“Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has recommended — and President Donald J. Trump has approved — death by U.S. Army firing squad for convicted terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan, the jihadist who opened fire on unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell announced. “He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ during the attack.

“The Secretary of the Army will set the time and place of the execution,” he continued. “Judgement day for Hasan has finally come.”

If Hasan’s execution is indeed carried out by a firing squad, it would mark the first such case for the service since Jan. 31, 1945, when Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik was executed by a U.S. Army firing squad in France for desertion during World War II.

The last death sentence carried out by the U.S. military was in 1961, when Army Pvt. John Bennett was executed by hanging at the gallows in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, after he was convicted of raping and attempting to kill a young girl.

Hasan, who was born in northern Virginia, walked into a Fort Hood readiness processing center on Nov. 5, 2009, and opened fire using a semi-automatic handgun.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier.

Former Army Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler, a two-time combat veteran, was shot four times in the attack and spent nearly a year recovering in various hospitals.

“He looked me straight in the eyes as he pointed the gun at me, and a split second later, I’m on the floor with a hole in my head,” he told the Killeen Daily Herald in 2023.

At his court-martial, Hasan, now 56, admitted to the shooting, and in 2013 said he carried out the attack in support of the Taliban.

At the time, Hasan requested a delay in court proceedings so he could ready a new legal strategy that would show he acted “in defense of others.”

Asked by presiding Judge Col. Tara Osborn who he was defending, Hasan replied, “The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban.”

Hasan was convicted by a military jury in August 2013, which recommended he be sentenced to death.

He was subsequently transferred to Fort Leavenworth, where he has been incarcerated on death row.

Jonathan Lehrfeld contributed to this report.

Now, Pentagon officials say that some of that AI is not part of the current revamp of the polygraph interview process, after Defense News asked for a response to concerns about the earlier statements and the slides.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon’s Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, or DCSA, which vets security clearance holders and applicants, said in an emailed statement that “active research and development” for the “Modernizing Polygraph” effort “does not incorporate generative super intelligence, also known as artificial intelligence,” that creates new content — such as emails, graphics or voiceovers.

Nor does the effort include “large language models,” meaning chatbots like ChatGPT and other programs trained on giant data sets to engage in human conversation, DCSA added.

And the research does not involve “facial action coding [of emotions], micro-expression analysis or vocal analyses,” the statement said. “While those technologies are not part of the effort,” DoD will “continue to monitor emerging scientific capabilities to evaluate their potential utility down the road.”

DCSA did not address other types of AI models that, according to the slides, researchers had been developing to scan spoken and written language for “deceptive speech” patterns.

Wednesday’s statement came after Defense News sought a response to criticisms from national security lawyers, scientists and AI auditors about AI’s ability to analyze deception — meaning not just to lie, but to do so knowingly and willfully.

They warned that AI-aided scanning of speech patterns, vocal stress or facial expressions to read minds lacks scientific backing, will compound errors and may violate civil liberties in a domain where few such rights exist.

Defense News chronicled their concerns and the Pentagon’s prior research and development of AI-aided lie-detection and emotion-estimation tools.

The recent DCSA statement, including the project name “Modernizing Polygraph,” contrasts with several earlier DoD statements, 2027 budget documents and DCSA slides that Defense News obtained through an open records request.

In July, a Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the technology, explained the advantages of AI-driven sentiment and deception analysis.

“AI processes data in real time and enables standardized, objective data analysis,” the official told Defense News, via email. “AI-based analysis is a force multiplier for our human investigators, not a replacement.”

The official added, “The models are primarily trained on data from laboratory-controlled studies using volunteer participants.”

The DCSA slides, which include presentations from 2021 through 2025, show that the Air Force, DCSA and academic labs had been working on “sentiment analysis” AI models and “deceptive speech” AI-aided analysis since 2019, as part of a “Credibility Assessment Modernization” project.

In July, the DoD official described the AI models as part of a larger multi-year “transformation,” which the official referred to interchangeably as “Polygraph+” and Credibility Assessment Modernization.

