push by many people to clean out some of these stations from those types of influences. However, what we are talking about now with the closure of VOA is altogether different. Think of it as one of the world’s most prominent government-funded international broadcasters. It has been central in delivering U.S. policies, values, and perspectives to audiences worldwide—especially in regions with limited access to independent news sources.

It was a huge opportunity for the Trump administration to communicate its message. For instance, during the inauguration, Trump emphasized that a new golden age of the U.S. was coming. Imagine how powerful such a message would have been on international airwaves. Instead, Trump decided to shut it down completely.

So, from a geopolitical and informational standpoint, the closure has huge implications for U.S. soft power, media freedom, and global information warfare. Because it was a state-funded broadcaster, it was a pillar of U.S. soft power. It shaped international public opinion by providing news analysis and cultural programming to align with democratic values, human rights, and free-market principles, which the U.S. strongly advocates.

There was a huge uproar recently over Jeff Bezos shifting The Washington Post to align with those values. So why would the U.S. not want to do the same to reinforce its messaging? If these newspaper publishers are returning to their roots in local reporting, why would the U.S. not want to broadcast its core values to the world?

Part of the Trump administration’s anti-neoconservative agenda has been the claim that neocons were allegedly trying to forcibly export democracy and U.S. values around the world in a way that was not compatible with the reality on the ground. But broadcasting is exactly the opposite of that. Broadcasting offers messaging that people can listen to—and then make their own decisions. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.

Some people argued that the messaging had become muddled or unclear—that the U.S. was exporting far-left agendas that were demeaning to cultures around the world or harmful to specific populations because of their extremeness. But again, any administration is free to change the messaging.

The closure eliminated the mechanism for delivering any messaging to anyone. The closure of U.S. operations in strategic areas—namely the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe—is a huge blow to the United States’ ability to project its ideals abroad, whatever those ideals may be. Politics may change, but certain constitutional ideas remain inherently American.

I am concerned that part of the message these audiences may take away is that the U.S. no longer stands for its constitutional or Declaration of Independence values. Maybe the Trump administration is not merely upending mechanisms and policies but also changing—or reflecting—a completely different set of values that no longer represent a shared American culture or a common American principle.

For years, the U.S. operated as a counterweight to the influence of state-controlled media outlets—such as those from Russia, China, and Iran—which often pushed alternative narratives that undermined democratic values and presented authoritarian governance as a viable model.

Trump has been gravitating toward the leaders of authoritarian countries, including Russia, China, North Korea’s Kim—whom he praised repeatedly—Turkey’s Erdoğan, Qatar, and many others. And perhaps it is precisely because he is sympathetic to authoritarian, and especially anti-American authoritarian regimes, that he is now doing exactly the opposite of what would normally be done.

Rather than continuing to stand up to them, even in a different way, he is disengaging from the only mechanism that could provide a counter to this authoritarian model. Perhaps Trump is disposing of VOA because he believes that an authoritarian model is preferable to democracy. Maybe he wants the U.S. to become more like those countries. And certainly, he wants those countries to win—to be seen as stronger and more preferable—while democracy is seen as weak.

That has been a consistent Russian narrative: that democracy is weak, inherently polarized and divisive, and that it cannot stand because it destroys traditional values. And this is exactly what Trump is feeding into with this policy.

The closure weakens the U.S. ability to provide a balanced perspective in regions where the information landscape is otherwise dominated by heavily censored or propaganda-driven content. We are seeing this in Turkey, where there are major political protests against the arrest of the popular Istanbul mayor, İmamoğlu, on entirely politicized grounds.

Not only is the government shutting down internet channels and social media and trying to drive people off the streets, but Elon Musk is also shutting down accounts commenting on political protests—and VOA is no longer available. VOA Turkish can no longer provide a running commentary on what is happening. Without U.S. output, local populations in these regions are most susceptible to disinformation campaigns. That further strengthens the influence of adversarial states like Russia and China, which aggressively deploy state-controlled media to shape perceptions in their favour.

They are doing exactly the opposite. So, by reducing its media presence, the U.S. risks diminishing its leadership in the global fight for information freedom and political transparency. Countries like Russia and China have long leveraged their state-controlled media apparatus to push their foreign policy agendas.

VOA’s closure creates a void that adversaries are too eager to fill, allowing them to deepen their sway in key strategic areas abroad—not just at home. We have seen Russian and Chinese propagandists applaud, praise, and celebrate the closure, and this is the last thing anyone should be proud of.

In areas like the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Central Asia—where VOA offered independent news and consistently reliable analysis—its absence presents a gap that other media outlets will inevitably fill. In many of these regions, where political instability and censorship already constrain the free flow of information, the loss of an independent and authoritative news source could lead to further reliance on media networks that are partisan or state-influenced—and certainly not friendly to the United States.

As Russia, China, and Iran have demonstrated with outlets like RT (Russia Today), Sputnik, CGTN, and Press TV in Iran, state-backed media can be powerful tools for disseminating anti-American and hostile narratives that challenge Western democratic norms.

For instance, in Africa and the Middle East, Russia’s RT and Sputnik have managed to attract audiences with tailored content that often criticizes Western interference and promotes an anti-imperialist stance. This strategic media expansion by adversaries directly challenges U.S. influence and the ideals of free and independent journalism that VOA once represented.

Moreover, it has a significant impact on foreign policy.

Due to this concerted propaganda, West African countries have had a major anti-Western shift. This has led to coup d’états by military juntas and created a security vacuum, where jihadist groups are clashing with Russia-backed and anti-democratic regimes, while U.S.-aligned democratic allies are imprisoned and, in some cases, even tortured.

We are also seeing all sorts of other foreign-backed media propaganda—such as Qatar’s Al Jazeera and China’s Xinhua—proliferate without any serious competition. In addition, the rise of these narratives, backed by Russia, China, Iran, and assorted anti-democratic movements, continues to erode the credibility of U.S. democratic institutions and foreign policy.

U.S. programming—which offered reliable reporting on U.S. democracy and regularly challenged the U.S. government on numerous issues, including Ukraine, human rights, and governance—had the power to counterbalance authoritarian narratives portraying Western powers as imperialistic or hypocritical. In other words, offering internal critique, investigative journalism, and questioning American leaders from both political parties on all kinds of issues demonstrated that the United States can withstand scrutiny.

This was the opposite of countries where people were imprisoned for criticizing or questioning government policies. It provided hope and inspiration for people around the world.

With VOA no longer operating in key regions, there is a risk that these narratives—about the U.S. and adversarial governments—will become less contested, allowing manipulation of public opinion in critical areas of global interest.

Of course, the global information environment is increasingly viewed as a battlefield, with the U.S. and its adversaries vying for influence over public opinion through digital media, news outlets, and social media platforms.

VOA was a significant player in that space. It was part of the broader U.S. information warfare strategy, which shaped the dynamics of this competition. Its absence gives adversarial states more room to shape global narratives without challenge.

The U.S. is becoming deaf, blind, and mute as a result of recent policies—shutting down VOA, shutting down USAID, and eliminating critical intelligence-gathering units within the State Department and the Pentagon.

Effectively, it is cutting itself off from the ability to engage in critical counter-information efforts against hostile propaganda and intelligence operations. The U.S. is unable to withstand active measures because it lacks the information needed to form coherent policies in regions where Russia, China, and Iran are actively expanding their media presence.

The absence of VOA—and related operations like Radio Free Europe—allows these powers to dominate the media, which means they dominate public perception and intelligence narratives.

Russia, for example, has been particularly adept at leveraging state-backed media to influence political movements, sway public opinion during elections (for what they are worth), and undermine democratic processes in European countries. We are seeing this play out. We have seen aggressive meddling in Moldova and Romania, where Russia has tried to push fake candidates—such as reviving the image of Ceaușescu—through TikTok-driven movements and propaganda.

By closing VOA operations, the United States effectively gives up one of its key strategic advantages in the battle for hearts and minds—an essential component of information warfare. This leaves a vacuum that adversaries are already exploiting.

Furthermore, this shift in the global information balance has geopolitical—not just informational—ramifications. It influences U.S. foreign policy and the policies of its adversaries in many conflict zones, where access to information is often limited or tightly controlled. Ukraine and the Middle East are both prime examples.

The availability of independent news sources was crucial in providing reliable updates and holding governments accountable. With VOA’s closure, the role of media as a tool for transparency and accountability is weakened. This allows authoritarian regimes to manipulate public perception and solidify their grip on power freely.

Of course, internally within the United States, the closure of VOA raises significant concerns about the future of media freedom and government interference in journalism. Notably, just before the VOA shutdown, the U.S. fired a Ukrainian journalist who had been known for questioning both the Biden administration and the Trump administration about their respective policies toward Ukraine.

It was a sign that the United States fears critical questions that make officials uncomfortable about their policies. The U.S. government-funded VOA operated independently, adhering to journalistic standards and ensuring that its reporting was fair and balanced. The closure is increasingly seen as part of a broader trend of curbing independent, publicly funded media outlets—particularly those that challenge the prevailing political climate.

If the closure of VOA signals a broader shift in U.S. media policy and reflects an erosion of commitment to supporting independent journalists, it could set a troubling precedent. And at a time when the United States is facing an increasing threat of disinformation from foreign adversaries and domestic sources—including, by the way, Tulsi Gabbard, who is regularly reposting comments from denialists and various Russian trolls—the dismantling of a key pillar of information integrity risks further enhancing the influence of partisan media, eroding public trust in democratic institutions, and shifting the information war effort in favour of U.S. adversaries. It is vulnerable to foreign meddling in the U.S. information landscape, allowing public opinion to shift toward propaganda messaging and disinformation.

The impact of this decision may resonate not only internationally but also domestically because media independence remains a cornerstone of political and civic engagement. It also reflects a shift in the U.S. government’s media strategy on a broader scale. There is growing recognition that traditional forms of broadcasting, such as radio and television, may no longer be the most effective ways to engage global audiences—especially with the rise of social media and digital platforms. Elon Musk’s role with X (formerly Twitter) outright shifting the U.S. election conversation in favour of Trump is one example of this new dynamic.

In light of this, the United States may focus on more targeted, digital-first approaches to information dissemination through social media and podcasting. However, much of this podcasting has become heavily favourable to Russia. It has provided unquestioned, highly subjective content that mirrors pro-Russian narratives, conspiracy theories, and anti-expertise rhetoric. While the U.S. government could adapt to these new consumption habits and potentially reach younger, more tech-savvy audiences, these platforms have become vehicles for disinformation by foreign adversaries. This happens through largely unvetted networks where there is little to no fact-checking.

This shift demands a recalibration of how the United States communicates its values abroad—one that embraces modern technologies and reaches people where they are most active: on mobile devices and online platforms. But the problem is that X has become an unmitigated propaganda machine for assorted foreign trolls and hate narratives. Anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny proliferate there freely. We are clearly at a pivotal moment in the evolution of global media dynamics. In general, people increasingly do not trust traditional media platforms.

However, VOA was one of the few remaining media outlets that maintained public trust precisely because its reporting was objective, challenging, and reflective of the traditional journalism standards we have historically upheld. The space VOA leaves behind will likely be filled by adversarial media, which will further tilt the balance in the ongoing information warfare. That warfare has become a key battleground in contemporary geopolitics. This shift moves that battleground in favour of U.S. adversaries and toward the values the United States once stood against—and now, apparently, is beginning to embrace.

