Inoreader Pro plan is required to export RSS feeds.
If you are the owner of the feed, please consider upgrading to Pro.
Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign

The Associated Press; Photograph by Doug Mills/The New York Times
Former President Donald J. Trump was whisked off the stage at his rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday after gunshots were fired toward the area where he was speaking. Mr. Trump could be seen bleeding from his right ear, and officials said that the shooting was being investigated as an assassination attempt.
By The New York Times; Aerial image by Doral Chenoweth/USA TODAY NETWORK, via Reuters
The rally took place on the grounds of the Butler Farm Show in western Pennsylvania, about 35 miles north of Pittsburgh. On Saturday afternoon, tens of thousands of rally attendees started trickling in after the doors opened at 1 p.m.
Mr. Trump was set to begin speaking at 5 p.m., but didn’t appear onstage until about an hour later. Here’s how the next 11 minutes unfolded based on footage of the rally.
6:03 p.m. Mr. Trump starts to take the stage, clapping and pointing to the crowd as the song “God Bless the U.S.A.” plays.
6:05 p.m. As the song concludes, Mr. Trump approaches the lectern and begins speaking. He spends the first six minutes talking about President Biden and the state of the country before focusing on immigration.
6:11 p.m. Mr. Trump turns to his right and gestures toward a screen with a chart showing statistics on border crossings. He faces north toward a set of bleachers filled with rally attendees. Behind the bleachers is a group of buildings around 400 feet away from the stage.
Eric Lee/The New York Times
Around the same time, several rally attendees notice a man with a gun on the roof of one of the nearby buildings. In a video posted on social media, one attendee can be heard yelling: “He’s on the roof. He’s got a gun!”
Seconds later A gunshot is heard, and Mr. Trump stops midsentence and flinches. He reaches for his right ear, as another two shots are quickly fired, and ducks behind the lectern. One male Secret Service agent is heard yelling, “Get down, get down, get down, get down!”
A photograph by Doug Mills, a New York Times photographer, appears to capture the image of a bullet streaking past Mr. Trump’s head.
Photos by Doug Mills/The New York Times
Secret Service agents surround Mr. Trump as a burst of five more shots is fired. Members of the crowd are panicking, screaming and crouching down. More security personnel run onto the stage, including several heavily armed law enforcement agents.
About 42 seconds after shooting began Agents stay crouched over Mr. Trump until an agent can be heard saying, “Shooter down.” The Secret Service confirmed later in a statement that its “personnel neutralized the shooter.”
The crowd claps and cheers as agents help Mr. Trump stand up. When he gets up, streaks of blood are visible on his right ear and across his face. His security begins to usher him toward the stairs, but before leaving the stage Mr. Trump pauses and raises his fist, pumping it in the air and appearing to mouth the words “Fight! Fight! Fight!” The crowd breaks into a chant of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”
Doug Mills/The New York Times
Two minutes after the shooting After agents escort Mr. Trump off the stage, he pumps his fist in the air one last time before he is led into a black S.U.V.
Eric Lee/The New York Times
A spectator who had been standing just outside the grounds said in an interview with the BBC that a few minutes into Mr. Trump’s speech, he noticed that someone was “bear-crawling up the roof,” clearly armed with a rifle, and that he tried to notify the police. Law enforcement officials later said that the gunman had opened fire from an elevated position outside the rally’s security perimeter.
After the shooting, the gunman’s body was seen on the rooftop of one of the buildings to Mr. Trump’s right. An AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle was recovered at the scene, according to law enforcement officials.
“I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear,” Mr. Trump said in a post on Truth Social, his social media platform. “I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin.”
Shortly after the shooting, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign said that the former president was “fine.” Mr. Trump will still attend the Republican National Convention this week, his advisers said in a statement.
One spectator at the rally, Corey Comperatore, a 50-year-old firefighter, was shot and killed. Two others were critically injured.
Photographs by Eric Lee and Doug Mills/The New York Times
After a secret review several years ago, the bureau cut off confidential sources thought to be connected to Russian disinformation.

Russian soldiers during a military parade in Moscow this month. The F.B.I. tries to maintain a difficult balance in spy operations: The more access informants have to valuable intelligence, the higher the risk that they could be compromised.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times
The F.B.I. cut ties to at least a handful of informants and issued warnings about dozens of others after an internal review prompted by concerns that they were linked to Russian disinformation, current and former U.S. officials said.
The review was carried out in 2020 and 2021 by a small group within the bureau’s counterintelligence division, with the findings then passed along to field offices, which handle informants.
It led to the severing of sources — some of whom had offered information about Russia-aligned oligarchs, political leaders and other influential figures — at a moment when the bureau was asking agents to produce more information from and about those same networks. The review was conducted during and after the 2020 election, when concerns about Russian meddling were running high, and at a time when the United States was closely monitoring whether Russia would invade Ukraine.
The episode highlighted a tricky balance: The more access informants have to valuable intelligence, the higher the risk that they could knowingly or unknowingly be used to channel disinformation. This is particularly true with regard to post-Soviet countries, where shifting alliances among oligarchs, politicians and intelligence services have far-reaching consequences that can be difficult for Western governments to discern.
Even in an age of high-tech intelligence gathering and surveillance, human sources continue to play an important role in law enforcement and national security, giving agents the chance to gather insights and perspective that cannot always be gleaned from communications intercepts, for example.
The New York Times has independently confirmed, but is not disclosing, the identities of several of the F.B.I. informants who provided information about Russia and Ukraine and who were cut off around the time of the review by the bureau’s counterintelligence division, including one informant that predated the review.
Johnathan C. Buma, an F.B.I. agent who oversaw at least four of the informants who were dropped, suggested in a written statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that law enforcement should embrace the murkiness that comes with operating in the shadows.
“Typical disinformation operations are based on partial truths, and the only way to determine the veracity of the allegations is to conduct an independent investigation to attempt corroboration,” Mr. Buma wrote in explaining his opposition to the terminations.
His statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is led by Democrats, as well as a statement Mr. Buma submitted earlier to a special subcommittee of the Republican-controlled House, came after he filed a whistle-blower complaint accusing the F.B.I. of suppressing intelligence from his sources and retaliating against him.
The F.B.I. is investigating Mr. Buma’s dealings with an informant he worked with after the bureau cut off those identified in the counterintelligence review, a person familiar with the matter said.
The F.B.I. had been aware of Russian disinformation efforts for years, and eventually became concerned that the campaign extended to its own informants.
In particular, the F.B.I. watched as informants across the bureau’s different divisions began peddling new information that was politically explosive. It included reports regarding President Biden’s family and former President Donald J. Trump, as well as other inflammatory topics, according to former and current U.S. officials and an ex-informant for the counterintelligence division.
The types of concerns that prompted the review spilled into public view in February, when prosecutors indicted a longtime informant on Russia and Ukraine matters, Alexander Smirnov, for lying to the F.B.I.
Prosecutors accused him of fabricating claims about bribes paid to the Bidens by a Ukrainian energy company whose board included the president’s son, Hunter Biden. Prosecutors said Mr. Smirnov had passed along information about Hunter Biden — though they did not provide specifics — from Russian intelligence.
Mr. Smirnov was flagged as part of the F.B.I. review but he was not shut down, because information he was providing was being used in other investigations, the former and current U.S. officials said.
Around the time of the review, the F.B.I. circulated internal memos to agents hinting at competing imperatives. On the one hand, agents were instructed to gather more intelligence from informants about Russian efforts to meddle in U.S. politics, and to retaliate against the United States for its support of Ukraine.
On the other, they were urged to be on the lookout for disinformation, misinformation or influence operations from foreign governments that took aim at American politics, according to the memos, which were obtained by The Times.
The memos, each of which was labeled “collection priorities message,” listed the identification numbers and handling agents of informants who could be of assistance on such matters. The memos do not mention the terminations, or any concerns about specific informants.
A former official said that dozens of F.B.I. agents in field offices were warned to handle their informants, known as confidential human sources, with extra care because the Russians might have been aware of their contact with the United States. Under bureau policy, the decision to end relationships with informants rests with the F.B.I. field offices and not headquarters.
A U.S. official described this effort as an “awareness campaign” inside the F.B.I.
The bureau’s sources are often encouraged to maintain associations with criminal figures or foreign intelligence services. The idea is for them to report back on those associates; in the process, though, they can become conduits used by those associates to inject false information — intentionally or unknowingly — into the realms of U.S. law enforcement or intelligence.
Some terminations in early 2022 were classified as precautionary and not for cause, according to Mr. Buma’s statement and one of his former informants. That suggests there was no specific evidence that those informants had willfully tried to channel Russian disinformation into federal law enforcement, but rather that there was concern that they might have done so unwittingly, or merely been associated with people believed to be pushing disinformation, or politically motivated information.
Information provided by one of Mr. Buma’s terminated informants, an American businessman with deep connections overseas, was used by the special counsel investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to Mr. Buma’s statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Other information from the businessman was used to revoke the U.S. visa of a Ukrainian-Russian oligarch and to support the decision to impose sanctions on a Ukrainian oligarch who had been a key backer of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, according to Mr. Buma’s statement. And it was used to identify two corrupt federal law enforcement agents.
Among the associations that appear to have raised red flags within the F.B.I. was the businessman’s recruitment of two Ukrainians who would themselves become F.B.I. informants. One of the Ukrainians was a former K.G.B. agent who had become a Ukrainian intelligence operative, who developed high-level Ukrainian government contacts through his leadership of a foundation dedicated to tracking kleptocracy, according to Mr. Buma’s statement. It identified the other as a researcher for the foundation who had a background in economics.
In January 2019, according to interviews and Mr. Buma’s statement, the two Ukrainians traveled to the Los Angeles area for meetings during which they provided information to representatives from the F.B.I. and other agencies about oligarchs, money laundering and Ukrainian and American political figures.
Among their claims was one that Hunter Biden had failed to disclose lobbying he did for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and had failed to pay taxes on income from the company. Mr. Biden was not charged with lobbying violations. He was charged last year with failure to file tax returns covering millions of dollars in income from Burisma and other foreign businesses. It is not clear whether information from the two Ukrainian informants played any role in the investigation.
The F.B.I. first pressed to cut off the businessman after he and the two Ukrainians attended a conservative gala in May 2019. At the event, the Ukrainians presented a thumb drive containing allegations about Mr. Biden and other Democrats to an aide traveling with Mike Pompeo, then the secretary of state, according to internal F.B.I. reports and an article published in Business Insider.
Mr. Buma successfully resisted efforts to terminate the American businessman.
