Apr 15, 2025Ravie LakshmananMalware / Threat Intelligence The North Korea-linked threat actor assessed to be behind the massive Bybit hack in February 2025 has been linked to a malicious campaign that targets developers to deliver new stealer malware under the guise of a coding assignment. The activity has been attributed by Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 to a hacking group it tracks as Slow Pisces, which is also known as Jade Sleet, PUKCHONG, TraderTraitor, and UNC4899. "Slow Pisces engaged with cryptocurrency developers on LinkedIn, posing as potential employers and sending malware disguised as coding challenges," security researcher Prashil Pattni said. "These challenges require developers to run a compromised project, infecting their systems using malware we have named RN Loader and RN Stealer." Slow Pisces has a history of targeting developers, typically in the cryptocurrency sector, by approaching them on LinkedIn as part of a supposed job opportunity and enticing them into opening a PDF document that details the coding assignment hosted on GitHub. In July 2023, GitHub revealed that employees working at blockchain, cryptocurrency, online gambling, and cybersecurity companies were singled out by the threat actor, deceiving them into running malicious npm packages. Then last June, Google-owned Mandiant detailed the attackers' modus operandi of first sending to targets on LinkedIn a benign PDF document containing a job description for an alleged job opportunity and following it up with a skills questionnaire should they express interest. The questionnaire included instructions to complete a coding challenge by downloading a trojanized Python project from GitHub that, while ostensibly capable of viewing cryptocurrency prices, was designed to contact a remote server to fetch an unspecified second-stage payload if certain conditions are met. The multi-stage attack chain documented by Unit 42 follows the same approach, with the malicious payload sent only to validated targets, likely based on IP address, geolocation, time, and HTTP request headers. "Focusing on individuals contacted via LinkedIn, as opposed to broad phishing campaigns, allows the group to tightly control the later stages of the campaign and deliver payloads only to expected victims," Pattni said. "To avoid the suspicious eval and exec functions, Slow Pisces uses YAML deserialization to execute its payload." The payload is configured to execute a malware family named RN Loader, which sends basic information about the victim machine and operating system over HTTPS to the same server and receives and executes a next-stage Base64-encoded blob. The newly downloaded malware is RN Stealer, an information stealer capable of harvesting sensitive information from infected Apple macOS systems. This includes system metadata, installed applications, directory listing, and the top-level contents of the victim's home directory, iCloud Keychain, stored SSH keys, and configuration files for AWS, Kubernetes, and Google Cloud. "The infostealer gathers more detailed victim information, which attackers likely used to determine whether they needed continued access," Unit 42 said. Targeted victims who apply for a JavaScript role, likewise, are urged to download a "Cryptocurrency Dashboard" project from GitHub that employs a similar strategy where the command-and-control (C2) server only serves additional payloads when the targets meet certain criteria. However, the exact nature of the payload is unknown. "The repository uses the Embedded JavaScript (EJS) templating tool, passing responses from the C2 server to the ejs.render() function," Pattni pointed out. "Like the use of yaml.load(), this is another technique Slow Pisces employs to conceal execution of arbitrary code from its C2 servers, and this method is perhaps only apparent when viewing a valid payload." Jade Sleet is one among the many North Korean threat activity clusters to leverage job opportunity-themed lures as a malware distributor vector, the others being Operation Dream Job, Contagious Interview, and Alluring Pisces. "These groups feature no operational overlaps. However, these campaigns making use of similar initial infection vectors is noteworthy," Unit 42 concluded. "Slow Pisces stands out from their peers' campaigns in operational security. Delivery of payloads at each stage is heavily guarded, existing in memory only. And the group's later stage tooling is only deployed when necessary." Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post. SHARE    