Jacobsen: We have the shifting dynamics of White House media representation regarding who is given front-row seats and who is not, who is allowed to ask questions and who is not, and who is given preference for questioning. We have the cancelling of VOA. We have a proliferation of appearances on outlets like Fox News. We also have, as you noted, the growth of voices on platforms like X—many of which are not only anti-Semitic but also deeply entrenched in conspiracy-laden political theories.

We’ve covered anti-Semitism—that took a little while—but other conspiracy theories span a wide range of subjects. You can find your “Alex Joneses” of various types offering a para-media or quasi-mainstream media presence. These are typically less critical, shorter in format, and more entertainment-focused. So, what do all of these broader cultural, political, and institutional shifts tell you about the current administration?

Tsukerman: Well, the administration claims to be more in tune with social trends—namely, moving away from relying exclusively on one or two authoritative sources and promoting the democratization of the media environment to encourage broader engagement and more diverse perspectives. They also say they are trying to reflect more on what the public wants.

But I am not entirely convinced that it works as the administration claims. For instance, giving preference to particular journalists over others or packing the room with pro-administration voices does not necessarily reflect broader public opinion trends. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It limits perspectives and controls the landscape of who gets to ask questions and who gets a seat at the table. That is anti-democratic.

It sets strict boundaries on who is included rather than ensuring equal opportunity for diverse views. Even the inclusion of streamers and podcasters in press briefings may seem progressive. Still, these content creators are not required to be even remotely objective or to adhere to any ethical standards of journalism. They can say whatever they want without fact-checking; much of their content plays to confirmation bias. It does not challenge or critique anything—it only contributes to echo chambers and erodes critical thinking among audiences.

Suppose the administration aims to create a friendly, unchallenging environment with little to no pushback. In that case, this is the way to do it. That does not mean we should return to a Walter Cronkite model where one figure dominates the media landscape. However, it also does not mean there should be no diversity and critical reflection on the narratives being put forward, especially as the White House shapes those narratives. That is unfair to the public.

Claiming that “this is what the public wants” is a convenient and self-serving justification for imposing government perspectives on the media rather than letting the public choose organically from a free, competitive media environment. This points toward increased control over the media landscape—not its democratization.

One revealing example came up when a U.S. official was asked about the potential for a recession due to tariff-oriented economic policies. He responded, “I can’t tell you what will happen a year from now, and I can’t even tell you whether the journalist asking this question will still have his program a year from now.” To me, that sounded like a threat.

Jacobsen: Crazy. Oh, it was. So, what’s with the pro-Russian lean in media coverage now?

Tsukerman: It reflects the overall pro-Russian shift in the broader policy strategy. The media coverage is starting to align with that shift, mirroring U.S. government positions more and more. It is becoming less independent—less about critique and inquiry—and more about reflecting, echoing, and amplifying the government’s explanations and justifications for its policies.

Trump was described as a populist when he came to power, but I am not entirely sure that’s accurate. This pro-Russian shift is not broadly popular—it is not some groundswell of populist demand. Rather, it is an elite-level realignment that is now trickling down into the media narrative, and we are watching it happen in real-time.

And the only way this kind of narrative can become popular is if the U.S. and its allies—such as Elon Musk—continue to dominate the media landscape with so much pro-Russian content that there is no space for alternative perspectives, and people gradually become indoctrinated. But setting that aside, polls consistently show that Americans support Ukraine, that they want more assistance sent to Ukraine, and that they are not in favour of Russia, China, or authoritarianism. So, the policies we see are not populist—they are anti-populist. They are not even popular.

These policies are being imposed on the public and then justified as populist—not because they reflect broad public support, but because of louder engagement by trolls and media personalities who have adopted a populist tone and are popular with the public for other, unrelated reasons. These individuals are not necessarily speaking to issues of democratization or authoritarianism. We are witnessing a kind of political horseshoe: a convergence between the formerly fringe left and fringe right, now increasingly becoming mainstream.

We have podcasters with enormous audiences—thirty-two, thirty-nine million listeners—proliferating conspiratorial, anti-establishment content. But how anti-establishment is it when the establishment promotes the same content? What we see is essentially forced indoctrination—leading the public in a particular direction not because the public demands it but because those in power want it.

They are using media contacts to advance their agendas, just as previous administrations did, regardless of popularity. The difference now is the scale, reach, and intensity with which this is happening.

Jacobsen: Biden was more about bilateral and multilateral relations in a non-zero-sum or growth-oriented context. That was his grounding in trade, economics, and probably media. How do you see the Trump administration’s orientation? Is it zero-sum transactionalism or something else?

Tsukerman: It is a crossover. It is zero-sum transactionalism with allies, for sure. We saw that with the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and some Latin American allies.

But we do not see transactions with these new “friends”—such as those in North Korea and Russia. We see interventionism favouring those countries and a willingness to build quasi-long-term, relationship-oriented arrangements. Russia is even considered a potential mediator with Iran. There has also been outreach to North Korea about cultivating positive, long-term relations. Trump is clearly pursuing these relationships despite receiving very little in return.

And Trump is putting up with much disrespect from these authoritarian leaders. Putin once made him wait for a phone call for an hour and a half—something unprecedented and highly disrespectful. Meanwhile, Trump made the Polish president wait three hours for a ten-minute meeting after the president flew in from Poland.

So when Putin does the same or worse, instead of walking away, Trump waits patiently, says nothing about the delay, and then declares the meeting a success—even though Putin lied to him and rejected the U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal outright. This is not transactionalism. This is Trump actively chasing the approval of authoritarian leaders, making concessions, and giving away promises—such as those concerning Ukraine—that he cannot deliver, especially as Ukraine is not willing to accept major curbs on its sovereignty.

And he is doing all of this in exchange for nothing. Russia is making no concessions. Putin has made it clear he will not be making concessions, and in some cases, he has even stated that the U.S. is not asking for any. This is far from a transactional approach. It is more like a one-sided infatuation—a teenage crush on authoritarianism—where Trump endures humiliation, provocations, endless red lines, and envelope-pushing to stay in their good graces.

Jacobsen: Will the Europeans be aggressive and defensive militarily, independent from the United States moving forward?

Tsukerman: They are pursuing a more independent course of action. But how long it will take them to reorient themselves fully is another matter—it will take longer than many expect. There is significant interdependence on the intelligence and defence levels, and building capacity takes time. Changing public opinion also takes time. Some European countries are dissatisfied with the pro-Russian politicians they previously elected, but removing them is difficult. In the meantime, those figures continue to do political damage within the EU and NATO.

There is growing unity within the European Union, but agreement that Trump is bad for EU security and interests is insufficient. It takes more than that to develop a coherent strategy and the military forces necessary for a centralized pan-European army—or even regional deployments. For example, when that was discussed, the British did not have enough personnel to send peacekeepers to Ukraine. Italy opposed the peacekeeping proposal entirely.

Europe’s defence industry is booming, with stock prices soaring. There will likely be a major shift away from defence purchases from the U.S., and that transition is already moving quickly. U.S. defence stocks are plummeting. Trump recently announced he would be selling low-grade weapons to allies and added that “these countries may not be allies in the future.” That kind of messaging is not encouraging for the U.S. defence sector. But it does mean that Europeans and the Japanese, South Koreans, and others are now buying more from each other and expanding defence cooperation.

That said, defence trade and defence agreements are two very different things. I am not sure that the European Union and NATO can become fully viable independent security actors within the next four years—which covers the rest of Trump’s current term. Some countries may progress faster than others. There has been talk of developing a European “nuclear umbrella.” Poland, for instance, is planning to more than double its standing army—from 200,000 to 500,000—and aims to train every male citizen in military service. Other countries are exploring semi-voluntary conscription policies. We are already seeing moves in this direction in places like Denmark and Sweden. There is also a greater focus on preparing elite units and offering citizens various roles to support national defence.

And yet, we still see signs of unpreparedness. Baltic states and Poland are leaving agreements like the landmine convention and are actively mining their borders to deter Russia. But they are still unable to prevent Russian intelligence operations and sabotage within their borders—such as the recent arson attacks in Lithuania and Poland.

The European Union still cannot effectively respond to Russian and Chinese sabotage of critical infrastructure, including underwater internet cables, which is increasing in frequency and severity. Despite efforts to build a stronger defense posture, current strategies remain ineffective. Europe lacks an offensive strategy and the political will to confront Russia and China directly.

There was an incident involving a Chinese ship that was confronted, but ultimately, nothing happened, and there were no consequences for the sabotage. So, while the EU and NATO members are becoming more strategic and assertive, they are still far from being truly independent—either from the U.S. or in an absolute sense. They are not yet ready to stand up to the coalition of adversaries forming between Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist organizations, and private actors who are enabling this new axis of power.

This is not just about Russia acting alone. It is not conventional warfare alone. We are witnessing a sophisticated and expanding form of asymmetrical warfare—serious cyberattacks and subversion requiring coordinated responses. And now, the U.S. is actively forcing this European independence. For instance, the U.S. has ended its cooperation with Europe on Russian cyberattacks. It will not take action against such attacks internally or through international partnerships.

This puts many European countries in a difficult position, as the U.S. remains a global leader in cybersecurity. France, which has its national cyber capabilities, is now stepping up and looking to become the cybersecurity leader for Europe—but how quickly that transition can happen remains to be seen.

Jacobsen: There was talk about an Iron Dome for the United States.

Tsukerman: Yes, they renamed it the Golden Dome.

Jacobsen: So for the Golden Dome—it’s ironic because many of the images associated with “gold” and Trump tend to be toilets. What about the rocket technology that funds that system? Who is likely to be behind the rockets? Will it be a Musk-backed government venture where he gets hundreds of billions of dollars to compensate for his current financial losses?

Tsukerman: Up until now, Iron Dome production has been a joint U.S.-Israeli technology venture. The goal is to create something exclusive for the U.S., but the problem is that there is no clear defence consensus that this is an optimal technology for U.S. strategic needs. Theoretically, the Pentagon should lead on this, but it is currently trying to downsize its purchases. Presumably, this project is one of the priorities—but the decision has not yet been finalized.

I don’t know how Musk would fit into this. He has zero experience producing this specific type of weaponry. He could be taught, and he does have the necessary security clearance to be involved. However, none of his current businesses are optimized for producing missile defence systems. Commercial aerospace and defensive missile technology are two very different domains. His companies have no track record in this area.

The contract would go to companies with experience in Iron Dome production in cooperation with Israel. That would be far more efficient and make much more sense. Alternatively, Musk could subcontract the work to those companies, even if he were given nominal administrative control to profit from it. But in terms of actual execution, I do not see him capable of leading it.

Jacobsen: How effective has the U.S. adapted to modern information warfare strategies?

Tsukerman: Terribly. The Global Engagement Center—already woefully ineffective—was one of the only official U.S. government mechanisms designed to address information warfare independently. It had limited offensive capabilities. As a State Department project, it was limited to targeting foreign audiences. The Department of Justice has no internal program to counter foreign disinformation or other forms of domestic information warfare.

The Biden administration attempted to partner with private companies, but that raised significant constitutional concerns, which led to congressional hearings. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has become a major problem by actively boosting malign foreign influence efforts on X. Voice of America was one of the few other leaders in this space—mainly by providing accurate, factual reporting. But VOA was not designed for hearts-and-minds operations or active information warfare. It was there to report the truth, not to counter propaganda strategically.

There has been no cohesive information warfare strategy. The U.S. military does have some capabilities in this area, but with the broader policy trend leaning away from state-building and toward global disengagement, these types of efforts are being phased out. I have not seen any new initiatives in this space.

There has been no response to the proliferation of Hamas propaganda or Russia’s and China’s growing influence in the Middle East. For example, China’s Huawei controls telecommunications in Saudi Arabia and throughout Latin America, yet there has been no U.S. strategic response. The U.S. is actively blinding and deafening itself in the information domain—and dismantling its capacity for information warfare.