Mr. Buma argued that the informant was granting the F.B.I. a critical view into a murky world that was increasingly important to U.S. national security as Russia built up its efforts to influence American politics and exert control over Ukraine, according to interviews and the statement Mr. Buma provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Buma had been trained by the bureau to speak Russian. Part of his job was identifying and recruiting informants with access to Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, politicians and their networks.
The American businessman became “one of the F.B.I.’s top C.H.S.s whose reporting had been extensively corroborated through predicated investigations, with numerous well-documented high-impact successes related to countering foreign influence and public corruption on both sides of the political spectrum,” Mr. Buma wrote in his statement to the Senate, referring to confidential human sources.
Yet, in the weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the bureau again expressed concerns about the businessman and other sources connected to him.
In a meeting in February 2022, an official with the bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force told Mr. Buma that he was “not the only field agent whom they were asking to close their sources related to Russia/Ukraine matters just as the war erupted,” Mr. Buma wrote in his statement to the Senate. “When I questioned the wisdom of their request, the supervising analyst claimed their recommendation relied on highly classified information from the National Security Agency.”
The informants were closed out, as were others linked to the businessman, including, Mr. Buma recalled in his statement, “many other productive sources in that category who took years for me to develop.”
Mr. Buma suggested in his statement that the closures were an effort to shut down investigations that might implicate Trump allies, including Rudolph W. Giuliani. Mr. Buma had collected information from the businessman about Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to damage the Bidens by highlighting their work in Ukraine.
The F.B.I. declined to comment on Mr. Buma’s claims.
Mr. Buma privately discussed his allegations last summer with Republican staff members for the House subcommittee and with aides to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There is no evidence that either congressional committee is investigating his claims. A spokesman for the House subcommittee declined to comment, while representatives for the Senate Judiciary Committee and Mr. Whitehouse did not respond.
Months later, Mr. Buma’s home was searched for classified information by the F.B.I. Mr. Buma has been suspended from the bureau, but he has not been criminally charged.
Scott Horton, a lawyer for Mr. Buma, cast the investigation as “revenge” against his client for having suggested that the F.B.I.’s handling of confidential sources was affected by political bias against the Bidens and in favor of Mr. Trump’s allies.
Mr. Horton said he had met with Hunter Biden’s lawyers to discuss how Mr. Buma’s story might be of assistance. Another lawyer for Mr. Buma, Mark Geragos, is also representing Mr. Biden.
Kenneth P. Vogel is based in Washington and investigates the intersection of money, politics and influence. More about Kenneth P. Vogel
Adam Goldman writes about the F.B.I. and national security. He has been a journalist for more than two decades. More about Adam Goldman
U.S. President Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy (right) during the NATO summit on July 11. Biden introduced Zelenskiy as “President Putin” before quickly correcting himself.
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Joe Biden, speaking in a highly anticipated news conference following the conclusion of the NATO summit in Washington on July 11, stressed his efforts building partnerships to oppose Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and said he would “keep NATO strong.”
“For those who thought NATO’s time had passed, they got a rude awakening when [Russian President Vladimir] Putin invaded Ukraine,” Biden said.
In an eight-minute opening address that often took on the appearance of a campaign speech at a time when his pursuit of a second presidential term is being openly questioned, Biden lauded his early action in alerting the world that Russia was about to invade its neighbor and in building a coalition of partners to oppose it.
Biden said that Putin thought that Ukraine would fall “in less than a week,” but that the country “still stands.” He also said that he would do everything to “end the war now.”
The press appearance was seen as a pivotal moment in Biden’s attempts to overcome his disastrous performance during his debate two weeks ago against Donald Trump, his presumptive Republican opponent in the November presidential election.
The 81-year-old Biden’s tired appearance and verbal missteps during the June 27 debate fueled doubts about his ability to beat Trump or to serve a full second term should he win. Calls have grown among Democratic supporters and elected officials for Biden to end his campaign, although high-ranking party figures have continued to support his bid to win a second term in office.
Going into what some described as a make-or-break press appearance following the NATO summit, Biden was already facing criticism for mistakenly referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as “President Putin.”
Early on in the press conference, Biden made another gaffe when he mistakenly referred to Trump as his “vice president.”
When pressed by reporters during a 50-minute question-and-answer session about his fitness for another term, Biden made his case for continuing his campaign, saying neurological exams showed that he was “in good shape” and insisting that he was the “best qualified to govern” the United States.
In the aftermath of a NATO summit in which the alliance boosted its support for Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself against Russia and referred to China as a “decisive enabler” of Moscow’s war effort, Biden said that in the event of future negotiations with Russian President Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping, he was “ready to deal with them now, and in three years.”
However, he added, that he was not ready to talk to Putin “unless Putin is ready to change his behavior.”
“The idea that we’re going to be able to fundamentally change Russia in the near term is not likely,” Biden said. “But one thing is for certain, if we allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine, they’re not stopping at Ukraine.”
Biden said, however, that the United States would take a cautious approach on the issue of allowing Ukraine to launch deep strikes into Russian territory.
“We’re making on a day-to-day basis on what they should and shouldn’t do, how far they should go in,” Biden said. “That’s a logical thing to do.”
The comments came after Ukrainian President Zelenskiy pressed NATO leaders to lift all restrictions against Kyiv using their donated weaponry to launch long-range strikes onto Russian territory if they want to see Ukraine defeat Russia’s invading forces.
“If he [Zelenskiy] had the capacity to strike Moscow, strike the Kremlin, would that make sense? It wouldn’t,” Biden said.
The United States in early May gave Kyiv the green light to use U.S. weapons to strike just over the border on Russian territory to help Ukraine beat back a major Russian offensive near Kharkiv.
Biden, in a meeting with Zelenskiy earlier in the day, said he was pleased to announce the allocation of new aid to Ukraine to help it defeat Russia.
“We will stay with you, period,” Biden said ahead of bilateral talks.
The United States later announced it would be sending $225 million worth of military equipment to Ukraine, the eight tranche since the passage of a $61 billion aid package in April. The latest tranche includes a Patriot missile battery, anti-aircraft systems and munitions, as well as artillery ammunition and rockets.
During his press appearance following the end of the NATO summit, Biden positioned himself as a protector of the alliance, while casting Trump as a danger.
Biden accused Trump, who during his presidency from 2017 to 2021 often criticized NATO members and suggested he might pull the United States out of the alliance, as having “no commitment to NATO.”
“He’s made it clear that he would feel no obligation to honor Article 5,” Biden said of Trump, referring to the NATO defense pact that requires the alliance to respond in the event any individual member state is attacked.
Biden also claimed that during the NATO summit, other leaders had told him that another Trump presidency would be a “disaster.”
“I’ve not had any of my European allies come up here and say ‘Joe, don’t run,'” Biden told reporters. “What I hear them say is ‘You’ve gotta win. You can’t let this guy [Trump] come forward, he’d be a disaster.'”
After Biden’s gaffe in which he introduced Ukrainian President Zelenskiy as “President Putin” before quickly correcting himself, some NATO leaders came to his defense.
French President Emmanuel Macron said that Biden was “in charge” during the two-day summit, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that “slips of tongue happen.”
During the question-and-answer session, however, at least one reporter suggested that NATO officials had said off the record that Biden’s “decline had become noticeable.”
The latest episodes of so-called Havana syndrome, a series of unexplained ailments afflicting US and Canadian diplomats and spies, span the globe. They include two diplomats in Hanoi, Vietnam — which disrupted Vice President Kamala Harris’s foreign travel schedule — in August, several dozen reports at the US Embassy in Vienna earlier this year and a pair of incidents at the White House last November.
The cause of these incidents is unknown, but speculation in the US centres on electromagnetic beams.
If Havana syndrome turns out to be caused by weapons that shoot energy beams, they won’t be the first such weapons. As an aerospace engineer and former Vice Chair of the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, I’ve researched directed energy. I can also personally attest to the effectiveness of directed energy weapons.
In 2020, a study on Havana syndrome by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded that the more than 130 victims experienced some real physical phenomena and that the cause was most likely some form of electromagnetic radiation.
These incidents began in 2016 with reports of multiple personnel at the US embassy in Havana, Cuba, experiencing alarming and unexplained symptoms. The symptoms included a feeling of pressure on the face, loud noises, severe headaches, nausea and confusion. In some cases, the victims seem to have been left with permanent health effects.
Scientists from Cuba’s Academy of Sciences issued a report refuting the US National Academies report and ascribing the reported symptoms to psychological effects or a range of ordinary ailments and preexisting conditions. But based on my own experience, directed energy appears to be a plausible explanation.
Here’s how these beams affect people.
There is a very wide range of electromagnetic waves that are characterised by wavelength, which is the distance between successive peaks. These waves can interact with different types of matter, including human bodies, in a variety of ways.
The electromagnetic spectrum spans radio waves to gamma waves. NASA
At short wavelengths, a few hundred-billionths of a metre, ultraviolet rays from the Sun can burn the skin’s surface if someone is exposed for too long. Microwaves have longer wavelengths. People use these every day to reheat meals. Microwaves transfer energy into the water molecules inside food.
The US military has developed an Active Denial System that aims microwaves at people to cause pain without injury. US Air Force
The US military has developed a directed energy technology that shoots beams of a slightly longer wavelength in a focused area over distances up to a mile. This directed energy technology was designed for nonlethal control of crowds. When these waves interact with a person, they pass through the skin and transfer energy to the water that lies just under the surface.
I had the opportunity to be zapped by one of these systems. I stood about a half-mile from the source and the beam was turned on. The portion of my body exposed to the beam got hot really quickly, and I immediately stepped out of the beam. The feeling was as though someone had just opened the door of a large furnace right by me.
A demonstration of a military Active Denial System.
At even longer wavelengths, electromagnetic radiation can interact with electronic systems and can be used to disable computers and control systems. For these waves, interaction with matter generates electrical currents and fields that interfere with the electrical systems. The military is developing these technologies to defend against drone attacks.
Defence through detection
It’s plausible that at just the right wavelength, an electromagnetic beam could be projected over hundreds of yards to create the symptoms seen in Havana syndrome incidents. If this is the case, it’s likely that these beams are interfering with the electrical functions of the brain and central nervous system.
For example, the Frey effect involves microwaves activating the auditory sensory nerves. Other studies have noted potential effects of microwaves on the central nervous system, such as decreased response time, social dysfunction and anxiety.
Further study is needed to determine the cause of Havana syndrome incidents. Unfortunately, this type of electromagnetic radiation does not leave a telltale trace like sunburn, which makes it difficult to be certain of the explanation.
While the results of the National Academies study were made public, it is likely that federal agencies are carrying out additional activities behind the scenes to try to explain these incidents and determine who is to blame.