What will $500 billion poured into AI infrastructure over the next four years in the United States accomplish? CIOs and CTOs will have to watch the Stargate Project to find out. The initiative -- a collaboration between several high-profile players in the AI space -- has been plugged by President Trump. Billions are already being invested, and construction on several data centers has already begun, AP news reports.  With competition for AI dominance at a fever pitch, how much of a role could Stargate have in tipping the scales in favor of the US?  Stargate Partners  Stargate has a lot of AI star power behind it.  “The players that are part of the project are all people who are very invested in building out a computing infrastructure for AI already and building frontier AI systems,” says Peter N. Salib, law and policy advisor to the nonprofit Center for AI Safety and codirector of the Center for Law & AI Risk, an organization focused on establishing law and AI safety as a scholarly field.  OpenAI, software company Oracle, AI investment firm MGX, and investment holding company SoftBank are the four initial equity funders powering the project. SoftBank is taking the lead on financial responsibility, while OpenAI is tackling operations.  Related:The project has also attracted technology partners, including semiconductor company Arm, tech giant Microsoft, and chip company Nvidia  That is a lot of cooks in the kitchen, all very motivated to push the field of AI forward, ultimately achieving AGI.  “What I hope is that this becomes a model or an example of how titans of industry and government and ultimately and eventually the community are able to work together for the benefit of mankind,” says Jason Hardy, CTO for AI at data infrastructure company Hitachi Vantara. Time will tell if each partner delivers on their promises and ultimately plays well with others. “I would effectively call this a moonshot. So, it'll be interesting to see over the next year or so how it progresses,” Hardy adds.  The Goals The Stargate Project is focused on the “development and construction of large-scale AI data centers,” according to its request for proposals. And there is no doubt about AI’s voracious appetites. Advances in the field -- feeding those appetites -- will require more infrastructure, but is that alone the answer to capturing the lead? Randall Hunt, CTO at Caylent, an AWS cloud consulting and engineering company, thinks not. “Infrastructure alone is a very brute force approach to solving artificial general intelligence or artificial super intelligence,” he says.  Related:He goes on to voice some additional goals that could be beneficial in the pursuit of AI advancements.  “I think that we need significant efficiency and architectural improvements in the underlying implementation of these networks,” Hunt argues. “And I think a broader initiative that focuses not just on pure infrastructure but also investment in theoretical work and investment in academia and investment and the software side would be pretty valuable.” Funding In January, Elon Musk took to X, claiming Stargate lacked the funding. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman refuted the claim, and a source told Forbes that the initial $100 billion in equity is “ready to go.” That still leaves $400 billion to be gathered over the next four years.  “Sometimes … in these large agreements, you'll have pledges of capital and then you have investor underperformance. They don't ever actually send the desired capital,” Hunt points out.  Stargate is in its early days, and while a shortfall in funding for this project is possible, overall spending on AI and its requisite infrastructure is likely to soar well beyond the $500 billion point in the coming years.  “I will never underestimate the private sector’s ability and desire to put up money towards this race,” says Caroline Winnett, executive director of startup accelerator Berkeley SkyDeck.  Related:Apple, for example, is pumping $500 billion into US facilities, including a server production facility for its AI products, CNN reports.  Performance Metrics The initiative already has data centers under construction in Texas and several other states lined up as possibilities for its campuses, Reuters reports. How will we know if Stargate is delivering on its goals and putting those billions to good use?  At the most basic level, we can look at data center capacity. How many megawatts have resulted from the buildout of Stargate’s data centers? There are, of course, more nuanced questions about efficiency and energy usage.  “Does putting more data through more compute continue to get you ever more capable systems? All the … evidence we have seems to point towards the prediction that it will, and if that turns out not to be true, that will be a big surprise and a big knock against this Stargate approach of doing extremely large-scale compute and power clusters,” says Salib. The ultimate goal of AGI looms large. Will Stargate and its participants be the first to achieve it? Tracking the Global AI Race The emergence of DeepSeek from a Chinese startup threw fuel on the competitive fires. And OpenAI is certainly cognizant of the flames. "As news emerged about DeepSeek, it makes it clear this is a very real competition and the stakes could not be bigger,” said Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, Reuters reports.  Among the slew of executive orders Trump signed upon taking offices is one aimed at American leadership in AI.  “I think it's true to say that the US and China do understand themselves as racing towards something like artificial general intelligence and that this project might make help them to race faster,” says Salib.  