This is part of the strategy being implemented by DNI Tulsi Gabbard. She oversees 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, none of which have been tasked with developing serious information warfare plans. Instead of using U.S. intelligence to shape the information space, Gabbard has promoted and amplified Russian trolls. That is the current U.S. information warfare strategy—helping adversaries mislead American and global audiences by promoting their talking points and disinformation.

It is deeply concerning. The Pentagon has also shut down key information centers that had been active since the Cold War and were vital to gathering intelligence and countering propaganda. Those centers are now gone. So, the U.S. is not only failing to engage in information warfare but deliberately dismantling the infrastructure that once enabled it to do so.

Reestablishing that infrastructure would be extremely costly, difficult, and politically controversial. It would also be logistically and technically complex. If the next administration decides to rebuild the capabilities destroyed under the Trump administration, it will have to start from scratch.

Jacobsen: What does Putin want? What does China want, ultimately?

Tsukerman: Both of them?

Jacobsen: With the United States, with the world, with their region, with their populations.

Tsukerman: Both Russia and China, when it comes to the United States, want to see nothing more than a weakened, divided, and ultimately destroyed America. Russia is more chaotic and nihilistic in its approach—they want the U.S. subjected to complete internal destruction. A civil war in the United States would be ideal for them. Their strategy is not rooted in economic logic; they want to watch the world burn, even if it does not bring them measurable gains.

China, on the other hand, is more pragmatic. They still have significant financial interests in the U.S., but they, too, want to see America defeated. As intelligence reports show, the Chinese strategy is clear: they want to become the world’s sole superpower. Xi Jinping is an extreme nationalist who uses the communist system to pursue a vision of global domination—not of a collaborative global system but of a world ruled by China.

Together, Russia and China are focused on exploiting and exacerbating U.S. weaknesses—polarization, political extremism, and cultural fragmentation—because an internally divided U.S. helps them advance their ambitions. By fostering division, they make it easier to dominate regions of strategic interest and displace U.S. influence.

As for their populations, neither government values human life. In both China and Russia, standards of living are deteriorating. China faces significant economic troubles and enforces social control through re-education camps and a draconian social credit system that severely limits the quality of life. In Russia, there are widespread public health crises—rampant AIDS and hepatitis, crumbling infrastructure, poor hospital services, substance abuse, despair among youth, high abortion rates, and a population engaged in widespread self-destructive behaviour. All of this is preventable, but the leadership does not care. The citizens are not motivated to live well, and the system provides no support.

Beyond their desire to weaken the U.S., Russia also has specific geopolitical ambitions. It wants to be a dominant power in the Middle East—an ambition rooted in its history from the days of Tsarist Russia through the Soviet Union. The security services, which have long been the real power in Russia, have maintained a consistent foreign policy. Russia also seeks to turn the European Union into a Russia-friendly bloc and to “colonize” as much of it as possible, allowing the kleptocratic leadership to extract resources while building a legacy through war.

The war in Ukraine, however, is proving to be extremely costly. It has resulted in loss of life, economic sanctions, and immense financial strain. Russia cannot afford to win the war because victory would require long-term occupation, maintenance, and rebuilding—something it simply cannot do. Crimea turned out to be a major economic and strategic failure. It lost access to Ukraine’s broader infrastructure, including clean water and natural resources. Even tourism—once a lucrative stream for Crimea with three million visitors annually—is gone.

Russia continues to operate at a tremendous loss. It has grand imperial ambitions but lacks the military genius of a Napoleon, the organizational skills, or any ideological or institutional structures that would make empire-building feasible or even remotely beneficial. Instead, it is a collapsing empire clinging to the aesthetics of domination without the substance or resources to support it.

Jacobsen: Where does this geopolitical situation—and the media landscape that enables or reflects it—leave independent media, international freelance journalists, and others? What happens to their voices when they no longer have the institutional pillars that act as tent posts for freedom of expression?

Tsukerman: So-called “independent” Russian media is doing quite well and proliferating rapidly, largely because it is cheap to operate. They can run troll forums and hire writers or hacks-for-hire from virtually anywhere at a very low cost. They take low-paid individuals, pull them out of obscurity, give them a modest stipend, and as these individuals gain prominence, they start to receive additional income from mainstream institutions and media outlets—eventually becoming mainstream themselves.

Someone like Candace Owens, for instance, was getting paid by The Daily Wire and conservative organizations. She was not necessarily paid directly by Russia, but Russia is willing to invest money to elevate these individuals, helping them build visibility and institutional credibility. Sometimes oligarchs fund this; other times, third-party allies do. Regardless of the method, Russia always finds ways to fund these figures—and once they become well-known, their alternative income sources kick in: crypto, sponsorships, paid appearances, and more.

As a result, pro-Russian networks are proliferating. With AI, trolls can generate endless content across social media platforms for even less money. Elon Musk helps them significantly through his ownership of X, where the algorithmic amplification of such voices is widespread.

Independent journalists, on the other hand, are in real trouble. They do not have access to the same funding sources to sustain that kind of output. Traditional media collapsed because of flawed business models and the shift in information consumption. Unless you are willing to do corporate writing—focused on non-political topics like finance or business—you are at a disadvantage.

Media outlets are increasingly engaged in self-censorship, particularly when avoiding criticism of Trump or his allies. Any serious critique of Trump or his interests is difficult to get published and increasingly difficult to get paid for—even if you are willing to write it for free. That is because there are limits to what media platforms are willing to accept now that crossover figures are entering journalism and reshaping the industry.

By “crossover,” I mean individuals who support Trump but are not traditionally conservative. Some come from the radical left or have an incoherent ideological background. Their appeal is often social or aesthetic—the animus and outrage appeal to them—not rooted in a principled political stance. As a result, true independents—critical thinkers, classical liberals, traditional conservatives, and centrists—are marginalized. They do not have many places to publish in the United States anymore.

Some may find more receptive audiences in the UK, but European media is also difficult to access because it often requires payment to be published. So, the media landscape is becoming increasingly fractured and dominated either by adversarial powers or by extremely wealthy interests—corporations, billionaires, and institutional actors who can afford to shape the discourse.

This shift makes it harder for independent voices to publish thoughtful, informed analyses—voices outside the Beltway and the Washington bubble who focus on traditional foreign and domestic policies without the partisan spin. Platforms like The Free Press by Bari Weiss offer a slightly more diverse range of thought but still promote a specific group of thinkers. Much of what it publishes is not journalism—it is opinion writing. It is not investigative, fact-checked, boots-on-the-ground journalism.

We are facing an uphill battle. Even in podcasting—which is supposed to be a democratized medium—the same types of people dominate. Most successful podcasters are already famous for something else: comedians, MMA fighters, athletes, celebrities, or traditional journalists who transitioned into the format.

So, even in this supposedly accessible environment, average people struggle to build an audience. There is too much content and too much competition. Audiences gravitate toward a few well-known names or individuals who have the money to boost visibility and manipulate the algorithm. And in this quasi-populist, quasi-pro-Russian media environment, the same types of voices keep getting amplified—just in more sophisticated and coordinated ways.

Jacobsen: What about the limitation on information sharing and other concerns? The European Union is slowing down its information sharing at the same time—or right after—the United States has begun slowing down or stopping its information sharing.

Tsukerman: There are two distinct areas to look at: intelligence sharing and media-related information sharing. These are happening simultaneously, and both are worrying. The slowdown in intelligence sharing is deeply concerning because it leaves all parties—both in the EU and the U.S.—less secure, less capable of reacting to threats, and less able to develop comprehensive, preemptive strategies. And this is happening while the threats are not diminishing, just because the EU and U.S. are currently in disagreement.

This situation benefits adversarial actors who thrive on disunity. The less cohesive the Western alliance, the more likely we are to see successful terrorist attacks, drug smuggling operations, and political meddling from countries like Russia, China, and others. These developments increase the likelihood of serious damage occurring without adequate early warning, as the channels of communication that might otherwise prevent such threats are breaking down.

We are also seeing major losses in terms of media and social media cooperation. The European Union tends to be more restrictive in handling digital regulation, but there has also been a complete breakdown in dialogue between EU institutions and their American counterparts. This lack of mutual understanding leads to ignorance about each other’s regulatory, political, and technological environments.

Now, there are potential regulatory issues involving big tech companies that may lead to platforms like X (formerly Twitter) being pushed out of the EU due to non-compliance with privacy and security regulations. Elon Musk has refused to meet key European standards, which could lead to a total ban of X within the EU. That would create a massive vacuum for public commentary—particularly among journalists and public figures who rely on the platform.

We are increasingly seeing a fractured global communications environment. The less the Europeans and Americans engage in direct, consistent communication, the more room for false perceptions to grow. That makes it far easier for adversaries to spread disinformation, sow division, provoke antagonism and polarization, and manipulate public narratives in both directions. The long-term result could be the death of the transatlantic alliance—not just politically but on personal, business, and cultural levels. The breakdown of high-level political relationships could also mean the collapse of everyday cooperation between people across the Atlantic.

Jacobsen: So how would you describe Trump’s strategy—the big question—about the media?

Tsukerman: What did you ask? How would I describe Trump’s strategy regarding media? Yes, that is the big question. His approach has evolved. During his first term, it was mostly chaotic. He did not know what he was doing. He was reactionary. His strategy, such as it was, revolved around attacking the media, attacking Biden, attacking political opponents, and even attacking other Republicans.

Now, however, the strategy is more deliberate. It is consolidated and centralized. There is a clear method involving systematically bullying critics into submission. This goes far beyond the typical White House strategy of coaxing or pressuring the media through access manipulation—something we saw, for example, during the Obama administration. With Trump, it is not just about incentivizing loyalty through access; it is about threatening, attacking, and overwhelming critics until they fall in line.

We have seen this pattern with Biden, and we have seen it to some extent with every president. However, with Trump, it goes far beyond the usual tensions or isolated incidents of journalist intimidation. We are likely to see a full-scale, systematic attack on the media. We are already witnessing a lot of media outlets becoming significantly less critical.

As part of this adjacent effort, Jeff Bezos has noticeably reoriented The Washington Post toward priorities he believes may be more appealing to Trump. We are seeing similar trends in other outlets like Forbes, which are softening their criticism of major political figures to avoid conflict or controversy. Many outlets are already engaging in self-censorship.

Meanwhile, conservative media is doubling down on its pro-Trump stance—more so than before. Interestingly, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal have pushed back more than expected, but Trump has publicly attacked them, accusing them of being corporate, corrupt, and dishonest due to their ownership structure. His strategy is clearly to shape an information space that is friendly to him—one that follows his lead and supports his political goals.

Trump’s goal is not only to consolidate conservative media—much of which is already aligned with him—but to neutralize or co-opt all media. He wants to eliminate serious investigative criticism, especially anything probing into his inner circle, family, or business associates. What remains would be toothless reporting focused on banal topics, serving to distract rather than inform.

We are already seeing Republican officials use social media to bypass journalists, sometimes trying to charm the public or push products—like Teslas—instead of addressing serious policy issues. Some officials have even fought with journalists during press briefings, refusing to take questions from reporters they deem unfavourable.

Jacobsen: Like saying, “You’re not allowed to ask that.” “Sit down.”

Tsukerman: Exactly, him, Fox News, it’s a whole thing. And not everyone is going to tolerate that. Even some conservative publications are starting to express concern because they know it will be bad for business. For example, we have seen Newsmax and Fox side with journalists responding to AP’s exclusion from the press room.