Similar to responding to cyberattacks, though, the government may be reluctant to release too much information to the public because it could reveal techniques for detecting and countering the attacks.
If the source of Havana syndrome turns out to be electromagnetic waves, then in principle, buildings could be hardened against them. However, it would be expensive and would still leave people vulnerable outdoors.
Perhaps the best option to prevent further attack is detection. It is relatively simple and inexpensive to install sensors to detect electromagnetic waves on buildings and vehicles. Such sensors could also help identify the location of the source of the attacks and, in this way, act as a deterrent.
Assuming Havana syndrome is the result of deliberately targeted electromagnetic beams, employees of the US government and other nations will remain susceptible to these attacks until governments take such defensive measures.
[Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter.]
Iain Boyd, Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The latest episodes of so-called Havana syndrome, a series of unexplained ailments afflicting US and Canadian diplomats and spies, span the globe. They include two diplomats in Hanoi, Vietnam — which disrupted Vice President Kamala Harris’s foreign travel schedule — in August, several dozen reports at the US Embassy in Vienna earlier this year and a pair of incidents at the White House last November.
The cause of these incidents is unknown, but speculation in the US centres on electromagnetic beams.
If Havana syndrome turns out to be caused by weapons that shoot energy beams, they won’t be the first such weapons. As an aerospace engineer and former Vice Chair of the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, I’ve researched directed energy. I can also personally attest to the effectiveness of directed energy weapons.
In 2020, a study on Havana syndrome by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded that the more than 130 victims experienced some real physical phenomena and that the cause was most likely some form of electromagnetic radiation.
These incidents began in 2016 with reports of multiple personnel at the US embassy in Havana, Cuba, experiencing alarming and unexplained symptoms. The symptoms included a feeling of pressure on the face, loud noises, severe headaches, nausea and confusion. In some cases, the victims seem to have been left with permanent health effects.
Scientists from Cuba’s Academy of Sciences issued a report refuting the US National Academies report and ascribing the reported symptoms to psychological effects or a range of ordinary ailments and preexisting conditions. But based on my own experience, directed energy appears to be a plausible explanation.
Here’s how these beams affect people.
There is a very wide range of electromagnetic waves that are characterised by wavelength, which is the distance between successive peaks. These waves can interact with different types of matter, including human bodies, in a variety of ways.
The electromagnetic spectrum spans radio waves to gamma waves. NASA
At short wavelengths, a few hundred-billionths of a metre, ultraviolet rays from the Sun can burn the skin’s surface if someone is exposed for too long. Microwaves have longer wavelengths. People use these every day to reheat meals. Microwaves transfer energy into the water molecules inside food.
The US military has developed an Active Denial System that aims microwaves at people to cause pain without injury. US Air Force
The US military has developed a directed energy technology that shoots beams of a slightly longer wavelength in a focused area over distances up to a mile. This directed energy technology was designed for nonlethal control of crowds. When these waves interact with a person, they pass through the skin and transfer energy to the water that lies just under the surface.
I had the opportunity to be zapped by one of these systems. I stood about a half-mile from the source and the beam was turned on. The portion of my body exposed to the beam got hot really quickly, and I immediately stepped out of the beam. The feeling was as though someone had just opened the door of a large furnace right by me.
A demonstration of a military Active Denial System.
At even longer wavelengths, electromagnetic radiation can interact with electronic systems and can be used to disable computers and control systems. For these waves, interaction with matter generates electrical currents and fields that interfere with the electrical systems. The military is developing these technologies to defend against drone attacks.
Defence through detection
It’s plausible that at just the right wavelength, an electromagnetic beam could be projected over hundreds of yards to create the symptoms seen in Havana syndrome incidents. If this is the case, it’s likely that these beams are interfering with the electrical functions of the brain and central nervous system.
For example, the Frey effect involves microwaves activating the auditory sensory nerves. Other studies have noted potential effects of microwaves on the central nervous system, such as decreased response time, social dysfunction and anxiety.
Further study is needed to determine the cause of Havana syndrome incidents. Unfortunately, this type of electromagnetic radiation does not leave a telltale trace like sunburn, which makes it difficult to be certain of the explanation.
While the results of the National Academies study were made public, it is likely that federal agencies are carrying out additional activities behind the scenes to try to explain these incidents and determine who is to blame.
Similar to responding to cyberattacks, though, the government may be reluctant to release too much information to the public because it could reveal techniques for detecting and countering the attacks.
If the source of Havana syndrome turns out to be electromagnetic waves, then in principle, buildings could be hardened against them. However, it would be expensive and would still leave people vulnerable outdoors.
Perhaps the best option to prevent further attack is detection. It is relatively simple and inexpensive to install sensors to detect electromagnetic waves on buildings and vehicles. Such sensors could also help identify the location of the source of the attacks and, in this way, act as a deterrent.
Assuming Havana syndrome is the result of deliberately targeted electromagnetic beams, employees of the US government and other nations will remain susceptible to these attacks until governments take such defensive measures.
[Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter.]
Iain Boyd, Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

1 April 2024
Tbilisi
‘Non-lethal Acoustic Weapons’
The Son Also Rises
The Frankfurt Attacks
Euromaidan and the New Era of Special Tasks
The Ghosts of Kyiv Station
The GRUs Amazing Race
A Promotion – and a Prize
Operation Reduktor
Don’t Say ‘The Russians Are Trying to Hurt Us’
He was tall, certainly taller than Joy’s neighbors and the Georgians she’d come to know in her time of living in Dighomi, an upscale residential community in Tbilisi. He was young and thin and blonde and well-dressed — as if headed to the theater, or perhaps a wedding.
Minutes earlier on October 7, 2021, Joy, an American nurse and the wife of a U.S. Embassy official, had been taking her laundry out of the dryer when she was completely consumed by an acute ringing sound that reminded her of what someone in the movies experiences after a bomb has gone off. “It just pierced my ears, came in my left side, felt like it came through the window, into my left ear,” Joy remembers. “I immediately felt fullness in my head, and just a piercing headache.” She ran out of the laundry room on the second floor of her house and into the bathroom adjoining the master bedroom. Then she vomited.
Joy and her husband, Hunter, a Justice Department attaché in the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, had only arrived in Georgia in Feb. 2020, right before the COVID-19 lockdown. Despite the “all-consuming” noise in her head, Joy called Hunter. (Both their names have been changed for this article to protect their identities.) As the spouse of a U.S. official serving abroad, she’d undergone overseas survival training and remembered that if something didn’t feel right, the first thing you do is “get off the X” – leave the location. Joy checked the house’s security camera at the front door to see if anyone was outside.
A black Mercedes crossover was parked just beyond the gate of her property, directly opposite her laundry room. Joy went outside, and that’s when she saw the tall, thin man. She raised her phone to photograph him.
“It was like he locked eyes with me. He knew what I was doing.” Then he got into the Mercedes, and it drove off. Joy took a picture of the car and its license plate as it pulled away. She says she didn’t see the man again until three years later, when she was shown a photograph of Albert Averyanov, a Russian operative attached to Unit 29155, a notorious assassination and sabotage squad of the GRU, Moscow’s military intelligence service.

Albert is not an ordinary Russian spy. Aged only 23 when this encounter took place, he was the son of the founding commander of Unit 29155, Gen. Andrei Averyanov, 56, who is now the powerful deputy director of the GRU, tasked with running the Kremlin’s foreign policy in Africa. To the public, he was a fresh graduate of Moscow State University, where he had earned a masters’ in “management of migration processes,” a topic in which his father took a keen interest. Even within the nepotistic GRU, Albert’s trajectory was unusually steep — a young cadet who was being groomed for a bright career in espionage. In 2019, only 20, he’d even interned in Geneva with the rezidentura of Unit 29155, disguising his visit to the international Swiss capital as legions of other Russian intelligence officers have: as an English language-learning trip. Such was Andrey’s desire to see his son follow in his footsteps that the GRU had to ignore its own rules of recruitment, which mandate officers blend in with their surroundings. As a 6’2” young blonde, Albert was conspicuous in any crowd, let alone a tony suburb of Tbilisi.
When Joy saw Albert’s face three years later, she had a “visceral” reaction. “I can absolutely say that this looks like the man that I saw in the street.”
A yearlong investigation by The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, has uncovered evidence suggesting that unexplained anonymous health incidents, also known as Havana Syndrome, may have their origin in the use of directed energy weapons wielded by members of Unit 29155.
Among this investigation’s core findings is the fact that senior members of the unit received awards and political promotions for work related to the development of “non-lethal acoustic weapons,” a term used in Russian military-scientific literature to describe both sound- and radiofrequency-based directed energy devices, as both would result in acoustic artifacts in the victim’s brain.
These and other operatives attached to Unit 29155, traveling undercover, have been geolocated to places around the world just before or at the time of reported anomalous health incidents — or AHIs, as the U.S. government formally refers to Havana Syndrome. Furthermore, Joy is not the only victim to identify a known member of this Russian black ops squad lurking around her home.
The first sighting may have happened exactly seven years earlier. Contrary to the information that has been made public about Havana Syndrome — that it began in the eponymous Cuban capital in 2016 — there were likely attacks two years earlier in Frankfurt, Germany, when a U.S. government employee stationed at the consulate there was knocked unconscious by something akin to a strong energy beam. The victim was later diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury, and was also able to identify a Geneva-based Unit 29155 operative. (The incident occurred within months of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, in which a stealthy, nearly bloodless seizure of the Crimean peninsula in Feb. and Mar. 2014 gave way to a roiling eight-year-long dirty war in the eastern industrial heartland of Donbas, close to Ukraine’s border with Russia.)
The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel have uncovered documentary evidence that Unit 29155 has been experimenting with exactly the kind of weaponized technology experts suggest is a plausible cause for the mysterious medical condition that has to date affected over a hundred far-flung U.S. spies and diplomats, as well as several Canadian officials. Many are seasoned subject matter specialists on Russia, fluent in the language; others have expertise in different fields, such as the Middle East or Latin America, but were assigned after the takeover of Crimea to sensitive U.S. government roles aimed at countermanning Russian aggression and intelligence operations across Europe and North America.
Unit 29155, moreover, is infamous within the U.S. intelligence community. “Their scope is global for conducting lethal operations and acts of sabotage,” a former high-ranking CIA officer with subject matter expertise in Russia told The Insider. “Their mission is to find, fix, and finish, all in support of Vladimir Putin’s imperial dreams.”
“Unit 29155’s scope is global for conducting lethal operations and acts of sabotage. Their mission is to find, fix, and finish, all in support of Vladimir Putin’s imperial dreams.”