Current budget materials price the Polygraph+/Polygraph Next project at $31 million, including costs for AI “scoring algorithms” and “decision aids,” thermal imaging tools to spot blood flow changes that can reflect stress and other non-contact sensors.

On Friday, DCSA declined to provide additional information, including the scope of the “Modernizing Polygraph” project and the decision not to include AI-based voice screening and facial expression analysis.

Trained on Twitter and Reddit

Over the summer, Farakh Zaman, a developmental leader at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, elaborated on the appeal of AI-aided deception analysis.

“By processing subtle physiological, vocal and linguistic cues, these developmental algorithms may help establish a more objective baseline for investigators and pinpoint specific areas requiring further human-led clarification,” he said by email in July.

Wednesday’s DCSA statement said that the Air Force is not involved in the “active” research and development phase.

One undated declassified DCSA slide describes the Air Force amassing “deception-related” text to create a “deep learning model,” an algorithm that analyzes hordes of data to find patterns. The Air Force trained an early model on text from websites including Twitter, Reddit and other vocabulary data sets such as WordNet, according to the slide.

“This baseline training helps the algorithms understand natural, modern linguistic patterns, slang and everyday vocabulary,” Zaman explained in July. He acknowledged the need for “further rigorous testing, validation and a clear transition path” before fielding a prototype.

A separate DCSA slide, dated May 2025, contains a flowchart that depicts an avatar — a computer-generated image of an interviewer — in front of a security clearance applicant. Next to the applicant, a camera and microphone feed audio, video and speech-to-text data from the interview into various large language models. The recording devices and algorithms interact to gauge the applicant’s emotional state, while a human investigator observes and keys in questions for the avatar to ask.

DCSA’s Wednesday statement said the university that drafted the chart is not involved in the current research and development stage.

According to another undated DCSA slide, DoD has set a goal for natural language processing technology to interpret an interviewee’s feelings with 75% accuracy.

In July, the Pentagon official said by email that a human investigator remains essential for “the contextual reasoning and emotional intelligence required in these sensitive interviews.”

‘I’ve caught AI lying to me’

Ahead of Wednesday’s statement, Mark Zaid, a national security attorney who reviewed the slides, warned that the danger of derailing a military officer’s career is too great for AI to misinform an investigator.

The polygraph device “is just registering the physiology of the person,” such as spikes in breathing rate, perspiration or blood pressure, he said. “Then a human examiner analyzes those reactions to render an opinion.”

Here, however, “AI would be taking the polygraph readings and rendering an opinion” to the human examiner, said Zaid, who has represented individuals on all sides of the polygraph table, from workers disputing revoked clearances to former government officials and polygraphers.

“Now, we’re starting to get into the movie Minority Report,” he said, referencing a 2002 Steven Spielberg film that depicts a government reliant on psychic children for tips to predict crimes and detain people accused of future crimes.

Zaid, whose own clearance was revoked temporarily after he represented a whistleblower pivotal in President Trump’s first impeachment, said, “That concerns me more than the polygraph,” if science does not back AI’s reliability.

So far, scientific studies do not.

Rather, decades of research have discredited theories, popularized by shows such as Lie to Me, that anyone — human or artificial — can recognize deception based on speech patterns, vocal stress or facial movements.

Another concern scientists and auditors have is bias: the Justice Department has warned that using emotion-recognition algorithms to measure worker competency can discriminate against high performers with intellectual or developmental disabilities, who algorithms do not always understand.

Also, “automation bias,” the tendency to take AI’s advice without question even when conflicting information exists, may further erode the polygraph system’s reliability, technologists warned.

“[T]here is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable,” the Supreme Court declared in a 1998 decision banning polygraph results and polygraphers’ opinions from military courts.

Zaid said he appreciates the attempt to retool polygraph testing but wants proof that the planned approach is in fact an improvement.

“Anytime we might be able to scientifically advance the ability to determine truth, with accuracy, would generally be a good thing,” he said. But “the first thing that jumps out at me with AI is how often it is wrong…I’ve caught AI lying to me.”