Jacobsen: So, is it bad for them and their business?

Tsukerman: It damages their credibility, and they know they could suffer the same fate if they cross Trump on any issue in the future.

Jacobsen: Do you think Trump will pass away by the end of his term?

Tsukerman: It is hard to say. I am not a prophet. He is in reasonably good health. Anything is possible—he is getting older. I do think he appears more vigorous than Biden was, and Biden still made it through his term. Many people predicted Biden would not last four years, but he did. Trump seems in better physical and perhaps even mental shape than Biden.

He has made some of the same verbal gaffes, but he is not completely out of it. Could there be a violent incident, given that there have already been two previous assassination attempts? Anything is possible. Will that lead to more robust security efforts? Hard to say. I do not anticipate anything unusual, barring a natural or unpredictable event. He is in relatively good health, and I would not count on anything unexpected. In that sense, I expect a fairly conventional four years.

Jacobsen: Do you think the world is losing insight into slow-moving but existential threats—like climate change—as media freedom collapses and geopolitical tensions rise?

Tsukerman: Absolutely. The U.S. has historically been the global leader in media freedom. It will take time for the international community to understand the shift’s extent fully. Most of the world is used to more restricted media environments, so the idea of losing freedom of the press in the U.S. may not hit them immediately.

That is not to say the U.S. media was ever perfectly objective—it had its own biases and moments of self-censorship. But overall, it was the most open, willing to challenge power, ask hard questions, and host a diversity of viewpoints. The U.S. media environment allowed for more robust government scrutiny than the European Union.

It will take time for people to forget the U.S. as a beacon of media freedom. But now, the U.S. appears to be moving in a direction much less favorable to freedom of the press—and ironically, many international observers may be slower to react because they are accustomed to criticizing the U.S. for having too much freedom.

Then, when the shift goes fully in the opposite direction, and the world finally catches up to the reality of what is happening in the U.S., it will be a huge shock. People will realize what they did not appreciate about the U.S. free media environment—that the alternative is far worse once it collapses. Having too much freedom, too many loud opinions about government—that is far preferable to the suffocating silence of media suppression.

We are facing a contentious four years ahead. Political tensions will be high. It is not easy to decouple from global alliances fully, but Trump is doing everything he can to erode trust and dismantle those partnerships. Even if the next administration is fully committed to restoring those ties, it will be incredibly difficult. And if someone like J.D. Vance follows him into power, we may look at a long-term situation that will be nearly impossible to repair.

Frankly, the U.S. was a positive example for the world in many ways—its media environment being one of them. Of course, it had shortcomings. There were real concerns about journalistic ethics and the erosion of integrity. But until recently, the U.S. media ecosystem was by far the most intellectually diverse and self-critical. And that will be missed. It will leave a gaping hole that will be very hard to fill.

Fortunately, British and French publications have stepped up with solid investigative work on the Ukraine issue. But they have their blind spots on other global issues. The U.S., for all its flaws, was still more willing to critically examine both domestic governance and major foreign policy questions seriously.

Jacobsen: Which media organization do you think has been the best—rated highest in detail, factuality, prominence, and so on? Based on the kind of work Associated Press reporters do, are you one of those analyzers?

Tsukerman: The Wall Street Journal stands out for having a comprehensive, objective, and unsensational approach to news. Bloomberg is also strong, but in my view, it has a serious blind spot on China, and that skews much of its coverage. That said, both publications have individual journalists who have, unfortunately, become overly dependent on certain”trusted” sources—particularly government or intelligence sources—which can lead to skewed reporting on international issues.

It is easier to be misled on foreign affairs than domestic ones because journalists are less familiar with the nuances of those countries, cultures, and political environments. I have seen this happen repeatedly—not just at WSJ or Bloomberg, but at many other outlets I have been tracking.

Even so, those two publications remain among the more reliable ones. Of course, any major media outlet will have issues—governments leak information for strategic reasons, intelligence agencies manipulate narratives, and corporate interests get involved. You always have to read between the lines. But even with those limitations, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg generally have people trying to do a conscientious job, covering stories thoroughly and seriously. That matters.

Jacobsen: So you’re saying they become victims of their sources. The analogy that comes to mind—humorously, I might add—is the philandering husband who goes to the same prostitute repeatedly and starts speaking reverently of the “Lady of Joy,” becoming a victim of his exposure to a single, compromised source of opinion.

Tsukerman: Fair.

Jacobsen: o, what do we make of these Russia-U.S. or Kremlin-American discussions about “peace”? Is there any chance these talks are legitimate? Or are they just buying time for a country spending one-third of its budget on the military?

Tsukerman: Russia is absolutely buying time. Not only that—they are trying to manipulate the U.S. into giving them a lifeline at a time when they are hemorrhaging money, lives, and political capital. The European Union is consolidating against them. Globally, Russia is becoming deeply unpopular.

The U.S., by entertaining these discussions and pulling leverage away from Ukraine, is inadvertently helping Russia survive longer than it otherwise might. Without this lifeline, Russia would likely collapse on multiple fronts. But beyond the geopolitical stalling tactic, these so-called “peace talks” are also part of a broader Russian goal: destroying the U.S. image on the global stage.

Undermining U.S. credibility is central to Russia’s larger war effort. This is not just about controlling Ukrainian territory. It is about weakening the global perception of the U.S. as a leader and moral authority.

These talks are a major inflection point in global diplomacy. The U.S. has long portrayed itself as a champion of democracy—or, at the very least, of Enlightenment values, constitutional principles, international law, national sovereignty, and a rules-based order. Right now, the U.S. is walking a very fine line between maintaining that role and compromising it under the pressure of adversarial manipulation.

Let’s put it this way: the U.S. currently manages its evolving role in multilateral negotiations that include third-party mediators like Saudi Arabia. At the heart of this diplomatic drama is a battle for influence. Russia and Ukraine have opposing objectives. Russia seeks to legitimize its territorial gains, while Ukraine aims to restore sovereignty fully.

The U.S. has been inaccurate in claiming that Ukraine has no victory strategy or its undefined goals. Full restoration of sovereignty is, in fact, a clear military objective. The U.S. has been coy in denying that fact. While it may not be directly participating in some of these indirect talks, it has a profound interest in their outcomes—particularly in how they affect U.S. credibility, soft power, and its standing in the global geopolitical order. This is not just about conflict resolution but prestige and influence.

The involvement of neutral powers like Saudi Arabia raises serious questions about how these developments will reshape U.S. relationships—with both allies and adversaries. Historically, the U.S. has positioned itself as a defender of democratic rights, a rules-based order, and national sovereignty on the global stage. Its strong support for Ukraine, both militarily and diplomatically, reaffirmed that role.

Now, while the Biden administration can be criticized for not decisively pursuing a Ukrainian victory, for slow-rolling aid, or for applying undemocratic pressure on Zelensky, there is a broader picture. The American population has shown immense public support for Ukraine—support that has, in many ways, pushed values of democracy further than the U.S. government was willing to go. However, these ongoing indirect Russia–Ukraine talks complicate that dynamic.

As nations like Saudi Arabia take the lead in mediation, some observers question whether the U.S. is losing its leadership position. While the U.S. still claims to support Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, comments from the Trump camp are casting increasing doubt. The U.S.’s role in these third-party negotiations now appears inconsistent with its long-standing image as the global arbiter.

This new isolationism is not just about avoiding foreign conflicts. It is also about stepping back from leadership roles in diplomacy—roles that do not even tax U.S. resources or taxpayers. If these talks result in a compromise or peace process in which the U.S. has little influence, the perception of American power could take a significant hit. That perception is already weakening. The fact that the U.S. is voluntarily giving away leverage has not been properly addressed in public discourse.

The West’s traditional dominance in international negotiations is visibly weakening. The U.S. risks being sidelined in favour of emerging diplomatic powers like Saudi Arabia—or, in some cases, even Russia. If, on the other hand, these talks yield a ceasefire or lasting diplomatic outcome, then U.S. support in the broader process could enhance its image as a promoter of peace—even if it is not directly involved in every phase. But that would require tangible results, and we are not seeing those so far.

To benefit from these talks, the U.S. would need to carefully balance national interests with respect for the multilateral process being led by the Saudis. If it refuses to acknowledge the role of non-Western actors, that could be seen as a reluctance to share diplomatic influence in a world that many—like Senator Rubio—now describe as multipolar. That shift in perception, largely driven by Russia and China, is a psychological and information-warfare victory for Moscow, even though it is not grounded in actual geopolitical strength.

China may support the idea of multipolarity through its economic clout. But Russia? Russia is not a dominant geopolitical player. The fact that it is being treated as one is already a major win for its disinformation and diplomatic strategy.

There is also the question of how these developments affect U.S. relationships with its European allies. Many European countries, which have strongly supported Ukraine, view U.S. support for third-party mediation as either a sign of strategic flexibility or a troubling indication of unreliability. They are particularly uncomfortable with the fact that key discussions on Ukraine’s future are happening outside of NATO and the EU and without their involvement.

Russians argue that Europeans could choose to participate—that they are excluding themselves. They claim the U.S. did not have to include them either. However, no one in Europe considered talking to Putin a good idea, and they still do not. So, to the extent the U.S. engages in a process perceived as detrimental to European security, they want a seat at the table. This directly affects their future.

Meanwhile, Russia sees the involvement of countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey as an opportunity to frame the entire situation as evidence of global dissatisfaction with U.S. and NATO policies. They are using this moment to argue that the U.S. can no longer dictate global terms and is losing moral authority.

Russia is using this as a diplomatic victory. It undermines the U.S. position on international law, sovereignty, and the rules-based order. The U.S. image as the leading force behind those principles is eroding—especially as Russia promotes the idea that non-Western mediators are better equipped for global peace negotiations.

But that is only part of the issue. The deeper problem is that Russia is portraying the U.S. as morally equivalent—or worse. Trump’s rhetoric, such as calling for the invasion of Greenland or joking about making Canada the 51st state, only reinforces the Russian narrative that the U.S. is no better than them.

If the U.S. can leverage its alliances and promote a united Western stance behind Ukrainian interests, it could enhance its image globally. For that to happen, Trump must abandon his current strategy and recognize that it is failing. Such a pivot would send a clear message to the world that despite recent challenges, the U.S. remains a dominant force in global diplomacy and security—capable of shaping outcomes through indirect influence, even when direct engagement is off the table.

Saudi Arabia’s role as a co-mediator in these talks marks a shift in global diplomatic power dynamics. While the U.S. has long been an important partner to the Saudis, the kingdom’s increasing participation in global peace processes puts it in direct competition with U.S. influence.

Saudi engagement in the Ukraine conflict—whether through these indirect talks or broader regional diplomacy—signals its growing role as an independent global actor. That is beneficial for Saudi Arabia but not necessarily for the U.S. On the one hand, Washington may welcome Riyadh’s role in fostering peace, particularly if it promotes stability in regions where the U.S. has strategic interests. Trump himself has encouraged Saudi involvement as a mediator.

However, Saudi Arabia’s rise as a diplomatic power suggests the U.S. faces growing competition in conflict mediation. If Saudi Arabia succeeds in these negotiations, it could significantly diminish America’s role as the world’s leading peace broker—especially outside the Western sphere. And that is part of the goal.

The U.S. might argue that it wants to avoid military entanglement in conflicts, but that does not explain why it would willingly forfeit its image as the top global diplomat. There is no strategic reason to surrender that role.

This shift could also have lasting consequences for U.S.–Saudi relations. Historically, the U.S. has relied on Saudi Arabia as a key partner in the Middle East. But as the kingdom asserts its independence in diplomacy—especially in the Russia–Ukraine talks—it may prompt Washington to reevaluate the relationship.