Stargate could propel the US forward in this breakneck sprint, but it needn’t be the initiative on which the country pins all of its hopes. Moonshots like this are not guaranteed successes. But it is hardly a solo shot.  “Stargate is emblematic of the scale of which frontier AI is going to be developed in the next two to five years, but it's not the only project that is going to look the way that Stargate looks,” says Salib.  Even if Stargate fizzles out for one reason or another, it is highly unlikely that the US will find itself falling completely behind. There will still likely be plenty to learn from the endeavor, and there will be other projects and players with skin in the game.  “Whether this initiative moves forward or not, no matter what happens with it, everybody's going after this golden carrot known as AGI,” Winnett points out.  Predictions on the arrival of AGI vary, but it seems all but certain that it is coming. And the road there is hardly written in the stars. There is still plenty of room for surprises and disruption.  “People think these entrenched players like OpenAI and Anthropic and AWS, that they've got a moat that can't be overcome, but we're still in the wild west days,” says Hunt. “The model that's winning today is not necessarily the model that's winning tomorrow. As tech companies and governments pound the pavement in this ongoing race, there are some big, open questions.  “A lot of regulation is going to need to be looked at and evaluated to see how we can improve on power generation. Does nuclear need to be a part of it, for example?” says Hardy.  And then, there are other thorny concepts to grapple with: What is the cost of racing in the first place? Is the world ready for what it means when we reach a point where a winner can be declared?  “As with say the missile gap of the Cold War era, racing has its own dangers,” Salib points out. “Both sides would really like to have the most powerful systems as quickly as possible and seem willing to risk losing control of their own systems for the sake of winning that capabilities race.” Along the way, the environmental strain and energy usage associated with AI has costs.  “We're hoping that AI can produce solutions that will actually make very significant progress [on] how these tools end up interacting with the environment [and] solve their own issues,” says Winnett.  For now, it seems that the race is still on, whether or not those solutions materialize.  As AGI grows closers, Salib hopes we will spend more time thinking not only about its value but its risks. “The risks of misuse of these extremely powerful systems, arms races around these extremely powerful systems, and also loss of control the systems themselves as they become very capable. It is time for all of us to take all of that very seriously in a way that I think most of the policy world is not yet,” he urges.  

Last week, I spoke with two US Marines who spent much of last year deployed in the Pacific, conducting training exercises from South Korea to the Philippines. Both were responsible for analyzing surveillance to warn their superiors about possible threats to the unit. But this deployment was unique: For the first time, they were using generative AI to scour intelligence, through a chatbot interface similar to ChatGPT.  As I wrote in my new story, this experiment is the latest evidence of the Pentagon’s push to use generative AI—tools that can engage in humanlike conversation—throughout its ranks, for tasks including surveillance. Consider this phase two of the US military’s AI push, where phase one began back in 2017 with older types of AI, like computer vision to analyze drone imagery. Though this newest phase began under the Biden administration, there’s fresh urgency as Elon Musk’s DOGE and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth push loudly for AI-fueled efficiency.  As I also write in my story, this push raises alarms from some AI safety experts about whether large language models are fit to analyze subtle pieces of intelligence in situations with high geopolitical stakes. It also accelerates the US toward a world where AI is not just analyzing military data but suggesting actions—for example, generating lists of targets. Proponents say this promises greater accuracy and fewer civilian deaths, but many human rights groups argue the opposite.  With that in mind, here are three open questions to keep your eye on as the US military, and others around the world, bring generative AI to more parts of the so-called “kill chain.” What are the limits of “human in the loop”? Talk to as many defense-tech companies as I have and you’ll hear one phrase repeated quite often: “human in the loop.” It means that the AI is responsible for particular tasks, and humans are there to check its work. It’s meant to be a safeguard against the most dismal scenarios—AI wrongfully ordering a deadly strike, for example—but also against more trivial mishaps. Implicit in this idea is an admission that AI will make mistakes, and a promise that humans will catch them. But the complexity of AI systems, which pull from thousands of pieces of data, make that a herculean task for humans, says Heidy Khlaaf, who is chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute, a research organization, and previously led safety audits for AI-powered systems. “‘Human in the loop’ is not always a meaningful mitigation,” she says. When an AI model relies on thousands of data points to draw conclusions, “it wouldn’t really be possible for a human to sift through that amount of information to determine if the AI output was erroneous.” As AI systems rely on more and more data, this problem scales up.  