Originally conceived as a training unit within the GRU, it was reorganized and expanded in 2008 as an operations team devoted to assassination, sabotage, and political destabilization campaigns across the world. Three members of this unit, Col. Alexander Mishkin, Col. Anatoliy Chepiga and Maj. Gen. Denis Sergeev, were responsible for poisoning British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia with the military-grade nerve agent Novichok in Salisbury, England in 2018. In 2015, Denis Sergeev and other unit members twice poisoned Bulgarian arms dealer Emilian Gebrev with a similar organophosphate weapon, almost certainly because Gebrev’s company, EMCO, was selling ammunition to Georgia and Ukraine, two countries that had recently been at war with Russia. Unit 29155 also used Serbian mercenaries to orchestrate a failed coup in Montenegro on the eve of that nation’s accession to NATO in 2016. As The Insider was the first to report, the unit was responsible for a series of explosions at ammunition and weapons depots across Bulgaria and Czechia — explosions which began in 2011, two years after Unit 29155’s reconstitution as a black ops squad and right in the middle of the Obama administration’s “reset” with Moscow. (These operations injured or killed dozens of innocent bystanders; their exposures have led to the expulsion of 19 Russian diplomats from Sofia and Prague, respectively, as well as indictments by the Bulgarian government of all the Unit 29155 saboteurs implicated in bombings in that country.) More recently, members of the unit were deployed as an advanced sabotage-and-kill team in Ukraine in the days ahead of Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country, in late Feb. 2022.
Unlike other teams within Russia’s sprawling intelligence apparatus, this one doesn’t spy on people, at least not for the sake of gathering information. It is devoted exclusively to so-called kinetic — i.e. violent — military operations. Its predecessor and analog was the Soviet KGB’s department devoted to “special tasks,” which conducted assassinations and acts of terrorism abroad. Its most sinister spadework included killing Ukrainian nationalists in Europe with bombs and cyanide guns and plunging an ice-axe into the skull of exiled revolutionary Leon Trotsky in Mexico in 1940.
Havana Syndrome, itself long thought to be the accrued biological effect caused by a different kind of unique weapon, encompasses a variation of symptoms including: chronic headaches, vertigo, tinnitus, insomnia, nausea, lasting psychophysiological impairment, and, in some cases, blindness or hearing loss. Many victims have said they were fine one minute, then stricken with an intense pain or pressure in their skull the next — usually localized to one side of the head, as if they were caught in a beam of concentrated energy. A good number have been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries. Others have suffered such severe long-term cognitive and vestibular aftereffects that they can no longer function on a day-to-day basis and have been medically retired from government service.
Joy has suffered from headaches every day for the past three years. She has also undergone two surgeries for semicircular canal dehiscence (the appearance of holes in the bony walls that encase her inner ears). She will need a third surgery to address the rapid deterioration of her temporal bone, a condition she says her neurosurgeon cannot explain.
Havana Syndrome first gained public attention in 2017 in connection with strange ailments affecting more than twenty CIA and State Department officials posted to Cuba in the wake of revivified diplomatic relations between the Obama administration and the government headed by Fidel Castro’s brother Raúl.
Havana Syndrome first gained public attention in 2017 in connection with strange ailments affecting more than twenty CIA and State Department officials posted to Cuba in the wake of revivified diplomatic relations between the Obama administration and the government headed by Fidel Castro’s brother Raúl. The cases were recorded in Havana between May 2016 and September 2017, when the Trump administration radically reduced the State Department’s presence on the Caribbean island and the CIA withdrew all of its personnel from the reopened U.S. Embassy there. But few in the intelligence community believed the Cubans were behind the phenomenon. Given Moscow’s outsize influence on the Communist-run nation, the prevailing theory was that the Russians had carried out the attacks as part of an effort to hamper the U.S.-Cuban rapprochement.
Well over 100 AHI cases have been cited worldwide, affecting American spies, diplomats, military officers, contractors, and, in some instances, their spouses, children, and even household pets. Medically confirmed symptoms have been reported as far afield as Guangzhou, China, and as close to home as Washington, D.C. One victim was a senior official in the Trump-era National Security Council who became temporarily asphasic and whose body went numb right outside the Eisenhower Executive Building in mid-November 2020. Another was CIA Director Bill Burns’s then-deputy chief of staff, who was hit in Delhi in September 2021, causing Burns to cut short official visits to India and Pakistan. That same year, the Biden Administration signed into law the Havana Act, which provides six-figure compensation for confirmed victims of AHIs.
There is a reason why the Havana Act only came into force in 2021: for the past eight years, Havana Syndrome has been the subject of intense controversy. Sociologists have suggested it is little more than a mass psychogenic illness, or perhaps the outbreak of mass hysteria. Such arguments have been undercut by multiple medical studies, including one conducted by an expert panel convened by the U.S. intelligence community. The final assessment of that investigation found that AHIs had “a unique combination of core characteristics that cannot be explained by known environmental or medical conditions and could be due to external stimuli.” Nevertheless, in Mar. 2023, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued a redacted report stating that it was “very unlikely” that AHIs were caused by a foreign adversary. This assessment has sent shockwaves among the hundreds of former and current intelligence officers and their family members who believe they have suffered significant and often irreversible health consequences at the hands of an enemy force. As a result, many of these victims feel betrayed by their government for neglecting to identify the culprit for their predicament.
The Insider and its investigative partners have uncovered new evidence — in the form of intercepted Russian intelligence documents, travel logs, and call metadata, along with eyewitness testimony — the totality of which challenges the assessment made by the ODNI. Adam, a pseudonym adopted by Patient Zero, the first CIA officer to be stricken with Havana Syndrome in Cuba, told The Insider, “What this long-term investigation has shown is that either the intelligence community is incapable of carrying out its most basic function, or it has worked to cover up the facts and gaslight injured employees and the public.”
Greg Edgreen, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, set up the working group investigating Havana Syndrome for the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, from 2020 to 2023. The role gave him access to classified intelligence compiled not just by the Pentagon, but by other agencies within the U.S. intelligence community. In response to this investigation, Edgreen told 60 Minutes: “If I’m wrong about Russia being behind anomalous health incidents, I will come onto your show. And I will eat my tie.”
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is currently investigating how U.S. spy agencies reached their nothing-to-see-here assessment in March 2023. Given the DIA working group’s contribution to the ODNI report, which acknowledges varying levels of confidence reached by different agencies, Edgreen’s unambiguous attribution of culpability to Moscow should raise eyebrows in the U.S. intelligence community and in Congress. Another organization said to be skeptical that a foreign adversary is not behind Havana Syndrome is the National Security Agency, which deals in signals intelligence, or intercepted communications.
Joy’s identification of Albert Averyanov outside her home in Tbilisi is backed up by two U.S. government officials who told 60 Minutes that the Russian operative was indeed in the Georgian capital around the time of her attack.
Just a few short years before his graduation from Moscow State University in 2019, Albert was already being groomed by his father at 16 to take over Unit 29155. Albert unofficially “trained” in Geneva under the supervision of Col. Egor Gordienko, 45, who was then stationed in the city under diplomatic cover as Russia’s second trade representative at the World Trade Organization. Following his apprenticeship, Albert became an active member of Unit 29155, as evidenced by call data The Insider, 60 Minutes, and Der Spiegel obtained demonstrating his constant communication with other operatives from the group, as well as travel records showing his joint trips with known 29155 officers.

For a GRU operative, Albert lives a remarkably open life on social media. He plays basketball and soccer and travels by plane around the world under his legal name, posting updates of his game history with the Moscow-based amateur Evian soccer club (zero goals in 60 matches), and photos of himself with his girlfriend, Nastya, on joyrides in his Mercedes-Benz ML/GLE. But as has already been noted, Albert’s travels haven’t always been of the touristy kind. Leaked airline data shows that some of his most eyebrow-raising flights are booked by Unit 29155’s human resources department.
For example, both Albert and his father Andrey Averyanov left Moscow on September 30, 2021, eight days before Joy spotted the person she believes was Averyanov the younger outside her home in Tbilisi. Father and son flew to Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and only returned to Moscow eleven days later, on October 10. But Tashkent was not their final destination.
Andrey turned off his phone in the Russian capital and never switched it back on until he had landed on October 10, calling his driver from the airport. Albert took his with him and did not immediately switch it off. He received a call from an unidentified Uzbek number at 8:04 a.m. on October 1, the morning after he and Andrey had arrived in Tashkent. Albert’s phone was then turned off. Thirty-six minutes later, at 8:40 a.m., a flight took off from Tashkent to Tbilisi. (There were no direct flights between Russia and the Georgian capital in 2021, owing to a diplomatic spat between the two countries, and members of Unit 29155 anyway use decoy transit destinations to avoid being traced to a particular attack or incident, as The Insider has as previously reported.)
Over the next ten days, Albert’s phone remained off, meaning that its geolocation metadata for this period cannot be obtained. What is visible is that the phone was roaming, and Albert’s cellular plan did not allow for him to receive incoming calls or connect to the internet. However, on the evening of October 9, the eve of the father-son duo’s return trip from Tashkent to Moscow, Albert evidently turned his phone back on because he received an automated message from his mobile operator, Beeline, welcoming him to Uzbekistan. That message indicates that Albert had been outside the country in the preceding days, and had only re-entered Uzbekistan on the day before his onward trip to Moscow.
When The Insider telephoned Albert to ask if he was in Tbilisi at the time of the alleged attacks on U.S. diplomats and their families, he listened to the question, then over-excitedly asked who was on the other end of the line. “Stop, stop, who’s calling me?” When told it was the editor-in-chief of The Insider, he immediately hung up.
Seven years earlier and almost two thousand miles to the West, in November 2014 in Frankfurt, Germany, two separate attacks had occurred one after the other, according to multiple sources. One of those sources, Mark Lenzi, 49, is a current State Department official.
Lenzi, his wife, son, and daughter, were all medevaced from Guangzhou, China in early June 2018 after they each failed brain injury tests. According to Lenzi, he and his family have been compensated by the U.S. government with “more than a million dollars because of our diagnosed traumatic brain injuries” in a combination of civil litigation settlements and Havana Act payments. In November 2014, Lenzi was working in the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt as its regional security officer when his colleagues succumbed to the same health incident that he and his household would experience years later on another continent.
“The 2014 Frankfurt attacks were always key in that they came before the Cuba and China hits and should have received the most attention from the U.S. Government.”
“The 2014 Frankfurt attacks were always key in that they came before the Cuba and China hits and should have received the most attention from the U.S. Government,” Lenzi told The Insider, 60 Minutes, and Der Spiegel.