In the future, the U.S. may have to recalibrate its alliances and diplomatic strategies to maintain influence in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. This situation could spiral if the U.S. regrets giving away diplomatic leverage—even to an ally. For now, the arrangement is functional. But what happens if the U.S. and Saudi Arabia diverge significantly in how the negotiations should proceed—or who benefits?

That leads to a broader issue: these talks are not simply about a regional conflict. They reflect deeper transformations in global governance. As multilateral negotiations unite increasingly diverse actors—including powers from the Global South—the U.S. must confront a new reality: its previous dominance in shaping global narratives is no longer guaranteed.

Adding to that, the U.S.’s troubling flirtation with Russian propaganda is diminishing its capacity to craft and control its messaging on the world stage.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts on American attitudes—internally—toward the media and dissent?

Tsukerman: There is growing concern outside of the hardcore MAGA circles. Even moderate Republicans—what remains of them—are worried they may be silenced. Some MAGA and MAGA-adjacent figures now gaining power believe they are finally “restoring” or “depoliticizing” the media environment, at least in their favour.

But the more government intervention and authoritarianism in the media, the less space there will be for independent voices—even those who agree with the overall strategy. In the long run, this will not be good for anyone.

Jacobsen: Irina, thank you again. I appreciate your time.

Tsukerman: That’s fine. Thank you.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/23

Christiana Opalaye, founder of NeverKnowlinglyBoring, talks about her art and cultural advocacy. Opalaye, originally from Nigeria and now in London, started her work to teach her children about Nigeria’s rich ethnic diversity. Her Akikitancollection, meaning “endless praise” in Yoruba, highlights African cultural heritage, especially Nigerian women from lesser-known ethnic groups. She discusses tribal fashion, facial markings, and historical traditions, such as the Calabar fattening room. Opalaye aims to expand her work internationally, bridging cultural gaps and showcasing Africa’s talent. Her art is both a fashion statement and an educational tool celebrating African identity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What inspired the creation of this?

Christiana Opalaye: My name is Christiana Opalaye, and I founded NeverKnowlinglyBoring. 

It’s all about Africa, specifically West Africa. As I told someone a few minutes ago, I grew up in the diaspora. I live in London, having moved from Nigeria, and wanted to teach my children about Nigeria. We started with the core ethnic groups in Nigeria—the Igbo, Hausa, and Yoruba.

As I explored further, I realized Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups, so I began drawing pictures representing different ones. That’s how this project came about. I wanted my children to understand that Nigeria, as vast as it is, has a rich diversity of cultures, traditions, and beauty. Each of these elements is reflected in the art I create.

Today, in Diamonds Watch, we discuss the United Nations, women’s empowerment, untapped female talent, and gender equality. I decided to showcase notable Nigerian women from various ethnic groups. You have the Benin, the Yoruba, and the Kalabari. These are women that many people don’t even know about because discussions often focus on the three major ethnic groups.

My art helps bring awareness to this cultural richness. We are showcasing Africa’s untapped talent and saying, “Yes, we are here—women, we are here.”

Jacobsen: And for Akikatan, what is the origin of the name, and what does it mean as a fashion statement?

Opalaye: My brand is NeverKnowlinglyBoring, and this particular collection is called Akikitan. The name is derived from Yoruba and means “endless praise.” When I thought of the name, I thought about Africa and the endless praise Africa deserves.

I’m talking about talent—about untapped talent. Africa deserves endless praise. West Africa deserves infinite praise. Nigeria—the world needs to know Nigeria. We have started with Nigeria and West Africa and the ethnic groups within, but we will expand to all African countries. That is my next step.

Jacobsen: What are the main tribes? So, the hairstyling, the colours, and the facial makeup designs—like the stark white dots and red accents—how do those elements characterize each tribe?

Opalaye: Each tribe has distinct cultural markers. For example, let’s take the Benin people. Benin women are known for their elaborate beadwork. They use very historical, richly symbolic beads.

This is a Benin woman; you can tell by her beads, which signify royalty. From looking at her attire, you immediately know she is from Benin. Even during marriage ceremonies, they incorporate these beads into their traditional attire.

A Yoruba woman, on the other hand, is different. Let me tell you about Yoruba women. This one is a Yoruba woman. I am Yoruba myself, and my name is Tokunbo. In Yoruba culture, we have something called an Oríkì name, which is a praise name.

The grandparents usually give it as a form of endearment. Oríkì is a name used to pamper or calm a child when they are misbehaving. When someone calls you by your Oríkì, it is meant to soothe and honour you.

So, for example, my Oríkì name is Abeke, which means “to pamper.” I believe I was created to do so—to pamper. Each name has a meaning. You have Akombi, which means “the firstborn.” You have Abeke, which means someone who has been blessed. Abeke also means “to pamper.” There are many different names, each carrying a unique significance.

Another distinguishing feature of Yoruba culture is facial markings. In the past, Yoruba people had tribal marks that indicated their heritage—what tribe or family they belonged to. Although this practice has largely disappeared in modern times, these marks were critical identifiers. A Yoruba woman, for example, could be recognized by these markings.

You can see a Yoruba woman here. Then we have the Hausa woman. For example, our Honourable Minister for Women’s Affairs is from the north—she is Hausa. This represents the Hausa identity. Within the Hausa ethnic group, there are also the Fulani people. This is a Fulani woman, and you can tell from her facial markings, distinct from Yoruba markings.

A Yoruba person might have just two marks, and in earlier times, those marks could immediately indicate what part of the Yoruba tribe they were from. For instance, marks could show if someone was from Ibadan, Owo, Ijebu, or Ogbomoso. These tribal marks were essential identifiers.

Here, you see a woman from Abeokuta and a Hausa-Fulani woman. You can recognize them by their facial markings—three marks distinct in their placement. This is not just an artistic or fashion statement but also educational.

Now, let me show you another example—this is a Calabar woman. The Calabar ethnic group has a unique tradition. Before a woman gets married, she is placed in what is called a fattening room. This tradition is meant to prepare her for marriage.

By fattening, I don’t mean just weight gain. The process involves pampering—she is placed in a room, massaged, nourished, and cared for. She is not allowed to do any strenuous work. Then, just before marriage, she is adorned in beautiful attire.

This is a Calabar woman about to get married. She is wearing elaborate accessories—the headpiece, the jewelry, everything that symbolizes her cultural heritage. She looks stunning.

Every single piece of art I create has a story behind it. There is always an inspiration. That’s why all my headpieces are one-of-a-kind. I don’t sit down and overthink them. I start, and whatever comes to me, I believe it is from God.

Here, for example, is a Yoruba woman representing royalty. You can see it in the gold corals around her neck and, of course, in her headpiece—very regal.

I call these women here water maidens. In ancient times, women would go to the stream, collect water in clay pots, and carry it home for cooking and daily life. This artwork represents those women returning from the stream, ready to care for their families.

As I said, this is not just art—it is also a fashion statement. Women were created to stand out. We are unique.

Anywhere you go, as my brand depicts—Never Knowingly Boring. We are never… I am never knowingly boring. I should stand out. These pieces have great art features as well. I am currently collaborating with an interior decoration company. What they are doing is incorporating my designs into wall art.

Imagine going to the beach, wearing your fashion statement, and then, instead of storing it in a cupboard, you place it on the wall as a feature. And so, yeah. That’s it.

Jacobsen: This is not just a hat. It’s a statement on the wall.

Opaleye: It is a statement, yes.

Jacobsen: How far back do these traditions go?

Opalaye: Oh, God.

Jacobsen: Do we know?

Opalaye: No exact timeline, but thousands of years. These are traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation.

And they are still alive today. If you go to Nigeria, you will still find all the ethnic groups preserving their traditions. Some communities still practice facial markings for tribal identification.

If you visit certain villages, rather than the big cities, you will still see children with these marks, identifying their lineage and heritage.

Jacobsen: Do you notice any conceptual gaps when presenting these ideas to Londoners? Do they struggle to understand the reasoning and style behind these traditions, or do they generally grasp it?

Opalaye: In what context? Do you mean with the facial markings and similar traditions?

Jacobsen: Yes, for example, the styling and the reasoning behind certain customs—like how the fattening room tradition was part of pampering before a marital ceremony. Do they find it difficult to relate?

Jacobsen: Yes. When translating these traditions, there are always cultural gaps, and many people just can’t grasp them.

Opalaye: In one sense, people can understand that markings help identify geographic origins and tribal affiliations. Let’s use the case of the Calabar people and their fattening room tradition. Londoners, particularly women, can relate to the concept because, before getting married, we engage in pampering rituals. We go to spas and have makeup parties—it’s all a form of self-care.

But in the past, there weren’t modern spa facilities. Instead, women were taken to a designated place where they were pampered in preparation for marriage. 

So, they had a special place where women would receive beauty treatments, much like a spa retreat. When I explain it this way, people understand it. But when they hear the fattening room, their initial reaction is shock—they assume it means force-feeding women. That’s not the case at all. It’s more of a pampering room, but we still refer to it by its traditional name.

There are some cultural gaps people don’t immediately grasp. For example, Nigerians have a deep tradition of adorning themselves with jewelry. Some Londoners appreciate this, but it’s not as common in British culture. Just look at the Nigerian women attending this conference—they look incredible.

My art showcases this—it sends a message to the world that women are meant to stand out. We are unique. We shouldn’t be confined to the background.

Jacobsen: It seems like a cultural gap in conceptual understanding. I believe cultures share specific universal ways of organizing themselves, but how they express those traditions varies. British culture, in particular, is very utilitarian. The language is efficient, almost excessively neutral. If you want to add vibrancy, you must put effort into it. Where are you planning to take this next?

Opalaye: Oh, gosh.

Jacobsen: London?

Opalaye: Yes. London, Nigeria, America, Canada.

So far, my work has reached these countries: America, Canada, London, and Nigeria. But my goal is for it to reach everywhere in the world. We live in a time where people travel extensively. There are so many countries people know little about.

Imagine being in a country far from home… Nigerians are everywhere—in Iceland, in the most unexpected places. But if you’re somewhere wearing this hat, someone will ask you about it. And in that moment, you have the opportunity to share your heritage—to talk about your tribe, your origins, and Africa.

That’s the most fantastic thing in the world—to represent where I come from. I am proud to be Nigerian. I want the world to know about Nigeria, West Africa, and Africa. And I want them to see that we are doing things. We have talent. We are creative.

And being African, being Nigerian—and being a woman—is powerful. 

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time.

Opalaye: Thank you very much.

—

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/21

Rebecca Dabbs, Movember’s U.S. Cancer Implementation Director, discusses the “Know Thy Nuts” campaign, which uses humour and relatability to raise awareness about testicular cancer, mental health, and men’s health equity. With tools like the Nuts & Bolts website and campus outreach, the initiative encourages men to recognize what’s normal and seek help early. Dabbs emphasizes storytelling, digital engagement, and community support. Alongside colleague Blake, she underscores the campaign’s goal to eliminate stigma and promote proactive health. Movember’s lighthearted tone supports serious aims: saving lives and empowering men to take charge of physical and mental well-being.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Rebecca Dabbs, Movember’s Cancer Implementation Director for the U.S. and passionate advocate for mental health. She is a key part of their team of issue experts and here to chat with me today about their  widely recognized “Know Thy Nuts” initiative for Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. Her work raises awareness, breaks stigma, and encourages early detection through clear, engaging messaging. With a background in health communication, Rebecca supports Movember’s mission to improve outcomes in testicular cancer, prostate cancer, mental health, and suicide prevention—all critically important issues. Her storytelling helps drive public engagement, funding, and education, encouraging individuals to take charge of their health and helping to create healthier communities worldwide. Thank you for joining me today—I appreciate it.