Greg Rinckey, a former Army Judge Advocate General Corps officer who now provides security clearance representation, said that today’s “technology is so outdated, where they’re using tubes around people’s chests and blood pressure and sweat, so, any way that you can get a more reliable test for security clearances, especially counterintelligence investigations [into leaks], is a step up.”

That said, he questioned, “What is the research saying on how accurate it is?”

At present, research suggests the odds of AI-aided speech, voice or face analysis pegging a lie are about 50:50.

AI is ‘assuming dishonesty’

“There are no – reliable – diagnostic cues for deception detection, and I have yet to see any evidence, whether it is with humans or with artificial intelligence, that goes against that trend,” said David Markowitz, a Michigan State University professor who studies AI’s ability to understand human communication.

For instance, “the leakage idea — that these microfacial expressions will leak out from our awareness, signaling veracity or deceit — there’s very little evidence to support that, unfortunately,” he said.

Markowitz expressed doubts about AI-based deception analyses that claim an accuracy rate of 75% because “that is not how accurately humans do it, and often these systems are a big reflection of how humans do it.”

For example, he pointed to a recent experiment in which he prompted a Google Gemini AI model to examine audio and video of mock interrogations of accused cheaters in a trivia game, all of whom claimed innocence and some of whom were lying. Prior studies had asked humans to observe the same interrogations. DoD has entered into agreements to run a secure version of Gemini on unclassified and classified networks.

Markowitz said that his study, “The [in]efficacy of AI personas in deception detection experiments,” found Gemini was just as inaccurate as humans, both faring no better than chance, when prompted to distinguish fraudsters from truth-tellers.

What’s more, compared to humans, AI was more likely to wrongly accuse a trivia player of lying.

Markowitz gave one possible reason for AI’s systemic distrust of trivia players: The AI “is assuming that someone must have done something wrong because why else would they be questioned,” he said. “Anytime that someone is in an interview setting where they might be accused of something, a large language model is assuming dishonesty.”

Supreme Court: The jury is the lie detector

The consequences of a machine, whether a heart monitor or a voice screener, potentially bungling a credibility assessment can last a year or longer, said Zaid, the national security lawyer.

When officers who have successfully passed exams without issue suddenly fail their latest polygraph test, DoD typically puts them “in a corner with a dunce cap on for a year before officials will re-administer another exam,” he said. “You can’t get promoted. You can’t get certain assignments. And you can’t go overseas, which, to case officers, is death careerwise.”

Further, civil courts routinely dismiss complaints when employees claim that inaccurate results cost them their clearances. Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts have no power over such national security matters.

Concerns about power imbalances and due process prompted the European Union to label AI-aided polygraph tools as “high risk” and place strict limits on law enforcement’s use of them.

Stateside, the Supreme Court, in forbidding polygraph evidence in military courts, noted that allowing it would meddle with the human’s role, or, as it were, the jury’s role, in determining credibility.

“A fundamental premise of our criminal trial system is that the jury is the lie detector,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court’s 1998 United States v. Scheffer decision.

Pointing to the court’s decision, Zaid said that he wants assurances of due process when staff undergo administrative proceedings to contest a revoked clearance resulting from misaligned algorithms. Comparing the situation to successful cases disputing speeding tickets caused by a miscalibrated street camera, Zaid questioned, “Would the person be provided the evidence? An understanding of the AI’s training?”

New biases

Pentagon officials have long stressed the desire for AI-based lie detection to help curb gender and cultural biases that human investigators may carry into an interview room.

At the same time, employers’ use of similar technology for pre-employment screening has faced allegations of other biases and system errors.

“Facial expression analysis is heaviest in terms of biases against individuals with disabilities,” said Jo Ann Oravec, a University of Wisconsin professor whose research focuses on AI, public policy and disability issues.

For instance, AI-powered video screening of job applicants tends to misinterpret the involuntary twitches or vocal outbursts of skilled people with certain disabilities — and thus pass over qualified applicants, said Oravec, author of the 2024 article “From Polygraphs to Truth Machines: Artificial Intelligence in Lie Detection.”