Is AI making it easier or harder to know what should be classified? In the Cold War era of US military intelligence, information was captured through covert means, written up into reports by experts in Washington, and then stamped “Top Secret,” with access restricted to those with proper clearances. The age of big data, and now the advent of generative AI to analyze that data, is upending the old paradigm in lots of ways. One specific problem is called classification by compilation. Imagine that hundreds of unclassified documents all contain separate details of a military system. Someone who managed to piece those together could reveal important information that on its own would be classified. For years, it was reasonable to assume that no human could connect the dots, but this is exactly the sort of thing that large language models excel at.  With the mountain of data growing each day, and then AI constantly creating new analyses, “I don’t think anyone’s come up with great answers for what the appropriate classification of all these products should be,” says Chris Mouton, a senior engineer for RAND, who recently tested how well suited generative AI is for intelligence and analysis. Underclassifying is a US security concern, but lawmakers have also criticized the Pentagon for overclassifying information.  The defense giant Palantir is positioning itself to help, by offering its AI tools to determine whether a piece of data should be classified or not. It’s also working with Microsoft on AI models that would train on classified data.  How high up the decision chain should AI go? Zooming out for a moment, it’s worth noting that the US military’s adoption of AI has in many ways followed consumer patterns. Back in 2017, when apps on our phones were getting good at recognizing our friends in photos, the Pentagon launched its own computer vision effort, called Project Maven, to analyze drone footage and identify targets. Now, as large language models enter our work and personal lives through interfaces such as ChatGPT, the Pentagon is tapping some of these models to analyze surveillance.  So what’s next? For consumers, it’s agentic AI, or models that can not just converse with you and analyze information but go out onto the internet and perform actions on your behalf. It’s also personalized AI, or models that learn from your private data to be more helpful.  All signs point to the prospect that military AI models will follow this trajectory as well. A report published in March from Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology found a surge in military adoption of AI to assist in decision-making. “Military commanders are interested in AI’s potential to improve decision-making, especially at the operational level of war,” the authors wrote. In October, the Biden administration released its national security memorandum on AI, which provided some safeguards for these scenarios. This memo hasn’t been formally repealed by the Trump administration, but President Trump has indicated that the race for competitive AI in the US needs more innovation and less oversight. Regardless, it’s clear that AI is quickly moving up the chain not just to handle administrative grunt work, but to assist in the most high-stakes, time-sensitive decisions.  I’ll be following these three questions closely. If you have information on how the Pentagon might be handling these questions, please reach out via Signal at jamesodonnell.22.  This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

Low-carbon scheme designed by distillery specialist Organic Architects How the scheme will look when built Plans to revamp a whisky distillery on Speyside have been given the green light by Highland council in Scotland. The redevelopment of the Speyside Distillery site has been designed by distillery specialists Organic Architects for whisky supplier Glasgow Whisky. It aims to improve the energy efficiency of the site, which has been in operation since 1956 when founder George Christie converted a former barley mill and croft built in the 18th century. Construction started in the 1960s and took nearly two decades, with the first whisky production not taking place until 1990. Situated at the foot of the Cairngorm Mountains, the distillery is known for its picturesque setting and craft-focused approach.  Organic Architects director Bari Reid said heat and water recovery systems included in the plans are anticipated to reduce energy consump[tion by 44% for each litre of alcohol produced. Work on the scheme is scheduled to start this summer with the new energy efficient production equipment expected to switch on in early 2026.