Rebecca Dabbs: Oh, I’m happy to be here.

Jacobsen: What inspired the cheeky but impactful name of Know Thy Nuts?

Dabbs: Yes, that’s a great question. Movember is a cheeky and passionate organization that has been around since 2003 and funded over 1,300 projects worldwide. We’re constantly trying to challenge outdated approaches and shake things up.

For testicular cancer and Know Thy Nuts, we wanted to encourage men to check themselves regularly in a fun, approachable way—something that feels empowering regarding our health.

Jacobsen: Was the original messaging anywhere close to this?

Dabbs: Yes. Are you asking about general health messaging around testicular cancer?

Jacobsen: I am referring to more traditional public service announcements, like PBS-style messaging.

Dabbs: So, in this space, cancer is a serious disease—and we fully acknowledge that. But I do not think we should approach it with fear tactics.

We need to be relatable. We can—and should—be playful in how we word things to engage folks. As I mentioned, it’s about empowering people to know their bodies and what’s normal. That’s at the heart of the message. If we have to say “Know Thy Nuts” to get that message across, we will do it.

Jacobsen: It works. What are some other ways you balance humour with serious health messaging?

Dabbs: All of our work leans a little more cheeky and playful. That’s the benefit of being a global organization—not just rooted in the United States. We’re active in five main markets, the U.S. being one of them.

Rather than approaching things from a purely academic or research-focused perspective, we aim to be more lighthearted and engaging when we work on our three main pillars—mental health, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer. That helps us truly connect with the communities we’re working with.

Jacobsen: How do you explain the significance of the 2024 survey findings regarding young men’s health behaviour?

Dabbs: Honestly, I am not entirely sure. There is not one clear explanation for why people are responding this way. But one thing is certain: the survey found that 74% of young men in the United States—the demographic most impacted by testicular cancer—do not even know that they are at risk.

21% of young men either don’t feel confident checking their testicles or don’t know how. 14% of young men said they never check at all. We want to change that. We want to ensure the message is loud and clear: check yourself regularly. If something feels different, contact a clinician or healthcare provider and get it checked. 

Jacobsen: Have you contacted people like Kevin Hart or Will Ferrell? They could do a funny little sketch—one walks into the doctor’s office, the other plays the doctor, and they go, “Cough,” in a humorous rendition of a checkup. That would be hilarious. 

Dabbs: We have not done that only because we do not have access. Would you be willing to put us in contact with some of those folks? We would love that! 

Jacobsen: If I had that access, I would make it happen. Know Thy Nuts is bold, attention-grabbing, and meant to encourage men. But what exactly is the core message?

Dabbs: Yes, Know Thy Nuts is relatable across the board. We are trying not necessarily to promote clinical self-exams in a medical sense but rather to encourage men to become familiar with their “normal.” So, the next time they shower or change clothes, they take a moment to check in on themselves—feel what is normal. If something changes, they will notice and can get it checked.

Jacobsen: What is the role of digital engagement in educating men about testicular cancer?

Dabbs: Great question. Know Thy Nuts is a cheeky, memorable way of getting men to pay attention to their health, but it is just one part of the equation. We also built a website to support the campaign. We created a Nuts & Bolts site—a comprehensive online hub filled with easy-to-understand, relatable information. It is designed for men who are going through testicular cancer, supporting someone who is, or just trying to understand how to check themselves. Some infographics include images of testicles, with visual guidance on when and how to check—like in a warm shower, with steam in the background. It walks through, checking one side, then the other. It covers everything from diagnosis to treatment, life after cancer, and preventive care.

Jacobsen: How much have men improved their willingness to get regular health checkups—testicular and otherwise?

Dabbs: That is still to be determined, honestly. But the more we talk about it and raise awareness, the better we prepare the community to step into a space of self-advocacy. It ensures men know their physical and mental health and feel empowered to seek help when something is off. That is what this campaign is all about.

Jacobsen: You mentioned operating in multiple regions. While you aim for universal messaging, how do you adapt your approach in culturally sensitive areas?

Dabbs: We use generically relatable phrasing and imagery but tweak the messaging depending on the region. With digital engagement, we pay close attention to cultural nuances. In some markets, humour must be more subtle or reframed to be engaging but not inappropriate. It comes down to knowing the subcultures within each audience and building trust with them. That is how we ensure the message lands effectively. That is important to your work—inclusivity and ensuring health equity are at the forefront. 

Jacobsen: What does that mean in practice?

Dabbs: Yes. That is central to everything we do. Health equity means representation—in language, imagery, and accessibility. That is why our language is intentionally not academic. It is written in a way that people can understand. The infographics help support that message because we do not want to assume everyone can read or interpret all available support resources. We back up the written information with visuals—pictures and images that reflect our working demographics. It is about making sure everyone feels seen and supported.

Jacobsen: What innovations in testicular cancer research has Movember funded that you are especially excited about—projects that show the most promise?

Dabbs: We have done quite a lot since we began funding testicular cancer projects. Since 2008, we have invested over $11 million globally. That includes funding for research, supporting educational campaigns like Know Thy Nuts, and helping men navigate life after diagnosis. In 2024 alone, we received significant donations tied specifically to testicular cancer, which tells us this issue is deeply important to the community we work with. They are tied closely to research, education, and public awareness.

Jacobsen: Do you have metrics—clicks, views, downloads of guidelines, engagement with Instagram posts or informational web pages—that indicate how far the message is reaching?

Dabbs: Yes. That is a great question. I am unsure how much of that data is internal, but I can share a general overview. We are heavily involved in five core markets: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom. We have also done work in Ireland, France, and Spain. As for specific click-through numbers or site traffic data, I do not have that at hand. However, we know that our Nuts & Bolts website is one of our most trusted tools, especially during Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. Based on user feedback, 84% of people who visit Know Thy Nuts leave feeling confident that they can check themselves and stay on top of what is normal for them—physically and mentally.

Jacobsen: So, mental health alongside physical health?

Dabbs: Yes. It is hard to disentangle those two, especially in the context of something like cancer. They are deeply related—self-perceived stigma, reluctance to seek help, and the internal struggle with vulnerability—all of which impact both physical and mental health.

Jacobsen: What do we know about the mental health side specifically, especially around help-seeking behaviour?

Dabbs: I cannot say definitively why, but we do know there is still a stigma among men when it comes to reaching out—whether it is about their body or their mental health. We have all heard the cultural message that guys should tough it out. But we know that does not work—at all—regarding physical or mental health. Movember is here to challenge that narrative. We are creating space for men to take charge of their well-being holistically. Mental health is one of our three main focus areas. Whether you are feeling something emotionally or noticing something physically, knowing what your normal is—and speaking up early—can make a huge difference.

Jacobsen: What about in-person community engagement? What kind of events do you have around Know Thy Nuts or Nuts & Bolts? Pamphlets, business cards, informational fact sheets—all of that?

Dabbs: We have some fun, cheeky swag that aligns with who we are as an organization. Our main community engagement in testicular cancer is online through the Nuts & Bolts website. That is where people can interact with general information and resources. Whether they are going through it themselves, are just curious, or are supporting someone who is.

We also have a large college campus program. We have staff that work with college athletes, fraternity programs, and several Movember campus teams. This month, testicular cancer awareness is big. Our key audience here is young men, so many teams are doing tabling and activations on campus. One student dressed as a testicle! The tabling setup is a great visual for informing our core audience during Awareness Month.

College campuses are our big focus during Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. We provide those teams with printed resources, swag, and guidance for running effective tabling events. Those teams are doing the groundwork to engage young men—our key demographic—with approachable, informative conversations about health.

Jacobsen: Have you ever considered calling your personal stories and experiences “testemanials”? Some are emotionally powerful, some express relief, and others reflect, “I can continue living my life.”

Dabbs: That is a great question. I do not know if we have considered calling them “testemanials,” but we should write that down. Actually… testemanials—I love that! He’s got a heart. 

Jacobsen: Thank you—trademark that! I appreciate it. 

Dabbs: To highlight again: our key audience is young men—those most affected by testicular cancer. We appreciate you covering this for your audience and The Good Men Project. Along with the events and activations, we also send resources to our campus teams across the U.S. so they can educate their peers.

The stats are in the press release, but roughly 75,000 new testicular cancer cases are reported annually. The earlier you catch it, the more treatable it is. We have a bunch of anecdotal stories from Mo Bros. One guy is a 19-year-old college football player—peak health. But he did a check-in and found out he was at stage two. That is the type of story we want to communicate year after year. This is one of our core focus areas because so few men know they are at risk.

Jacobsen: That sounds like a horizontal activation layer for men’s health—it cuts across so many different issues. That brings me to another question. Regarding testimonials—classically defined—which ones have stuck with you, especially as the front-facing person dealing with media and public messaging? The stories from those with lived experience.

Dabbs: Yes. The people who have lived through it and shared their stories—those stay with you. They want to tell others what they wish they had known. And the recurring theme is the importance of knowing what your normal is—and not waiting. Not waiting for the discomfort to go away, not waiting until something else more pressing is off your radar. Taking action when you notice something is key.

Jacobsen: Outside of the humour, the facts, and the structured campaigns—what have you found works on a more personal level? It is the kind of stuff that is hard to scale but powerful individually.

Dabbs: Individual change is tough to scale because everyone is different. But something that consistently works is ensuring people have a community to lean on—whether you are navigating a cancer diagnosis, a mental illness, or anything else difficult. Finding and holding onto a support network—family, friends, or others with lived experience—can make all the difference. It helps ensure that the quality of life during treatment or recovery can be as rich as before.

Jacobsen: It reminds me of a song I have been listening to—Bill Withers’ Lean on Me, from the 1970s. Have you heard it?

Dabbs: Yes, of course.

Jacobsen: That’s the song that comes to mind for this message. What about you? 

Blake: A thread runs through our work at Movember, eliminating stigma—especially in men’s health. Whether we are talking about mental health, testicular cancer, or prostate cancer, some stigmas seriously affect men and often prevent them from taking action. The overarching goal of our organization is to stop men from dying younger than they should.

Men die, on average, five years earlier than women. That statistic is driven by many of the issues we work on—and the stigmas surrounding them. So, we focus on making men more comfortable with seeing a doctor, knowing their health status, and understanding how to care for themselves. The cheeky tone of our campaigns is part of that effort. It helps remove the barriers to these conversations and makes it easier for men to talk about the things that matter most to their health. The nuance in our approach is that it is not necessarily direct or heavy-handed—it is about making important topics approachable.

Jacobsen: What I appreciate about Movember’s approach is that it is de-escalatory by nature. For example, when I attended the sixty-ninth session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York, it overlapped with the thirtieth anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action and the twenty-fifth anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. Nigerian Women’s Day was also during that time—the most vibrant and joyful event there.

One major theme that emerged from those sessions was that many women across the globe are feeling a sense of blowback. Part of the discourse—at least from my perspective—is being framed around gender combat, and I think some cynical actors stand to gain from perpetuating that.

But Movember’s work sidesteps that whole framework. The campaign is hopeful. It does not present men’s and women’s health as opposing priorities. It suggests that advocating for gender equity—women having access to safe, equitable reproductive care and men being able to express themselves, seek help, and live longer, healthier lives—is not zero-sum. That is the value of campaigns like Movember. I know this is a broader point, but it resonates. It shapes my thinking about storytelling, question framing, and synthesizing narratives. Whether you are working on the testicular cancer campaign or something broader is crucial.