In response to concerns about such biases in July, the Pentagon official said via email that the credibility assessment modernization plan adheres to DoD’s AI Ethical Principles of “responsible, equitable and traceable” use of algorithms.

The Air Force’s Zaman, in his July email, said that his team’s work aligns with DoD’s Responsible Artificial Intelligence Guidelines.

Researchers “are actively engineering and testing these models” to account for “diverse, representative training data,” he stated. The testing covers “broad variations in speech, language and expression.”

Ryan Carrier, founder of ForHumanity, a global nonprofit that helps organizations audit AI systems, said that the Pentagon’s principles and guidelines are a skeleton of those that the European Union follows and that ForHumanity uses for inspections.

For example, the EU’s AI Act demands users of high-risk systems receive training to overcome a different kind of bias called “automation bias” — or the tendency to execute AI’s advice without questioning its accuracy. This bad habit can lead to incorrect data overriding correct decisions, Carrier said.

Also, multimodal systems, meaning AI systems that simultaneously parse audio (the subject’s voice), video (their facial movements) and text (interview transcriptions), tend to misalign data and results, yielding an irrelevant analysis, Carrier said.

The system “could be making determinations that a person is lying or trying to deceive me that are outside of the tool’s specifications,” he explained.

In response to concerns about multimodal systems in July, the Pentagon official had said, “Any automated output is treated strictly as auxiliary data for a highly trained, certified polygraph examiner.”

Similarly, Zaman, at the time, said that investigators who use AI-aided deception-detection systems are “trained to contextualize the tool’s findings, preventing automated outputs from dictating an outcome.”

To safeguard against mismatched data or results, the Air Force keeps a documented history of each piece of data’s origin and modifications and brings in independent white-hat hackers to try producing false correlations, he added.

“We recognize that multimodal AI systems present unique technical challenges, and mitigating these risks by hardening our systems is central to our engineering and testing protocols,” Zaman said.

Reason for suspicion?

In August, when the Pentagon administered a raft of polygraph exams to probe leaks alleging the Iran conflict is depleting U.S. arsenals, some observers suspected the endgame was not to find the leakers, but to crack down on disloyalty.

Critics of the planned system said that AI-based deception analysis may be best suited to achieve the same purpose.

“If it’s purely an intimidation technique, it may not be utterly useless from the point of view of large bureaucracies,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

The expectations for AI-powered trustworthiness testing resemble the hope that U.S. national security officials held out for the polygraph about 100 years ago, other lawyers said.

Polygraph devices “were seen as this magic-miracle-machine when they first came out,” and, over time, the government learned that when seemingly making deductions, the tools were “actually just flagging correlating factors, like heart rate and physiological factors that can indicate lying, but aren’t actually reflective of it,” said Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Security and Surveillance Project.

He added, “Thinking that AI sentiment analysis tools are actually making an assessment or engaged in reasoning — that’s not what those machines are actually able to do.”

Fewer veterans died by suicide in 2024 than the previous year, and the rate — the number of deaths per member of the veteran population — also declined slightly, according to a new report from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The VA’s annual suicide prevention report, released last week, said that 6,488 veterans died by suicide in 2024, down from 6,662 in 2023. The rate of suicide among the nation’s veterans in 2024 also fell, from 36.6 per 100,000 in 2023 to 36.4 per 100,000 in 2024.

Despite the declines, the suicide rate among U.S. veterans remains more than twice the rate of the general U.S. population, which was 16.4 per 100,000 Americans in 2024 and 16.7 per 100,000 in 2023.

According to the report, the risk of suicide remains high for young veterans, with the highest rate — 45.5 per 100,000 among veterans ages 18 to 34. The rate was 38.5 per 100,000 for those ages 35 to 54; 32.7 per 100,000 for those ages 55 to 74; and 35.8 per 100,000 for those aged 75 and older.

But within those figures, there’s some good news for younger veterans: According to the VA, the rate decreased for those ages 18 to 34 by 4.7% and for those 35 to 54 by 2.3%.