Levitt Bernstein’s intergenerational development in Hackney, east London, brings together three different communities under one roof. Buccleuch House provides 41 independent homes for older people (for Hanover) along with 38 private sale apartments (for Hill) and 28 affordable rent and shared ownership apartments for the local Orthodox Jewish population (for AIHA – Agudas Israel Housing Association). The design of each tenure is tailored to its particular needs, delineated subtly on the outside by different balcony configurations, while contributing to a calm, cohesive whole. Architect's voice Our design provides three tenure types for the distinct users within one elegant building. To enhance older people’s housing quality, we developed flexible living spaces with open plan one-bed and two-bed typologies featuring quiet outdoor space. These units are positioned at the site’s southern end to maximise natural light. The Agudas Israel flats presented unique challenges, as they required larger family units. Orthodox Jewish homes feature staggered balconies providing clear sky views for the Sukkot festival. Private apartments are open plan, with one or two bedrooms to suit first-time buyers. Buccleuch House embodies simplicity without compromising design quality. The outcome is a cross-generational housing model for integrating the elderly within mainstream residential development. Irene Craik, director, Levitt Bernstein   Project data Location Clapton, London Type New build Context Urban Planning permission date December 2012 Completion June 2015 Construction cost £15 million Construction cost per m² £1,394 Construction cost per home £140,187 Number of homes 107 Housing type Flats Mix of homes Percentage of 1B2P: 46%, Percentage of 2B3P: 12%, Percentage of 2B4P: 22%, Percentage of 3B4P: 2%, Percentage of 3B5P: 8%, Percentage of 3B6P: 1%, Percentage of 4B6P: 9% Site area 0.59ha Density 181 homes per hectare Development area 7,832m² Height 5 storeys Tenure mix 38% social rent, 14% affordable rent, 12% shared ownership, 36% private sale Percentage of affordable housing 52% Aspect 100% dual-aspect homes Client Hill, Hanover Housing Association, Agudas Israel Housing Association (AIHA) Client type Developer and housing association Architectural appointment Competition Procurement Design and build Design or Quality Review Panel review Yes Design team novation Yes Lead contractor Hill Main structural system Concrete frameAdvertisement Environmental data Annual carbon emissions 12.34 kgCO2/m² Operational energy use Unknown Onsite energy generation 12% (via communal gas boilers and PVs) Average energy bill per home Unknown All-electric No Post-occupancy evaluation undertaken No U-values Walls: 0.18 W/m²K, Roofs: 0.11 W/m²K, Floors: 0.15 W/m²K, Windows: 1.3 W/m²K Airtightness at 50Pa 5 m³/h.m² Source:Levitt BernsteinRose, Hanover resident in older people’s housing, in her winter garden Residents' voices We really like the design of the building, from the brickwork to the beautiful balconies – you can see all over the Walthamstow marshes. One thing we really like about the building as a whole is that it has these three diverse neighbourhoods. It feels like a community that involves everyone. That was what we bought the place for. Annabelle I’ve got a nice view, I’ve got a balcony where I can go and sit out. I’m surrounded by some nice people. We’ve got some activities. It’s like an old town, really. My son is very happy because he knows that I’m in a safe place. He said: ‘I’ll have to put my name down for one of these!’ Rose, Hanover resident in older people’s housing Clients' voices The key to the success of obtaining planning – which was unanimous – was the close working relationship we enjoyed with the local community, the support and guidance from the planning and housing departments, as well as the partnership between Hill, Hanover and AIHA. Jamie Hunter, development director, Hill We were extremely excited about getting that site to meet the needs of the Orthodox Jewish community. We required the creation of sukkah, a balcony where orthodox Jews reside for a week in September to celebrate Sukkot. We all do appreciate the very sensitive design, which has incorporated our needs and created a really beautiful structure. Ita Symons, chief executive, Agudas Israel Housing AssociationAdvertisement It really has enhanced the environment. It’s provided 28 properties for the Jewish community and brought fresh, young people in and provided for lots of older people as well. Bruce Moore, chief executive, Hanover Housing Association

In-screen cameras, foldable screens, blood pressure tracking -- we round up all the rumors surrounding Apple's next-gen smartwatches, even beyond the Series 11.