To end on something a little lighter—Rebecca, what is your favourite song right now?

Dabbs: Oh! Right now, it is The Adults Are Talking by The Strokes. That one has been on repeat for me, too. It has that drive to it. That track helped push me through a long work session recently. I just had it looping. Pizza and that song were the only things that kept the momentum going. 

Jacobsen: Adult children everywhere are talking now, and adults should listen! Anyway, I am heading out on a long trip. 

Dabbs: Enjoy!

Jacobsen: Thank you—I appreciate it.

Dabbs: Bye—thank you!

Jacobsen: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/19

Grace Torrente coordinates with the International Network of Journalists with a Gender Perspective, advocating for gender equality, media representation, and protecting women journalists facing violence. Alicia Oliver is a journalist and researcher analyzing the rise of far-right movements in Europe, misinformation, and political polarization, focusing on gender rights and democracy. She has a specialization in historical memory, anti-gender rhetoric, and the impact of authoritarian regimes on democracy and women’s rights. Montserrat Sosa is a human rights advocate and expert on political movements, specializing in historical memory, anti-gender rhetoric, and the impact of authoritarian regimes on democracy and women’s rights. Grace Torrente discusses the unique risks women journalists face, including gender-based violence. Alicia Oliver and Montserrat Sosa examine rising far-right European movements, misinformation, and anti-gender rhetoric. They compare historical authoritarianism to modern political trends, emphasizing the fragility of rights, the dangers of denial, and the ongoing fight for equality.

Grace Torrente: My name is Grace Torrente. I am part of the Collegial Coordinators. I’m one of the coordinators of the International Network of Journalists with a Gender Perspective.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, about journalists, what are women’s primary gender-specific challenges?

Torrente: Wow, this is a good question with a long answer. I’ll try my best. The challenges women face are different because they are not only at risk for being journalists but also for being women. So, there is a double burden—they carry it in their bodies and actions when they report and do their work. There is violence, and the attacks are directed at them—not just their work but their bodies, their voices, the way they act, and even their families. That violence extends to their families, including their children. So, yes, the risks are different, and that is why we are raising awareness and trying to talk about it. We want to address this issue and amplify the conversation. It is a conversation about what is happening, why the risks are different, and what must be done to achieve equality at some point.

Jacobsen: What was brought up in the session was Franco’s Spain. Another example that comes to mind is Romania under Ceaușescu. There are numerous figures in history—particularly in the 20th century—who explicitly sought to restrict the lives of women simply for being women, often using justification or cover for it. For example, under Ceaușescu, Decree 770 controlled reproductive freedom and choice. Doctors were required to monitor women to ensure they were having a certain number of children and to check whether they were pregnant. In Franco’s Spain, I believe someone noted that if a woman became pregnant, it was not just the temporary end of her job—it was the end of her career, period. This was the elimination of a woman’s professional life based on an assigned gender role in society. It wasn’t a matter of personal choice, where someone decided this was the life they wanted and pursued it. The state enforced it. Can you highlight similar contexts regarding the history of Spain and women journalists?

Torrente: This is not my area of expertise because I am not from Spain; I am from Colombia and Latin America. She can answer better than I can. 

Alicia Oliver: My Spanish is worse than everyone’s.

Jacobsen: What is the history of women journalists’ repression in Spain?

Oliver: Okay, I was explaining the context and rise of the far-right movement in the European continent. Extreme rights are growing in Europe right now. I don’t know if that’s of interest to you. It doesn’t matter. The only thing you must understand is that being there is essential. Ten years ago, anti-gender groups were almost invisible. But now they represent the third political force in the European Parliament, and in the case of Spain, they are also the third group in the Spanish House of Representatives. They are very well connected with the population. I don’t know why I’m looking at him; I’m looking at you. They are very well connected. They are very well connected with a public that is depoliticized. With a public that is polarized and depoliticized, yes, that doesn’t have political content behind it. They are also fed by misinformation and fake news. They are very well connected with most people, have no information, and are not interested in politics. They are not politically aware.

Jacobsen: Politically apathetic.

Oliver: Politically apathetic, exactly. So they have many tools to get to them. Ten years ago, they were minorities, and it was frowned upon to agree with them. But now, not anymore. And groups of the traditional right agree and rise to power, individually or as a shared coalition. So, in some way, they were ashamed to show their beliefs. But right now, even the moderate right, the center-right, has no shame in making agreements with them. It could be local, in the States, or even international. So right now, what we observe in Spain—and other countries—is disinhibition.

Montserrat Sosa: Can we say disinhibition?

Torrente: Disinhibition, yes.

Jacobsen: Disinhibition. They openly show themselves without any problem.

Oliver: And they have this disinhibition to make agreements with them. They are united, yes, but they are also very diverse. They have in common, let’s say, the hatred—the hatred toward immigration, mainly Muslim immigration. It’s the same. Well, it’s the same. The issue of all the anti-gender rhetoric they have against women’s equality and climate change. In those things, they agree, right? 

Even if they’re very different groups around the world, let’s say in Europe, they have in common that they’re anti-gender fighters. I mean, misogynistic, anti-LGBT groups, anti-climate. I mean, they’re negationists. How do you say that? Anti-climate.

Jacobsen: They’re climate deniers.

Sosa: Climate deniers, yeah. And anti-immigration, especially Muslims, are Islamophobic. Even if they’re so different, that’s the main thing they have in common. They have money. We don’t have women’s organizations. They have technology at their service as well. And now, they’re moderating their language and speech to attract a more popular population. They have a lot of money. They have companies behind them. They have resources and technology.

And also, now, they’ve been changing, moderating their language. I mean, in a way, they can approach… They’re no longer gangstalking aggressively use. They can appeal to regular people. And, of course, with the fake news they spread. And they don’t directly say, for example, that they are against Muslims because they are Muslims. Instead, they frame it as “they take our money, our jobs,” and so on. So, people think, “Oh yeah, that’s true.” They moderate their language and their discourse. What’s discurso?

Torrente: Speech.

Sosa: Yes, the speech. So, it’s similar to the Spanish Civil War because lately, in many meetings—both online and in person in Barcelona—I’ve noticed that they end by saying No pasarán. That slogan was coined during the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939 against fascism. And, really, not only did they not pass—they passed and destroyed. That is where the 40 years of Francoism and fascism come from.

She made that link with the Spanish Civil War or the coup d’état that Franco launched in 1936 because we were fighting against Franco for three years, actually with international brigades from here, too. And that slogan was created then. In Spanish, it was No pasarán.

They will not get over it. Breakthrough. But they say it in Spanish.

Torrente: Yes, it’s international.

Sosa: No pasarán. It’s more famous in Spanish than in English.

Torrente: People say it as No pasarán.

Sosa: In some movements, for example, here, I went to a rally, and they said No pasarán in Oslo. Because they say it in Spanish like a slogan, and No pasarán means they will not go through—the fascist regime of Franco and Hitler, and so on, from 1936 to 1939. But they did go through, and they suppressed us for 40 years.

Torrente: Our rights.

Sosa: Our rights, our democracy, everything. One thing you should know is that during the Second Republic in Spain from 1935 to 1936, before the coup d’état, it was a very, very, very progressive country. It is one of the most progressive in Europe and probably worldwide. Human rights, civil rights, women’s rights—women’s rights. Schools in the jails. In prisons. Itinerant schools. Divorce. Then it started to end in 1933 and ended in 1936.

Jacobsen: So this period, 1933 to 1936, was a period of removing rights?

Sosa: There was a fascist scheme. And then we lost everything. That’s why conquests—securing a right—don’t mean we always have it. Rights can be lost at any time. We must be aware because that shows that when you gain a right, it doesn’t mean you can take it for granted. You must stay aware because we’re always at risk of losing it. And we did lose it. We lost.

That’s my opinion, but many sociologists say that when a fascist regime lasts for 40 years, it can take over three generations to change. They behave as if democratic culture is spontaneous, but democracy is a culture. It’s not something you get suddenly. My mom, for example, still says, “Be careful what you say.” You know? It’s ingrained in the minds of three generations. It is not easy to undo that.

Jacobsen: So, do they have a false history and a nostalgia for a fantasy past of Spain where women knew their place in the home and outside the public sphere?

Torrente: Fantasies from the population?

Jacobsen: Make-believe. Dream.

Torrente: Talking about regular people, the population. 

Jacobsen: Regular people. Regular people. And I don’t want to call them conservative activists because that misrepresents conservatism.

Torrente: Yes. 

Jacobsen: But I want to say something like regressive activists who have this… So, like when the MAGA people talk about “Make America Great Again,” they have an image of the past. It’s false. It’s based on a fantasy.

Torrente: Okay.

Jacobsen: They say they want that fantasy to be the real past and then say we need to project that and return to it.

Jacobsen: Make America Great Again is based on a false history and a projected fantasy.

Torrente: Yes. 

Jacobsen: When they talk about going back to America, they show pictures of a nostalgic America that’s not true, that’s false. That will never be. I wonder if that happens, too.

Torrente: No.

Jacobsen: You don’t have this fantasy?

Torrente: No.

Jacobsen: Because it’s a very subtle thing. They say, “We hope the past was one thing—which didn’t exist—and we’re going to use that as the basis to make us great into that again.”

Sosa: Yes, very much. But that fantasy… it’s a great again. So they’re not living in… It’s a much more complicated thing in America, by the way. It’s very particular to America. But I think… I don’t know if I’m here. There’s no such fantasy because, at the moment, talking about Franco isn’t well seen. It’s not very well regarded. It’s not very popular to talk about Franco’s time. Even if people think… I’m sure some people want to. Some people. Vox, yeah.

Jacobsen: There were a few Nazis that fled to Spanish-speaking countries. They look like me. If you say that, oh, gosh, people are going to throw stones at you. For 40 years, many people suffered, including impoverished people and women. When your grandchildren pop up in Uruguay, Brazil, or Argentina, they look like me. They might start to question. “So what’s your past?” I look like a Mormon stereotype. Anyway.

Sosa: So, Franco died in 1975. No one killed him. He died alone, quietly.

Jacobsen: So you have a democratic culture.

Sosa: We have a democratic culture, but people still fear getting into it. We are still the second country in the world with the most mass graves—about 100,000 people disappeared on the roads—and they don’t want to open them. They say, “We have to turn the page,” but we don’t want to until we read it all. So it’s a taboo, but not for the people… Activists. But for the politicians, even those from the right, they say, “No, that wasn’t a dictatorship.” They deny it. Some people deny it was a dictatorship.

Torrente: You cannot call it a dictatorship? You’re saying the opposite of what you said before.

Sosa: That’s right. They’re selling you the dictatorship. But there’s no fantasy. The people from the extreme right—no, what happens is that democracies are in danger. So, we have to be very alert because they present themselves differently. They normalize that speech. She’s right. I was contradictory because I told you there was no fantasy about returning. But it is a denial.

Torrente: That’s different.

Jacobsen: It’s different. Denial is more straightforward. To concoct a fantasy is more perverted. In English, a fantasy would be like someone thinking they’re Elvis—someone who thinks they’re reincarnated. Like that kind of fantasy, right? You’re living in a dream. That’s what I mean in terms of the past. But denial, I think that’s much more common.

Sosa: Yes, but even though we have all the data and people still remember—both their parents and grandparents—they deny it. And people still have a neighbour… Once she was dead 20 years ago.

She had a big plant in the building. She put it there when her brother went to war to fight fascism. It’s the same plant. It never died because she consistently watered it until he came back.