The VA has invested millions in suicide prevention and outreach in recent years, conducting an outreach program to veterans that resulted in enrolling 250,000 veterans in VA care since January 2025 and launching a “Don’t Wait. Reach Out” public service campaign that the department says has contributed to 3.5 million veterans taking action.

The VA announced Tuesday it had awarded $111 million in grants to nonprofits, state and local governments and organizations to support suicide prevention programs. The Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program aims to connect with veterans who aren’t connected with VA services.

While the rates of suicide among veterans who receive health services from the VA remain higher than those who don’t get VA medical care, the rate for those enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration fell 4.8%, which VA officials said was significant given the complex medical needs and risk factors for suicide among veterans seeking health services.

Leaving military service has traditionally also been a significant risk factor. But suicides among those separated from active duty have declined dramatically since 2019, when the rate was 51.1 per 100,000 veterans. In 2023, the most recent year the data was available, the rate was 36.1 per 100,000.

VA officials said the Solid Start program, an effort to provide outreach to those recently separated from the military, has had an impact, with the rate of suicides among those who have been contacted at 30.5 per 100,000, and 42.7 per 100,000 among those the VA has tried to reach but did not make contact.

The department has launched several initiatives it hopes will make a bigger impact on veterans’ suicide, including tracking staff efforts to encourage veterans to enroll in VA care.

“VA healthcare saves lives, so we’re making every effort to get more Veterans into the system to get the care and benefits they’ve earned,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement. “That means deploying innovative new ways of reaching unenrolled Veterans, screening them for suicide risk and expanding suicide prevention training both inside and outside VA.”

More than 159,000 veterans have died by suicide since 2001. Those at highest risk include homeless veterans, those with mental health conditions and female veterans.

According to the new report, 17.7 veterans die by suicide each day, down from 19 per day in 2018, when a record 7,015 veterans took their own lives, according to the VA.

The data contained in the VA’s annual suicide report is based on national and state reports.

Floyd Johnson, who served in the Army from 1983 to 1985, was sentenced in 2013 to 40 years in prison on felony charges in Florida. While incarcerated, Johnson was diagnosed with service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder and received an 80% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Because Johnson was in prison, however, his rating was reduced to 10% because veterans who are incarcerated for more than 60 days are restricted by law from receiving full benefits.

To fight the reduction, Johnson, who represented himself, filed a case in a Florida district court arguing that Congress violated his constitutional rights by instituting a law that placed caps on veterans’ benefits for those in prison.

The Middle District of Florida court dismissed the case in 2022. Johnson appealed to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where he received legal representation and requested to name a new defendant — the VA or the VA secretary. He also strengthened his argument against the Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988, which created a process for veterans to appeal disability claims decisions.

Under the law, a veteran whose claim is denied or disputed goes to the Board of Veterans Appeals, and if the result is not satisfactory to the veteran, it can be appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Johnson’s attorneys argued that the Veterans Judicial Review Act improperly limited the process to the BVA and CAVC, stripping a veteran of the right to file suit in a district court.

They argued that a previous case allowed veterans to pursue benefits cases elsewhere under circumstances that involve constitutionality. They also noted in their Supreme Court petition that other appellate courts have agreed that veterans may take their cases to district courts.

“A veteran’s access to the courts should not vary depending on where he lives. This case presents an ideal vehicle for resolving this conflict on an important question of federal law,” they wrote in the petition.

During oral arguments Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the system “odd,” but not for the reasons that Johnson’s attorney — Jeffrey Chen of the Atlanta-based firm Bondurant, Mixson and Elmore — cited.

Sotomayor pointed out that with a regulation in place saying the BVA can’t address constitutional questions, the veteran can still appeal any decision that comes out of it, but the government cannot, according to the law.

“We have to take the system as it exists, and that’s a very odd system, is it not?” Sotomayor said. “It leads to your conclusion … which is let constitutional questions go to the court because that’s where the government would have a right to defend the law.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that if the Board of Veterans Appeals violated a veteran’s constitutional rights, they could appeal to the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and eventually, the federal circuit where constitutional questions are decided.