One victim, according to Lenzi and other sources, was a U.S. government employee at the consulate, whom The Insider will call Taylor. For Taylor, the symptoms began as an intense feeling of pressure, which started in the torso and radiated up to the head and neck. Then there was nausea, followed by a “high-pitched squeal.” Taylor raced to a bathroom to vomit before collapsing unconscious on the floor. At St. Marie Hospital, located within minutes of the consulate, Taylor was diagnosed by German doctors on November 4, 2014 with vestibular neuronitis, the sudden onset of vertigo, replete with nausea, vomiting, and a rise in blood pressure. Once back in the United States, Taylor was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury.

In the weeks leading up to the attack, Taylor remembers confronting a tall, muscular man with a military bearing acting suspiciously across the road from the consulate residential complex. The unknown man was dressed in casual street clothes, and was pacing the length of a housing unit while inspecting and photographing parked vehicles with U.S. diplomatic plates. After a brief exchange with Taylor, the man responded with a strong Russian accent, shutting down the encounter and running off.
Via a third party, The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel was able to share with Taylor two photographs of Gordienko — later to become Albert Averyanov’s mentor — whom the investigative team has reason to believe had been in the Frankfurt area as part of an advance reconnaissance team just before the attack. One of the photographs was taken in 2015, the other in 2017. Taylor did not hesitate in confirming that Gordienko was the suspect skulking around outside U.S. consulate housing.
“Yes, that’s him,” Taylor said. “I’m getting goosebumps looking at him now.”

2014 was a busy year for Unit 29155. In the last months of 2013, as street protests against Ukraine’s former president, Viktor Yanukovich, were reaching boiling point, several members of the unit had been dispatched under cover identities into Ukraine, arguably to thwart a pro-Western revolution. The spies’ efforts had clearly failed in Ukraine, and they were redirected to disrupting or hurting Ukraine’s partners abroad.
One team of the unit’s operatives, traveling under fake identities to and from Europe, infiltrated a Czech Ministry of Defense-controlled munitions storage facility in the town of Vrbětice in the southeastern Moravian region of Czechia. They planted explosives and blew up a consignment of artillery ammunition, owned by Emilian Gebrev’s EMCO and believed by the GRU to have been bound for Ukraine. That same year, another Unit 29155 team made repeat trips to and from Germany. For instance, on January 26, 2014, Maj. Gen. Denis Sergeev and Alexander Mishkin landed in Prague. From there, travel data obtained by The Insider, 60 Minutes, and Der Spiegel show they took the train to Munich, where, on January 30, they rented a car. Sergeev and Mishkin’s whereabouts were lost for the next 40 hours, but they did return their rental car the next evening in Munich. Then they returned by train to Prague. Sergeev and Mishkin flew back to Moscow on February 2.
As a rule, spies always leave misleading traces in their air travel, avoiding trips directly to their destination of interest, and sometimes investing hours — or even days — in diversionary travel by train or car.
The use of a sinuous route is part of the GRU’s operational tradecraft — a means of throwing off counterintelligence services with false trails. As a rule, spies always leave misleading traces in their air travel, avoiding trips directly to their destination of interest, and sometimes investing hours — or even days — in diversionary travel by train or car. Additional motivation for the Russian spies to enter the common European space via a country different than the target destination was linked to the fact they had been issued visas by different European countries; the agents anticipated lesser scrutiny at the border if they entered through the country that had issued their visa.
What were Sergeev and Mishkin doing in Germany? Neither conducts pure espionage for the GRU, as their later operational activity makes clear. A year later, Sergeev would serve as the operational commander of Unit 29155 who oversaw the Gebrev poisonings – he’s even filmed on CCTV in the parking garage of Gebrev’s EMCO office building in Sofia, evidently searching for the target’s vehicle where, Bulgarian authorities believe, an organophosphate chemical weapon similar to Novichok was laced on the driver’s side door handle. Still later, Sergeev established an operational headquarters at a low-rent hotel in Paddington, London, while Mishkin, along with his Unit 29155 accomplice Antaoly Chepiga, took a train to Salisbury to slather Novichok contained in a false Nina Ricci perfume bottle on the front door handle of 47 Christie Miller Road, home to Sergei Skripal. Their travel to Central Europe strongly indicates they were on a similar mission, or laying the groundwork for one, such as reconnoitering a target.
Making this assumption even more persuasive is the fact that in late September 2014, members of Unit 29155 – Sergeev included – began a series of staggered trips to Central and Western Europe, trips which typically signify the preparatory phase for a major sabotage or assassination operation.
On September 25, Sergeev flew from Moscow to Milan. Several months earlier he had obtained an Italian-issued multi-entry Schengen visa, affording him easy access, absent any border control checks, to, at that time, 26 European countries including Switzerland. Yet, he preferred to enter the common European space via the country that had issued him the visa. That same day, Col. Evgeny Kalinin, another member of the unit, flew to Budapest posing as a Russian diplomatic mail courier. He returned to Moscow two days later. Finally, Gordienko, the Unit 29155 operative Taylor later saw milling about U.S. consulting housing in Frankfurt, arrived in Paris from Moscow on a French-issued Schengen visa.
Gordienko and Sergeev took trains from their respective decoy destinations to the same place, Geneva, where they checked into the Nash Airport hotel on the evening of September 26. Whether they stayed there or not is unknown but, on October 6, they registered new rooms at the Geneva Airport Novotel Suites — rooms they kept, according to receipts examined by The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, until October 13.
On September 27, the day after they checked into the Nash hotel, Gordienko rented a car from Sixt for five days. (A subsequent car rental on October 2 was canceled.) No further digital traces were left by him or Sergeev until their return to Moscow via separate routes on October 13.
But the timing of this trip is telling. It tracks with when Taylor saw Gordienko in Frankfurt, weeks before the attack. Once ensconced in a hotel near Geneva’s airport which they kept booked for a total of 18 days, Gordienko and Sergeev could have easily boarded flights to and from Frankfurt using fictitious identities, given they were in the Schengen zone and thus subject to no internal security checks (most European airlines do not check ID documents upon boarding for intra-Schengen destinations)
They weren’t the only GRU operatives flying to the region.
On October 11, a trio of seemingly unrelated Russian tourists began descending on Western Europe, all traveling under fake identities. All three were members of Unit 29155.
The most senior of them was Col. Ivan Terentiev, a deputy to unit commander Andrey Averyanov. Equipped with an Italian visa, Terentiev flew from Moscow to Milan. His aide, Lt. Col. Nikolay Ezhov, flew from Moscow to Vienna, also on October 11.
Three days later, on October 15, Terentiev and Ezhov were joined by a third colleague, Danil Kapralov, a member of Unit 29155 with a medical background. Kapralov flew to Amsterdam. But booking data obtained by The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel shows that on 15 October he checked in to the Starling Hotel Residence in Geneva and paid 3,000 Swiss francs (about $3,300) for his room through November 3.
Whatever Terentiev, Ezhov and Kapralov were in Western Europe to do, they clearly had to be done by that date, as all three purchased return tickets back to Moscow, each traveling from the point of arrival in Europe.
Taylor was knocked unconscious the next day, November 4.
The winter of 2014 was also a busy time for Ukrainians.
Incensed by then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s about-face on his campaign promise to move the country closer to the European Union, thousands of citizens participated in a months-long protest movement that turned Kyiv’s central square — the Maidan — into a barricaded encampment. Euromaidan, the name given to the demonstration, culminated in late Feb. 2014 in a series of seismic events. The first was a violent crackdown on the protestors, instigated by Yanukovych’s security forces at the prompting of Russian intelligence, that involved the deployment of snipers to kill or wound more than 100 protesters. Soon after the massacre, Yanukovych, again with the help of Russian operatives, fled from Ukraine to Russia. Vladimir Putin had already ordered his military to occupy Crimea — home to Sevastopol, the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet — and after an unfree, unfair, hastily organized “referendum,” the peninsula was illegally annexed by Russia on Mar. 18. But Russian forces did not stop there, unleashing a plausibly deniable proxy war in the eastern Ukrainian Donbas region in the guise of a “separatist” insurgency that, after a few months of heavy fighting, settled into a lower-level territorial standoff that simmered until Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb. 2022.
Largely as a result of Russia’s aggressive actions, a new political consensus was forming in the unoccupied parts of Ukraine. Ukraine’s push for independence in 1991 may have precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union, but for the next two decades, Ukrainian society would remain divided between those who sought integration with Europe and those who favored a path that would keep the country closer to Russia — culturally and economically, if not politically. 2014 was a turning point. For the first time, polls showed a majority of Ukrainians favoring future membership in NATO, and even though Kyiv’s accession to the North Atlantic alliance likely remains years away, expanded intelligence cooperation does not require the consensus vote of NATO’s 32 member states.
As was recently reported by The New York Times, the CIA enormously expanded its cooperation with Ukraine’s military intelligence service, HUR, in the years following Euromaidan. Starting in 2015, that cooperation has transformed Kyiv into “one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today,” according to the Times. Ukrainian spies trained by the CIA would later be deployed to Russia, Europe, and even Cuba. Today they are capable of launching drones at oil refineries and strategic railways deep inside Russia, even at the Kremlin itself. They have also destroyed a third of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet without the benefit of a bona fide Ukrainian navy.
Cooperation with the CIA since 2015 has transformed Kyiv into “one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today,” according to the NYT
Distinguished HUR operatives, such as the service’s current director, Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, cut their teeth in a Ukrainian commando group, Unit 2245, trained by the CIA’s paramilitary force, or Ground Department. And Moscow was certainly aware of the collaboration. Russians blew up the car of Col. Maksim Shapoval, the head of Unit 2245, while he was on his way to meet with CIA officers from Kyiv Station, the agency’s office embedded within the U.S. Embassy.
The hyperactive CIA outpost in the Ukrainian capital was, as one former U.S. intelligence official put it, responsible for “installing the plumbing” within HUR. The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel can now reveal for the first time the extent to which that CIA station was subsequently impacted by Havana Syndrome.
The hyperactive CIA outpost in the Ukrainian capital was, as one former U.S. intelligence official put it, responsible for “installing the plumbing” within HUR
Two CIA officers posted to Kyiv during that period of intense collaboration between U.S. and Ukrainian intelligence later experienced AHIs after being posted to new missions overseas. One, the incoming chief of station in Hanoi, Vietnam, was hit while domiciled in temporary housing at the Oakwood Residence Suites hotel in the Vietnamese capital in August 2021, amid lockdown conditions connected to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another officer, who became deputy chief of station in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, was hit in his apartment in that city in December 2020, along with his wife and child. He and his family had to be medevaced out of Tashkent and received treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. The incoming Hanoi chief of station was also medevaced out of Vietnam and received treatment at Walter Reed. Additionally, the wife of a third CIA officer who had served in Kyiv during the same critical time frame — roughly 2014 to 2017 — was hit in October 2021 in a cafe in London. She was treated locally in London and is also in the CIA.