Jacobsen: That’s not the way the world works. People don’t come back like that. 

Sosa: But can you imagine? In her mind, it’s not closed. It’s not over yet. So we need to close that. We’re just talking.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/18

Engineer-turned-photographer Simi Vijay recounts his journey from Nigeria’s National Youth Service Corps to becoming a respected documentary & portrait photographer. Initially inspired by a friend in photography, he began shooting weddings and portraits before transitioning into documentary work, encouraged by an investigative photojournalist. His major breakthrough was UNICEF’s Hard to Reach project during a polio crisis, which led him to study Visual Journalism at ICP in New York. Vijay has documented refugee experiences for UNHCR, cultural stories, and high-profile events. His work blends technical skills with artistic realism, emphasizing cultural identity, immigrant narratives, and social issues while continuously evolving through diverse photographic projects remarkably.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your overall background?

Simi Vijay: My background is in engineering. I studied electronics engineering at university, and after graduating, I had to complete the mandatory one-year National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) in Nigeria.

During that time, I started spending time with a friend who was into photography. Her name was Aisha Augie-Kuta. She is currently a Director General at the Centre for Black and African Arts Culture (CBAAC). Through her, I developed an interest in photography, experimenting with capturing images and learning how to use a camera properly.

I began enjoying the process and started shooting a lot of weddings. One day, a friend named Tom Saater, a photographer and investigative photojournalist, approached me and suggested that I explore documentary photography. That was how I started—gradually taking on more projects.

My first major assignment was with UNICEF on the Hard to Reach project. At the time, all indicators suggested that polio had been eradicated in Nigeria, and the project aimed to document the effort and showcase how vaccination teams reached the most remote areas. However, shortly after the completion of that photo project, polio resurfaced in the country. This led to renewed efforts to eliminate the virus, a process that took several years. Nigeria was officially declared polio-free by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020.

After that experience, I transitioned into documentary photography and videography, focusing on telling human-interest stories. I became motivated to pursue formal education in the field, leading me to apply for a program in the United States. I was accepted into the International Center of Photography (ICP) in New York, where I studied Visual Journalism and Documentary Practice.

My time in the U.S. was particularly eye-opening, as it was my first exposure to a vast collection of photography books covering various styles—from still life to fine art. In Nigeria, there were no formal schools for photography, so most photographers were self-taught, learning from platforms like YouTube and Instagram. Many started with affordable lighting and basic equipment, honing their craft through practice and determination.

Several of my friends in Nigeria have since become successful photographers. Inspired by my experiences, I decided to explore living and working in America as a photographer, particularly in New York.

And I decided that I wanted to—of course, I started trying to do more documentary work and projects like that. But as time went on, I realized that many of the clients I had worked with in Nigeria—doing documentary work and portraits—would contact me when they came to New York for events like the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), or the Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C. They would engage my services to document their processes, meetings, and interactions in the U.S. during those time frames. That was how I started documenting some of these events. So, that is my connection to ministers, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and other high-level executives.

Over time, this work became a significant part of my career. 

Jacobsen: Some people incorporate their nationality and heritage into their personal brand and work, while others do not. Is this a factor in your work?

Vijay: Sometimes, yes. When I work for Nigerians or Africans, my understanding of the culture, the nuances of respect, and the way our society functions helps me in my interactions and the way I approach certain projects. In that sense, cultural awareness definitely plays a role in my work.

It also informs the way I photograph. When I work on personal documentary projects, I find myself drawn to stories about culture, identity, and immigration. These subjects intrigue me because they relate to globalization and how Nigerians, Africans, and immigrants fit into the broader global landscape.

Jacobsen: What about your work with UNHCR?

Vijay: For UNHCR, I documented the stories of people displaced from Cameroon into Nigeria. These refugees had crossed the border into Southwestern Nigeria.

To provide some context: Nigeria is an Anglophone country, while Cameroon is predominantly Francophone. However, there is a subset of people in Cameroon, from the Northwest and Southwest regions, who identify as Anglophone and have been fighting for independence to create their own country, called Ambazonia. This conflict has forced many to flee into Nigeria as refugees, and my work involved documenting their experiences and displacement.

They are mostly Anglophone speakers in a Francophone country, and many of them feel unrepresented. There is ongoing conflict between these groups and the Cameroonian central government.

As a result of clashes between separatist groups—or, as they see themselves, independence advocates—and the Cameroonian police and military, many people have been displaced into Nigeria. Before colonial-era borders were drawn by Western powers, the people on the Nigerian and Cameroonian sides of the border were essentially the same ethnic and cultural communities. Today, they are separated by an artificial border, but they still have deep familial and historical ties.

My job was to document some of these displaced individuals and tell their stories of survival. Many were children who had to flee their villages after attacks, walking long distances to cross into Nigeria, often because they had heard that they had relatives on the other side. These families had been separated for generations, but their connections remained.

That was one of the major projects I worked on, and I thoroughly valued the experience because it demonstrated the power of storytelling—to convey a person’s struggles and reality through photography.

Another UNHCR project I worked on involved documenting Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, during his visit to Maiduguri and Abuja. He met with the President of Nigeria and other dignitaries while also inspecting humanitarian efforts in Maiduguri, a city devastated by the Boko Haram insurgency.

So yes, that was a significant part of my work with UNHCR.

Jacobsen: What about your work with UNICEF?

Vijay: For UNICEF, I was brought in to document the Hard to Reach project. This initiative aimed to showcase how UNICEF teams—composed of local staff and volunteers—worked to deliver polio vaccines to some of the most remote areas in Northern Nigeria.

The goal was to ensure every newborn received the polio vaccine, pushing toward the complete eradication of polio in Nigeria. The assignment required extensive travel across multiple states, including Kaduna, Katsina, and Yobe.

I captured images of both the beneficiaries—the children receiving the vaccines—and the UNICEF field workers responsible for carrying out the mission. These health workers transported vaccines in cold storage boxes, traveling across rivers, mountains, and inaccessible roads to reach the most isolated communities.

It was a demanding but impactful project, and I was honored to contribute to documenting UNICEF’s efforts in combating polio.

So that was what I documented. The project, however, never came to full fruition because, within a couple of months of photographing it, the polio vaccine initiative faced a setback when the poliovirus resurfaced in Maiduguri. As a result, the documentation had to end.

Yes, it took several more years, but I believe that eventually, the virus was officially eradicated.

By that time, though, I had already left for the U.S. to study. I’m not sure if they ever attempted to document or restart that project again.

Jacobsen: What about the Tokunbo project, exploring Nigerians in New York?

Vijay: So, Tokunbo is a project focused on identifying and documenting Nigerians in the diaspora. When I first came to the U.S. to study, I was amazed by how many Nigerians were living and thriving here.

One of the greatest challenges immigrants face is uprooting themselves from their culture and community. However, when they come to places like America, they rebuild a sense of home—whether in their personal spaces or through community gatherings.

Through this project, I explored how Nigerians maintain their cultural identity abroad. Some of the key elements I focused on were:

• Music, particularly Afrobeats and other Nigerian genres.
• Fashion, including traditional attire and modern influences.
• Cultural storytelling, such as how Nigerians pass down traditions, language, and history to their children.
• Food, which serves as a powerful cultural connector in immigrant communities.

The project examines how Nigerians integrate into American life while preserving their roots.

Jacobsen: How do you balance artistic creativity with documentary realism in your work?

Vijay: For me, my general approach is to observe quietly—the proverbial fly on the wall.

I try to document what I see as authentically as possible and let the images speak for themselves. By the time I put together a series of images with captions, my goal is to lead the viewer to a natural, plausible conclusion about the story being presented.

That, for me, is how I balance realism with artistic intent. I see myself as the fly on the wall, but beyond that, I also apply technical photography skills.

For instance, composition is crucial to my work. I aim to find interesting angles when photographing my subject, ensuring depth of field and a strong sense of place. This approach enhances the documentary storytelling aspect while still allowing for an artistic perspective.

Jacobsen: Who were your biggest influences in art?

Vijay: Honestly, for me, my first influences were the people around me in Nigeria.

I was greatly influenced by Aisha Augie-Kuta, whom I mentioned earlier as a photographer, and Tom Saater, another photographer whose work inspired me.

Later, I discovered international photographers whose visual storytelling resonated with me. One of my earliest influences was Steve McCurry. Over time, I became familiar with more photographers who balance artistic vision with documentary realism, such as Lindsay Addario and Sebastian Salgado, Ernest Cole, Aida Muluneh, Dario Mitidieri, among others.

However, much of my inspiration also comes from the vibrancy of my environment back home in Nigeria. The richness of color, the energy of daily life—these elements have always influenced my photography. Many of my works reflect that, as I aim to capture scenes in their full vibrancy and authenticity.

My family has also played a significant role in shaping my perspective. Growing up, my mother would take annual photographs of us, documenting moments in our lives. I remember spending time looking through old photo albums, captivated by how images could preserve memories. Looking back, I think that early exposure to photography created an intrinsic connection for me.

Jacobsen: What advice do you have for aspiring photographers?

Vijay: My biggest advice? Keep shooting. Keep practicing.

• Read about other photographers. Study how they see the world.
• Look at photo books. Get inspired by different styles of visual storytelling.
• Stay curious. Photography is about observation—the more you observe, the more you develop your photographic eye and voice.
• Collaborate with others. Engage with different artists and find the stories you want to tell.

More than anything, discover what part of humanity speaks to you—what themes you want to explore and represent through your work.

And most importantly, enjoy the process. Creativity is about bringing something into existence—whether from nothing or from our lived experiences—and leaving something meaningful for others to engage with.

Jacobsen: What’s next? We are participants of CSW69, primarily focusing on the Nigerian Women’s Day side event, which took up the entire day. So what are your next steps, and what are your reflections on the day and the event as a whole?

Vijay: For me, honestly, it was incredibly inspiring to hear the stories of these amazing women whom I had the opportunity to photograph and document throughout the day. The celebration of women is so important because women play a fundamental role in our world—from bringing us into this life to nurturing, supporting, and guiding both men and women. In a world filled with unrest and uncertainty, it is crucial to celebrate and uplift them.

I want to continue documenting stories—whether through photo essays or portraiture—because a single portrait can often convey a thousand emotions, revealing deep insights into people and places. That is what’s next for me. I also enjoy corporate photography, particularly observing how individuals navigate professional spaces and the dynamics of their lives both inside and outside of work.

More than anything, I was deeply moved and inspired by the CSW69 side event hosted by the Nigerian Ministry of Women Affairs. The resilience of these women and the challenges they have overcome were truly remarkable. Many of them have defied societal expectations that traditionally placed women in restrictive roles—whether as mothers or wives—and have instead become politicians, activists, professors, and corporate executives. They have pushed against cultural and systemic barriers, setting powerful examples for other women to follow. As someone who values storytelling, witnessing their strength reinforced the importance of self-belief and perseverance.

For me, that is exactly what I plan to keep doing—continuing to create and tell the stories of others through my perspective and the lens of my camera.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts on how photography is evolving?

Vijay: I think that the evolution of photography, especially in North America, should include more narratives about migrants. Migration has fundamentally reshaped American society over generations, and I believe there is an opportunity to highlight the stories of immigrants and their integration into new cultural landscapes. The world is globalizing and evolving.

As immigration continues to shape economies, communities, and identities, I would love to see more visual storytelling that reflects these realities—documenting how migrants navigate life in a new country while preserving elements of their heritage and identity. The photographic landscape is evolving, and I hope it moves in a direction that amplifies diverse voices and untold stories.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Simi. 

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.