“He has that route. He still has a way of pressing the constitutional claim,” Barrett said.

Chen argued that restricting claims reviews and suits to the BVA process would “empower the inferior officers of the BVA to render final decisions” and disregard laws.

“None of the government’s proposed workarounds is consistent with the Veterans Judicial Review Act,” Chen said.

Assistant to the Solicitor General Kevin Barber argued that the current system is sufficient and the previous case cited by the plaintiff preceded the VJRA and should not apply because the law changed the entire process.

“VJRA fundamentally changed the statutory scheme. … It’s the current statute that matters,” Barber said.

He added that the plaintiff’s additional argument, that the VA can’t decide constitutional challenges to statutes, “is mistaken.”

“True, the Board of Veterans Appeals in the past has been inconsistent on its authority, sometimes deciding such claims and sometimes not, but as we see it, the board can and must decide veterans’ constitutional claims,” Barber said. “Petitioner’s contrary view would conflict with the statutory text and deprive veterans of their ability to bring such claims to the agency. It would even compel the VA to enforce a hypothetical benefit statute that was blatantly unconstitutional.”

An estimated 107,400 veterans are incarcerated in state or federal prisons, according to the Department of Justice, although not all receive VA disability benefits. Johnson’s case does not challenge the law that limits the amount of VA benefits veterans receive while imprisoned. But in their petition, Johnson’s attorneys said he plans to pursue that effort after the current case is decided.

“This case illustrates the impact of a single veterans’ benefits statute. Section 5313, the statute Mr. Johnson challenges, limits the benefits of thousands of veterans. Moreover, 30 percent of all veterans experience service-connected disabilities, and veterans with PTSD are disproportionately at risk of incarceration,” the petition states.

The court is expected to rule early next year.

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force David R. Wolfe announced the beret authorization in a recent social media post, saying the addition represents its career field and further drives recognition for the EOD community.

“EOD Airmen take on some of our joint force’s most complex and hazardous missions,” the post reads.

“The beret authorization aligns EOD’s uniform distinction with its designation as a specialized conventional combat-arms career field and recognizes the community’s role in delivering combat capability at the tactical edge,” the announcement continues.

The news of the distinctive beret was released during the graduation ceremony of the inaugural Project Multi-domain Airmen for Modern Battlefield Application, or MAMBA, course, which is the service’s redesigned predeployment training pipeline for EODs, according to a release.

The Project MAMBA course uses recent combat lessons and prepares EOD Airmen to operate in contested environments alongside joint and coalition forces.

“As you prepare to deploy and take on one of the Air Force’s most demanding missions, carry forward the pride and combat identity you have earned,” Wolfe said during the ceremony. “The EOD beret will stand as a visible recognition of that identity and your service to the joint force.”

The beret represents the EOD mission, while its rust color symbolizes the color historically associated with explosive hazards. The beret bears a metallic EOD badge, commonly called the “Crab,” meant to recognize the community’s mission, expertise and legacy..

EOD technicians will now join the other Air Force career fields authorized to wear berets, including Security Forces, Combat Control and Special Reconnaissance, who wear dark blue, scarlet and pewter gray berets, respectively.

A dozen B-1 bombers were stationed at RAF Fairford air base, located northwest of London. The planes had been used for U.S. strikes on Iran.

“While operational security precluded us from confirming the movement of our assets and forces in real-time, we can acknowledge now that all US bombers that were deployed to RAF Fairford have re-deployed to their home stations in the United States,” a Pentagon spokesman wrote in an email.

Britain has “strong indications” that Iran was involved in a suspected plot targeting the base, Prime Minister Andy ​Burnham said on Wednesday. Iran said accusations linking Tehran to the alleged plan were baseless and summoned the British ambassador in Tehran over the issue.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that the aircraft were removed from the base amid security concerns over suspected terror plots against the facility.

The British government had allowed the U.S. to use bombers based at Fairford to strike Iranian missile sites that were attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. President Donald Trump said those involved in the plot had planned “big damage” while US ​Secretary of State Marco Rubio also pointed to the “hands of a foreign actor.”