The cluster of Havana Syndrome cases that emerged from veterans of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv was so worrisome to one of its number that he opted to resign from the CIA altogether rather than risk becoming another victim.
Of all the cases examined by The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, the most well-documented involve U.S. intelligence and diplomatic personnel with subject matter expertise in Russia or operational experience in countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, two post-Soviet states that have undergone pro-Western “color revolutions” in the past two decades. (Some of these personnel are still active and declined to speak for this article.)
Putin himself has not shied away from laying blame for these pro-democratic protest movements at the doorstep of Langley or Foggy Bottom — or both. As recently as his Feb. 9 interview with former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, Putin peddled the conspiracy theory that Euromaidan was not the work of discontented Ukrainians at all. “The CIA completed its job in implementing the coup d’état,” the Russian head of state told Carlson.
Putin would have every interest, in other words, in neutralizing scores of U.S. intelligence officers he deemed responsible for his loss of the former satellites or constituent pieces of the former Soviet empire. Ukraine is the lynchpin nation in Putin’s grand design to “reestablish the Soviet Union,” as President Biden phrased it on Feb. 24, 2022, the date of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Greg Edgreen, the former DIA investigator of Havana Syndrome, told 60 Minutes, that his working group pored through “a large body of data, ranging from signals intelligence, human intelligence, open-source reporting. Anything regarding the internet, travel records, financial records, you name it. And we kept on seeing a number of data points. This was happening to our top 5%, 10% performing officers across the Defense Intelligence Agency. Consistently there was a Russia nexus. There was some angle where they had worked against Russia, focused on Russia, and done extremely well.”
Marc Polymeropolous is a highly decorated former CIA officer, whose last title was Chief of Operation for the agency’s Europe and Eurasia Mission Center, which is in charge of all clandestine activity in over forty countries. Polymeropoulos, now an MSNBC contributor, is also one of the most outspoken victims of Havana Syndrome, and an advocate for healthcare for fellow CIA officers affected by it. He was hit at the height of his career, in December 2017, while in Moscow on an official CIA visit to liaise with Russian counterparts about counterterrorism cooperation between Washington and Moscow. (In tandem with this investigation, The Insider is publishing his first-hand account of that experience and its aftermath, which forced his retirement from the CIA. His memoir can be read here.)
“Assuming this is true, it certainly fits the pattern of the Russians seeking retribution for events they think we’re responsible for. As a former CIA case officer, I don’t believe in coincidences.”
The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel presented Polymeropoulos with its findings: that multiple CIA officers who had worked cheek-by-jowl with HUR a decade or so ago were affected by Havana Syndrome later in their careers. “Assuming this is true, it certainly fits the pattern of the Russians seeking retribution for events they think we’re responsible for,” he said. “As a former CIA case officer, I don’t believe in coincidences.”
Just as reports of curious ailments experienced by U.S. officials working for the State and Commerce Departments began emerging from China in 2016 and 2017, one of Sergei Skripal’s poisoners crossed into the country, disguised among a group of Russian auto mechanics.
The Silk Way Rally, an off-road racing event, was founded in 2009 as a kind of intercontinental SCORE International. Originally limited to the expanse of Russia and Central Asia, by 2016 the course ran all the way from Moscow to Xi’an, an ancient city in China that once marked the easternmost end of the Silk Road. With legitimate sponsorship deals and celebrity offroad race car drivers — Vladimir Chagin, who holds the record for the most victories at the Dakar Rally, is director of Silk Way, and his number two is Frederic Lequien, the CEO of the FIA World Endurance Championship — the race covers a ground distance of nearly 4,400 miles. In other words, it’s a convenient conduit for moving people and hardware across the globe.
Which is maybe why the Silk Way Rally is a GRU front.
Bulat Yanborisov, its head, was awarded his second Order of Nevsky, a prestigious Russian military award, by GRU Deputy Director Gen. Vladimir Alexeev at an elaborate ceremony in Moscow in April 2023. (A video of that ceremony was obtained by The Insider.)
Internal documents pertaining to Silk Way Rally also explicitly state that the true purpose of this seemingly apolitical sports competition is to create a “universal platform for people’s diplomacy,” premised on the notion of “Russia’s soft power.” The Kremlin hoped to unite Russia, China, Iran, Qatar, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, and to construct “logistics terminals” in each of these countries — complete with storage facilities and 5G communications hubs. (Expanded routes for the rally were meant to bypass these countries, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 put paid to that ambition.)
However, this “soft power” mandate appears to have been simply a cover for the true functions of the Silk Way Rally. Yanborisov’s phone records show he was in constant communication with GRU spies, including members of Unit 29155. Using reverse face-search tools, The Insider was able to identify members of the unit who were disguised as staff working for the rally. The self-styled sports organization also purchased tickets for members traveling under false identities.
One of these was the man who turned a sleepy English cathedral city into a quarantine zone.
On July 6, 2016, Alexander Mishkin, one of Unit 29155’s medical doctors and one of the two hitmen tasked by Andrey Averyanov with killing Sergei and Yulia Skripal with Novichok, embedded with a convoy of Silk Way Rally cars and trucks. His racing companions included other members of Unit 29155: Alexey Kalinin, who took part in one of the Bulgaria bombings in 2015; Alexey Tolstopyatenko, who runs the unit’s Azerbaijani and Turkish operations, posing as an ethnic Tajik; and Roman Puntus, an explosives expert now working in occupied Crimea.

Three days later, on July 9, the rally officially started, and any trace of the racers was lost for almost two weeks thereafter. Then, on July 25, Mishkin appeared on a flight from Beijing to Moscow, traveling on a joint booking together with Yanborisov, the Silk Way Rally head. Immediately upon his return, Mishkin traveled on to St. Petersburg to meet with Sergei Chepur, head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Research Testing Institute of Military Medicine, the GRU’s entity for testing the effects of various types of toxic substances — such as the Novichok used to poison the Skripals — on the human body. Chepur is a consultant to Unit 29155 commander, Andrey Averyanov. Mishkin is one of Chepur’s former students.
In 2017 the Silk Way Rally returned to China along the same racing route. This time, another member of Unit 29155, Sergey Avdeenko, joined the convoy, masquerading as a car technician. Avdeenko entered China on July 12 and flew from Xi’an to the Siberian city of Novosibirsk on July 23.

The summer of 2017 is when Mark Lenzi, the State Department official in Guangzhou, first began experiencing strange health problems, as did Catherine Werner, a Commerce Department official in the city. Like Lenzi, Werner would be medevaced out of China. She was diagnosed with an “organic brain injury.” The State Department ultimately evacuated more than ten of its people from Guangzhou.
Another U.S. Commerce Department official stationed in Beijing began having symptoms and hearing strange sounds and feeling pressure in her head while at home in October of 2017, just before a visit to China by President Trump that November. She was also medevaced for treatment in the United States.
Lenzi is a fluent Russian speaker who studied in Lithuania on a Fulbright scholarship and has worked in official capacities as a diplomat in Russia. “I absolutely believe my background on Russia is why I was targeted,” Lenzi told The Insider.
“The U.S. government shrugs publicly about my family’s ordeal,” he said. “But U.S. government personnel behind closed doors have acknowledged to me that my and my family’s diagnosed traumatic brain injuries are due to exposure to high levels of pulsed microwave radiation.”
Pulsed microwave radiation is one of two technologies that scientists — including those assigned by the U.S. intelligence community to investigate Havana Syndrome — have theorized as the possible cause of the condition. The other is acoustic sound. Either of these approaches may result in the victim appearing to hear audible sounds, hums and clicks, through a phenomenon termed the Frey Effect, named for Allan H. Frey, the American scientist who first wrote about the microwave auditory effect.
Russia has been experimenting with both for decades.
In fact, in its corpus of scientific literature the two phenomena are conflated into a common category of “wave weapons.” A Soviet patent from 1974 was issued to a military unit that developed – and claimed to have successfully tested – a “non-lethal device inducing sleep in the target via the use of radio-waves.” A series of studies by Soviet and Russian scientists from 1991 to 2012 focused on the transmission of simulated auditory information to targets using ultra-high radio frequencies. And The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel can now reveal, senior members of Unit 29155 were themselves tasked with, and rewarded for, successfully testing “non-lethal acoustic weapons.”
Col. Ivan Terentiev spent a decade as the deputy commander of the unit, and held an additional ominous title of «commander of group for special tasks of Unit 29155». In January 2024, the Bulgarian government issued a European Arrest Warrant for Terentiev owing to his personal involvement in the destruction of Bulgarian arms facilities beginning in 2011. When he wasn’t busy blowing up military depots in the Balkans, Terentiev, a trained engineer, also moonlighted as a research and development specialist for Russia’s Ministry of Defense. In that capacity he co-wrote dozens of military-scientific papers, including one on the “effectiveness of underwater shooting.” He’s also spent time exploring acoustic weapons.
In mid 2019, Terentiev was suddenly promoted to a Kremlin position. As part of the vetting process, he had to explain to the Kremlin why he had failed to declare a bank account into which he received an unaccounted-for transfer of funds in late 2017. Part of this disbursement had come from Terentiev’s handing over the intellectual property rights of his research and inventions to the Ministry of Defense. Namely, he had provided research work on developing a new weapon for the Foundation for Advanced Military Research. One of Vladimir Putin’s pet projects, the foundation was created in 2012 with a mandate for building “innovative weapons including [ones] based on new physical properties,” as its website states, and “to close a gap in advanced research with our Western partners after 20 years of stagnation in the Russian military science and defense industry overall.”
Terentiev’s prized research was focused on the “potential capabilities of non-lethal acoustic weapons in combat activities in urban settings,” according to an addendum The Insider obtained from an email account belonging to Nikolay Ezhov, Terentiev’s aide in Unit 29155 and his travel companion to Europe in 2014, just before Taylor’s attack.
Ezhov had emailed the addendum to the anti-corruption office in Putin’s Presidential Administration in an attempt to explain how 100,000 rubles – the equivalent of around $1,700 at the time – wound up in Terentiev’s checking account. That sum was symbolic; the real reward was Terentiev’s new job.
The reason for his financial vetting was that the GRU saboteur was being promoted to a prestigious political position, that of Putin’s federal inspector for the Far Eastern Sakhalin region. In Russia, a federal inspector has oversight over a regional governor, affording Terentiev ample opportunities for kickbacks and self-enrichment. Also, given his continued tenure in Unit 29155, Terentiev would have greater oversight over Sakhalin’s neighbors, Japan, China and South Korea. Ezhov, meanwhile, was named deputy director of Sakhalin before receiving his own plum assignment in 2020 as federal inspector for Yakutia, the largest republic in Russia, replete with natural resources such as oil, gas and 99% of the country’s diamond reserves.