Our first look at the long-awaited remaster of The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion comes from a leak of screenshots and details taken from port developer Virtuos' website. Read more

You can trust VideoGamer. Our team of gaming experts spend hours testing and reviewing the latest games, to ensure you're reading the most comprehensive guide possible. Rest assured, all imagery and advice is unique and original. Check out how we test and review games here Rare’s iconic Nintendo 64 FPS GoldenEye 007 is a game that spent decades trapped in rights management Hell. While the game is now playable on Xbox One and Nintendo Switch, the new version isn’t the shiny remaster fans really wanted for the game. In a recent interview, Nightdive Studios head Stephen Kick explained that the renowned remaster team pitched a huge remaster for the beloved James Bond game. However, Nintendo didn’t want to let the studio have their stab at bringing the game back to modern players. Nintendo stopped another GoldenEye 007 Remaster In a talk with VGC, Kick explained that Nightdive constructed a “dream team” to remaster the Nintendo 64 game properly. In the past, the studio had already worked with other beloved N64 titles, bringing back the Turok games to modern platforms better than ever. While the current version of GoldenEye on modern platforms is decent enough, Nightdive’s remastering efforts have been extensive. Turok brought modern rendering features, higher draw distances, better controls and more to the game, and the studio’s Star Wars: Dark Forces Remastered is an absolute game-changer. Nightdive successfully brought MGM/Eon, the rights holders to James Bond, on bord and put “a lot of effort” into pitching the game. Unfortunately, the remaster all fell apart when it came to asking Nintendo for permission. “It was: ‘OK, we’re ready to go.’ ‘Well, did you guys get the rights from Nintendo?’ ‘Wait a minute, we thought you had that.’” Kick said. “And then Nintendo was like, ‘Yeah, no third party’s ever going to touch any Nintendo stuff, ever.’” While Nightdive’s work on the Turok games had pulled Nintendo’s gaze towards the team, the company refused to make an exception to its very tight rule. The team explained that Nintendo’s response “was kind of minimal”, but they weren’t going to let the team touch any of their properties for a real remaster. This isn’t the only time a proper remaster of GoldenEye 007 has been shut down. During the Xbox 360 era, Rare created an entire remaster of the game with new assets, modern controls and more for the Xbox Live Arcade service. Just like the studio’s amazing re-release of Perfect Dark, the game wouldn’t been a great way to play the old N64 game, but it was also scrapped due to certain partners not playing ball. Nowadays, we can play GoldenEye 007 on Xbox One, Xbox Series and Nintendo Switch, and that 360 version has been shared online for gamers with the technical know-how to play. GoldenEye 007 Platform(s): Nintendo DS, Wii Genre(s): Action, First Person, Shooter 7 VideoGamer Subscribe to our newsletters! By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime. Share

Back in 1999, he said he was “a Detroiter for life,” but where does Eminem live now? Well, the acclaimed rapper, also known by his real name, Marshall Mathers, has stayed steadfastly true to his word. Though he ventured into the suburbs shortly after his meteoric rise to fame, Mathers has always opted to stay close to where it all began.“I can always go back and revisit my old neighborhood any time I want. And stuff like that is very important. Even if I just want to drive by one of my old houses or something,” he said in 2009 of the decision to stay. “It brings back memories for me. And there are a lot of memories I have here in Detroit. I'm just so comfortable here.” The rapper, who recently became a grandfather, is so comfortable in his Michigan home that he hasn’t bought another property in over two decades.Below, we trace the legendary artist’s real estate journey, from a small house off of Detroit’s 8 Mile Road to a mansion that clocks in at over 17,000 square feet.Childhood homeThe Detroit home where Eminem spent his teenage years was immortalized in 2000 when Mathers appeared sitting on its steps on the cover of his third studio album, The Marshall Mathers LP. “I had a lot of good and bad memories in that house. But to go back to where I grew up and finally say, ‘I've made it,’ is the greatest feeling in the world to me,” he said of the decision to put the humble abode on the album’s cover. Tucked in between 8 Mile and 7 Mile roads, the 767-square-foot brick two-bedroom at 19946 Dresden Avenue became a fan landmark.Even Mathers himself used to occasionally revisit the place. “It may sound corny, but I’ll go by and try to remember how things were when I was in those houses,” the rapper told SPIN in 2010. “I’ll go back and remember, like, f—, man, how life was back then. How much of a struggle it was. As time goes by, you might get content and forget things.”After a fire left it structurally unsound, the home was torn down in 2013. That same year, it appeared on the cover of another Eminem album, The Marshall Mathers LP 2, albeit in a much more decrepit state than when it was pictured 13 years prior. Reportedly, the musician’s former home “sat on a street with more than 70 vacant dwellings” at the time of its destruction. In 2016, Eminem sold 700 of the house’s bricks as official collectibles, complete with his signature and a commemorative plaque.The empty lot has since been put to good use: local nonprofit Detroit Hives announced plans in 2022 to convert it into a bee sanctuary.Sterling Heights padIn the summer of 1999, Mathers and his then-wife, Kim Scott, paid $450,000 for a nearly 5,000-square-foot 1980s dwelling in Detroit’s Sterling Heights neighborhood. Reportedly, the on-again, off-again pair redid the kitchen and primary bedroom, plus added in bright purple carpet.