Few Russian intelligence officers with no public profile, discernible bureaucratic profile or personal ties to Putin reach such dizzying heights. So what accounts for Terentiev and Ezhov’s elevation?

The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel have obtained a set of intelligence documents describing a classified Soviet-era program codenamed Reduktor, or “Gearbox.” Begun in 1984 at the Radio Technical Measurement Research Institute in Kharkiv, Ukraine, Reduktor’s central task was to study the uses of “electromagnetic radiation to influence the behavior and reactions of biological objects, [including] people.” The institute was subordinated to the Soviet Ministry of General Machine Building, which oversaw the Soviet Union’s space exploration program. (Today its successor is Russia’s Federal Space Agency, Roscosmos.) The head of the research institute, according to the documents, flew to Moscow almost weekly to report on the progress of his work.
In 1988, the institute initiated a top secret program for which a separate department, known as the Eighth Branch, was created. About 300 employees worked for the Eighth Branch, whose activities were kept secret from the rest of the institute. Most of its employees were scientists, either active in the Soviet military or retired from it. Engineers and biologists predominated the ranks. Also on staff were psychiatrists. There was strict compartmentalization of work within Eighth Branch, such that one team didn’t know what another was working on and all employees were forbidden from recruiting scientists from other departments within the Research Institute.
Eighth Branch scientists experimented with electromagnetic energy on rats and rhesus monkeys. Some of the animals died from exposure to thermal radiation; others developed brain damage. “The main goal,” according to one Reduktor document, “was to create a stable mechanism of information influence (i.e., forcing the object to take certain actions by influencing the brain and other organs) using a low-energy effect with a power flux density of no more than 10 microwatts per square centimeter.”
Coinciding with the end of the Soviet Union — and, with it, Ukraine’s independence — Reduktor’s entire scientific yield was transferred from Kharkiv to Moscow by the KGB for further development.
The Reduktor documents indicate that a blueprint model of an electromagnetic device was clunky and conspicuous: “a large dish on an automobile chassis with generators, antennas and other equipment.” Soviet experts were confident that a smaller, more mobile version of such a weapon could eventually be created, with an effective firing range of at least 100 meters.
Separately, in 2010, another scientific research institute in Russia carried out work on the “development of basic technologies for the creation of a new generation of sonar and acoustic weapons systems,” according to another document The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel have obtained. Under this contemporary program, “an experimental model/prototype” of portable ultrasonic non-lethal weapons was constructed such that it could be mounted onto commercial vehicles. The radial range of this device was limited to between ten and twelve meters. In February-March 2014, the total yield of this study in sonar and acoustic systems – the technical documents and an experimental device – came into the possession of the GRU in Sevastopol, in concert with Russia’s takeover of Crimea.
In September 2022, the U.S. intelligence community released a classified report titled, “Anomalous Health Incidents: Analysis of Potential Causal Mechanisms,” a redacted copy of which was obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Mark Zaid, a lawyer for more than two dozen victims of Havana Syndrome. The report gives four “core characteristics” of AHIs: “the acute onset of audiovestibular sensory phenomena, including sound and/or pressure, sometimes in only one ear or on one side of the head; …other nearly simultaneous signs and symptoms such as vertigo, loss of balance, and ear pain; …a strong sense of locality or directionality; and…the absence of known environmental or medical conditions that could explain the reported signs and symptoms.”
One plausible cause for these symptoms, the report states, is microwave energy. Another is ultrasound, a high-frequency form of inaudible acoustic energy that can enter the body through the ear canal or other aspects of the head, causing potential disruption of the central nervous system — especially of the inner ear, where sound and balance are sensed. Both microwave and ultrasound energy can damage cells in the brain as well as open the blood-brain barrier, causing proteins from the damaged cells to leak into the spinal fluid and then into the bloodstream. These so-called biomarkers are metabolized by the body within hours to days, meaning that someone hit with an acoustic weapon would need to have their blood drawn almost immediately after an attack to detect this kind of evidence of injury.
The former Kyiv Station CIA officer who was hit in Hanoi in 2021 was one of only two victims of Havana Syndrome whose biomarkers had been measured before the attack, thus establishing an individualized baseline. In this officer’s case, the biomarker levels jumped from normal before the attack to far above normal hours after; they then returned to normal days later, clearly indicating brain injury at the time of the attack, according to multiple sources within the U.S. intelligence community. He was diagnosed with “neural network dysfunction and persistent dysautonomia due to traumatic brain injury.”
And yet it remains unclear exactly how the attacks were carried out, or whether multiple types of devices have been used. The limiting factor with ultrasound weapons is distance. Their soundwaves travel poorly through air and solid objects found in buildings, meaning any device of this type would have to get up close to its target, no more than 10 or 12 meters away.
Another form of directed energy that travels farther and can penetrate through thicker substances, such as walls and metal barriers, is pulsed microwave energy. The shape of an electromagnetic pulse that could do the kind of physiological harm seen in AHI cases would show an extremely steep rise, with each pulse reaching peak energy within less than a nanosecond. A U.S. Intelligence Community expert panel tasked with assessing the potential causes of Havana Syndrome concluded that this type of energy could “fracture” membranes and capillaries, damaging the myelin sheaths that encase neurons and the blood-brain barrier.
As Operation Reduktor and Terentiev’s research shows, Moscow has been experimenting with both types of directed energy weapons for a long time.
As Operation Reduktor and Terentiev’s research shows, Moscow has been experimenting with both types of directed energy weapons for a long time.
Dr. David A. Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University and a co-chair of the expert panel assessment, told The Insider that elements of Reduktor as described in the documents “align with what we and others have hypothesized, and thus, are troubling in their implications. As we stated in the report, the kinds of injuries we proposed to be caused by special forms of pulsed microwave energy would not be expected necessarily to show up on brain imaging studies. We assessed that there was technical and practical evidence to support the plausibility of a concealable device that could cause these effects. These documents and their origins would appear to be clearly worth pursuing.”
Once that pursuit begins, there is the potential for it to lead to some very disturbing places. The Kirov Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg, Russia is headed by the aforementioned GRU consultant Sergei Chepur, a specialist in cholinesterase inhibitors like Novichok.
But it is Chepur’s research work that presents the greatest cause for concern. Judging from his publications, Chepur is not only a specialist in biochemistry, but also in the effects of radiation on the brain. The Kirov Academy he heads is one of the few institutions in Russia that has studied Minor’s syndrome, the extremely rare phenomenon that just happened to befall embassy wife Joy in Tbilisi following her encounter with Albert Averyanov.
A consensus has formed among the growing community of AHI sufferers that the U.S. government — and the CIA in particular — is hiding the full extent of what it knows about the source of Havana Syndrome. The victims offer two general hypotheses as to why. The first is that releasing the full intelligence around Russian involvement might be so shocking as to convince the American people and their representatives that Moscow has committed an act of war against the United States, thereby raising thorny questions as to how a nuclear power fond of showing off its hypersonic missiles ought to be made to pay. The second is that acknowledging Havana Syndrome is caused by a foreign adversary could put a damper on recruitment to the CIA and State Department. After all, how many Americans would be willing to serve their country overseas in the full knowledge that their next load of laundry or morning jaunt to the embassy could result in permanent physical and mental ailments?
The State Department has walked a knife-edge in addressing that contingency. The Insider, 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel obtained a memo distributed to employees of the Tbilisi mission on December 29, 2021 — over two months after Joy’s attack. It references a task force responsible for coordinating response to AHIs and several pages of guidance on how to talk to children about the strange events, offering distinct advice for different age groups. For young kids who “don’t have enough life experience to understand some of the elements involved in complex, difficult topics like AHI,” the memo advises parents to catch their biases and limit the amount of information their children can access: “Don’t say things like ‘the Russians are trying to hurt or intimidate us’ or ‘if you hear a loud noise, you are probably going to feel dizzy and sick so make sure you get off the X, etc.’”
The implication here is that not only are AHIs real, but U.S. diplomats are all too aware of how they happen and who’s behind them.
Still, it remains unclear why it took American officials so long to acknowledge the problem, and why they still show no sign of having a plan to solve it. “I have spent more than a decade fighting for U.S. government employees and their families – sometimes small children and even pets – who have been victimized by AHIs overseas and domestically,” says attorney Mark Zaid. “It has been so distressing to see how much effort our government has undertaken to cover up the true details of these attacks, no doubt perpetrated by a foreign adversary.”
That adversary may even be boasting of the fact. Nikolai Patrushev, the Secretary of Russia’s Security Council and a former KGB officer wrote in September 2023 in the in-house magazine for the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service: “In recent years, hundreds of employees of foreign intelligence services, as well as other persons involved in organizing intelligence and subversive activities against our country and our strategic partners, have been identified and neutralized.”
Official attempts to push back against the accusation that Washington has not done enough to combat Havana Syndrome have been short on detail. In a statement to 60 Minutes regarding this investigation, the ODNI affirmed, “We continue to closely examine anomalous health incidents (AHIs), particularly in areas we have identified as requiring additional research and analysis.”
However, while recent reports have suggested that Havana Syndrome cases have ceased in recent years, multiple former and present U.S. officials told 60 Minutes that a senior U.S. Department of Defense official was targeted as recently as July 2023 at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. That gathering of North American and European representatives, which at various points included U.S. President Joe Biden and his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, was largely focused on the theme of Western military support for Ukraine in its ongoing defensive war against Russia.
Other reports have noted a proliferation of cases in Vienna in the latter half of 2021, months before the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Two veterans of the CIA’s Kyiv Station were posted to Vienna during that spate of reported attacks.
This is not the first time that U.S. personnel serving overseas have fallen victim to widespread adverse health consequences. In the decades since the Gulf War of 1991-1992, hundreds of thousands of Western and Iraqi veterans reported suffering from a common set of symptoms ranging from fatigue to terminal tumors. As Edgreen, the former DIA investigator, said, “It took 30 years to prove that the Gulf War Syndrome was a result of exposure to low levels of sarin. [Havana Syndrome] will be proven.”
Unlike Gulf War Syndrome, which resulted from a confluence of environmental factors rather than from the deliberate actions of a state, Havana Syndrome shows all the markings of a Russian hybrid warfare operation
It may be proven. But unlike Gulf War Syndrome, which resulted from a confluence of environmental factors rather than from the deliberate actions of a state actor, Havana Syndrome shows all the markings of a Russian hybrid warfare operation. If it is established that the Kremlin really is behind the attacks, then the provision of healthcare and monetary compensation for the victims will not be enough to solve the problem. Removing this many capable American spies and diplomats from active service without killing them and without your main adversary even admitting they’ve done so — such a sustained, decade-long campaign would easily count as one of Vladimir Putin’s greatest strategic victories against the United States.