Just say no After Harvard says no to feds, $2.2 billion of research funding put on hold The university also turned its homepage into a tribute to research. John Timmer – Apr 14, 2025 6:39 pm | 171 Credit: US Schools Credit: US Schools Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Trump administration has been using federal research funding as a cudgel. The government has blocked billions of dollars in research funds and threatened to put a hold on even more in order to compel universities to adopt what it presents as essential reforms. In the case of Columbia University, that includes changes in the leadership of individual academic departments. On Friday, the government sent a list of demands that it presented as necessary to "maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government." On Monday, Harvard responded that accepting these demands would "allow itself to be taken over by the federal government." The university also changed its home page into an extensive tribute to the research that would be eliminated if the funds were withheld. In response, the Trump administration later put $2.2 billion of Harvard's research funding on hold. Diversity, but only the right kind Harvard posted the letter it received from federal officials, listing their demands. Some of it is what you expect, given the Trump administration's interests. The admissions and hiring departments would be required to drop all diversity efforts, with data on faculty and students to be handed over to the federal government for auditing. As at other institutions, there are also some demands presented as efforts against antisemitism, such as the defunding of pro-Palestinian groups. More generally, it demands that university officials "prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions." There are also a bunch of basic culture war items, such as a demand for a mask ban, and a ban on "de-platforming" speakers on campus. In addition, the government wants the university to screen all faculty hires for plagiarism issues, which is what caused Harvard's former president to resign after she gave testimony to Congress. Any violation of these updated conduct codes by a non-citizen would require an immediate report to the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, presumably so they can prepare to deport them. However, the most striking aspect of the letter is the complete shift in tone about diversity. After having presented Harvard's existing diversity efforts as the antithesis of a merit-based approach, it suddenly demands that the university enforce what it terms viewpoint diversity. It never defines what this term means—perhaps alchemy in the chemistry department? But the implications are that it amounts to affirmative action for conservatives. Harvard is directed to "audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse." Any department that fails the audit would be required to start hiring new faculty until it can pass the undefined standards demanded by the feds. Again, all this is being presented as necessary for Harvard to continue receiving research funds. Harvard says nope! The university has decided these demands force it to fight, and it's attacking on two fronts. The first is public-facing; Harvard has turned its homepage into a tribute to its researchers and the work they pursue. Although it starts with a huge banner article as shown here, links to 30 individual articles on research fill the entire page. I have a fairly high-resolution screen, and it took hitting page down nine times to finally reach the bottom, where a handful of links to the rest of the university finally appear. The message is clear: The research that's under threat matters, and humanity will be worse off if its funding is cut. Harvard University's homepage on April 14, 2025. Credit: Harvard Separately, Harvard's legal response, which it made public today, is basically: nope. After detailing the steps the university has already taken to address antisemitism, it gets to the crux of the issue: "your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court." The harms these demands are meant to address, the letter alleges, haven't actually been demonstrated through processes that are required by law. It continues by essentially calling the government's demands the equivalent of a hostile takeover: The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle. Let's be clear: There is a good chance that Harvard is risking a catastrophic loss of funding, resulting in entire research programs being shut down, layoffs, and grad students with no way to pursue their thesis projects. It could well be a crisis that requires generations of new faculty hires to recover from. At the same time, the university also saw one of its peers, Columbia University, accede to a somewhat more limited set of demands, and have its funding put on hold anyway. Given that, the decision to prepare to gain public support and fight it out in court doesn't seem unreasonable. This story has been updated to reflect the actions of the federal government. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 171 Comments