With additional reporting by Michael Rey, Oriana Zill de Granados, Kit Ramgopal and Emily Gordon, Kato Kopaleishvili, Giorgi Tsikarishvili, Roman Lehberger, Fidelius Schmid, Steffen Lüdke.

Credit…Damon Winter/The New York Times
President Biden has repeatedly and rightfully described the stakes in this November’s presidential election as nothing less than the future of American democracy.
Donald Trump has proved himself to be a significant jeopardy to that democracy — an erratic and self-interested figure unworthy of the public trust. He systematically attempted to undermine the integrity of elections. His supporters have described, publicly, a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. If he is returned to office, he has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks on power built into the American political system.
Mr. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance of taking on this threat of tyranny and defeating it. His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Mr. Trump in 2020. That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year.
At Thursday’s debate, the president needed to convince the American public that he was equal to the formidable demands of the office he is seeking to hold for another term. Voters, however, cannot be expected to ignore what was instead plain to see: Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago.
The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.
Mr. Biden has been an admirable president. Under his leadership, the nation has prospered and begun to address a range of long-term challenges, and the wounds ripped open by Mr. Trump have begun to heal. But the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.
As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble. There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.
If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.
Ending his candidacy would be against all of Mr. Biden’s personal and political instincts. He has picked himself up from tragedies and setbacks in the past and clearly believes he can do so again. Supporters of the president are already explaining away Thursday’s debate as one data point compared with three years of accomplishments. But the president’s performance cannot be written off as a bad night or blamed on a supposed cold, because it affirmed concerns that have been mounting for months or even years. Even when Mr. Biden tried to lay out his policy proposals, he stumbled. It cannot be outweighed by other public appearances because he has limited and carefully controlled his public appearances.
It should be remembered that Mr. Biden challenged Mr. Trump to this verbal duel. He set the rules, and he insisted on a date months earlier than any previous general election debate. He understood that he needed to address longstanding public concerns about his mental acuity and that he needed to do so as soon as possible.
The truth Mr. Biden needs to confront now is that he failed his own test.
In polls and interviews, voters say they are seeking fresh voices to take on Mr. Trump. And the consolation for Mr. Biden and his supporters is that there is still time to rally behind a different candidate. While Americans are conditioned to the long slog of multiyear presidential elections, in many democracies, campaigns are staged in the space of a few months.
It is a tragedy that Republicans themselves are not engaged in deeper soul-searching after Thursday’s debate. Mr. Trump’s own performance ought to be regarded as disqualifying. He lied brazenly and repeatedly about his own actions, his record as president and his opponent. He described plans that would harm the American economy, undermine civil liberties and fray America’s relationships with other nations. He refused to promise that he would accept defeat, returning instead to the kind of rhetoric that incited the Jan. 6 attack on Congress.
The Republican Party, however, has been co-opted by Mr. Trump’s ambitions. The burden rests on the Democratic Party to put the interests of the nation above the ambitions of a single man.
Democrats who have deferred to Mr. Biden must now find the courage to speak plain truths to the party’s leader. The confidants and aides who have encouraged the president’s candidacy and who sheltered him from unscripted appearances in public should recognize the damage to Mr. Biden’s standing and the unlikelihood that he can repair it.
Mr. Biden answered an urgent question on Thursday night. It was not the answer that he and his supporters were hoping for. But if the risk of a second Trump term is as great as he says it is — and we agree with him that the danger is enormous — then his dedication to this country leaves him and his party only one choice.
The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public: acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place to defeat Mr. Trump in November.
It is the best chance to protect the soul of the nation — the cause that drew Mr. Biden to run for the presidency in 2019 — from the malign warping of Mr. Trump. And it is the best service that Mr. Biden can provide to a country that he has nobly served for so long.
The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
![]()
Bhattacharjee, Debanjan; Agrawal, Adesh Kumar; Gowda, Guru S.
Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Address for correspondence: Dr. Debanjan Bhattacharjee, Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Hosur Road, Bengaluru – 560 029, Karnataka, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Received May 10, 2021
Accepted July 21, 2021
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
World War 2 (WW2) has witnessed the rise of influential personalities such as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. Many causes have been recorded in a history as causes of WW2; however, we argue that there has been complex psychological interaction between the leaders involved in the background of a crisis charged with paranoia and anxiety. Personality factors of the leaders probably helped as a catalyst in setting a cascade of events that resulted in mass causality. We discuss the psychological aspect of WW2 taking examples of few involved personalities.
War is an armed conflict between groups having common factors in terms of identity, sense of solidarity between individuals, and personality (high neuroticism, extraversion, and low affability).[1,2,3] Among wars that happened in history, World War 2 (WW2) stood out and was considered the deadliest against the human race and the year 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the official end of WW2. It began in Europe in 1939, and later included America and Asia, and became a global war. Several possible causes and theories of WW2 have been documented in history such as contemporary dynamic relationships, social, political, and economic problems. Here, we briefly relook into (a) the rise of several famous and powerful personalities such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt, and Benito Mussolini in the sense of an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety in European countries; and (b) the perception of complex relationships between leaders through the psychological lens in the setting of a cascade of events in WW2.
Both Germany and Italy experienced economic downturns after WW1, resulting in low self-esteem, identity, and negative psychological impact.[4,5,6,7] Both of these trends have led to mistrust of civic and political activities and decreased organizational and social operations.[5] Citizens are deprived of meaning and basic needs and have other similarities in terms of what they want to achieve. They can easily be inspired by the charismatic speech and personality of Adolf Hitler in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy. Both charismatic personalities raise hope in the countrymen for the crisis of collective self-identity that was lost in the aftermath of the First World War.[8,9] Hence, it was possible for Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy to rise and become a powerful political leader. There can be an additional psychological underpinning basis of rising in power of both Hitler and Mussolini in Europe.
Hitler had an authoritarian father, was more attached to his mother, and frequently witnessed family violence. He had many traumatic experiences with his father who used to become immediately violent and the attachment with his father has been described as an anxious-avoidant one.[10] Retrospectively, using the Coolidge Axis II inventory to understand Hitler’s personality, highest T scores were observed in paranoid, antisocial, narcissistic, and sadistic personality disorders.[11] His aggressive, antisocial, and dominant personality may have evolved from his complex family interactions. Hitler’s entry into political career occurred at the time of his adolescence which Erikson mentions as the period where individuals try to find an identity and his antisemitic ideas and other political ideologies can be conceptualized as a way to resolve the identity crisis by the age of 30 years.[12] According to Erich Fromm, Hitler failed to resolve his oedipal complex and transferred his unconscious desires onto his motherland Germany with a preoccupation of creating lebensraum and the eradication of Jews. Like Hitler, Mussolini has been described as malignant narcissistic.[13] Jung met both Hitler and Mussolini and found Mussolini to be warm and energetic as opposed to Hitler.[11] Mussolini on the other struggled from being a street-corner orator to the head of the government addressing thousands in crowds and emerged as a powerful orator and established fascism. On similar lines, fascism has been described to be based on mass psychology and a personality with a mixture of paranoid, aggressive, and schizoid personality traits.[14,15]
Winston Churchill led Britain whereas Germany and Italy were led by Hitler and Mussolini respectively. There were a hostile and uncertain environment and an increasing sense of paranoia among European leaders before the Second World War.[16] On September 3, 1939, in reaction to Hitler’s invasion of Poland, Britain, and France, both allies declared war on Germany. Churchill has been described as a Type I leader with great charisma and discipline. He had perfectionism and a great drive for power and aggression. Being a great motivational speaker with his famous V sign, he could move masses against the enemies.[17] Furthermore, his belief in his greatness and his tendency to project that view onto his country has been described as adaptive forms of narcissism or healthy narcissism as described by Kohut.[18] The act of war and aggression between Britain and Germany can be seen as a disturbance of the narcissistic equilibrium between Hitler and Churchill. In personality dynamics, projective identification occurs when a subject has an affect or impulse that he or she finds unacceptable and projects onto someone else as if it was really that other person who originated the affect or impulse.[19] Individuals with narcissism have fragile self-esteem and get easily hurt and threatened. They react by going to their grandiose self-image, especially in the background of insecurity and paranoia. Kohut described narcissistic rage in relation to aggression where individuals need to control their environment, go for revenge, and turn from a passive sense of victimization to an active role of giving pain to others when there is a disturbance in the narcissistic equilibrium. The rage is directed to a person who is in a self-object relationship with a narcissistic individual.[20] Later in1940, Mussolini from Italy joined with Hitler facing the threat of losing. In the face of threat, narcissistic individuals face unpleasant arousal which makes them get close to others for protection which can explain Mussolini’s behavior, Both Hitler and Mussolini had similar philosophies in terms of their concern for conquest and personality. Besides, both had a mutual idealization and recognition where both the self and the object admire each other in terms of narcissistic transference.[21]
The phenomenon of mutual idealization and recognition has also been observed between Hitler of Germany and Stalin of Russia, who evolved as a dictator in Soviet Russia in the mid-1920’s. Both of the countries signed The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which was a nonaggression pact. Stalin identified himself with Hitler and had admired each other on several occasions.[22] Stalin had a turbulent childhood where he was often traumatized by the disturbing relationship between his parents and witnessed violence and also faced the same. All these led him to have a negative self-image and an inferiority complex which he used to overcome by inflating self-esteem also described as malignant narcissism.[13,22,23,24] His narcissism was malignant to such an extent that he bluntly ignored the warnings from various sources of impending Nazi invasion of Russia.[13] This also highlights the importance of what mutual idealization has in a narcissistic relationship. However, he was also paranoid about Hitler about his relationships with Britain. Psychodynamically, paranoia originates in the development of an object relationship with the father and needs to maintain personal autonomy and can be activated by any anxiety-producing situations. The affected person identifies himself with the father who is the aggressor. Narcissism and the inner low self-esteem create a conflict in the unconscious mind. This phenomenon was quite common between both Stalin and Hitler.[22] The relationship between Hitler and Stalin started deteriorating following Molotov’s visit to Germany in 1940. Hitler got agitated by Molotov’s approach, who represented Russia and Stalin. Subsequently, Hitler attacked Russia. As in mutual idealization and recognition, if the other stops admiring or supporting then the self feels humiliated and can get expressed as aggression as a psychological phenomenon out of disturbance of narcissistic.[21] This phenomenon can explain the aftermath of Molotov’s visit to Germany.
Franklin D Roosevelt, a contemporary of Hitler and Stalin, has been described as a master of public psychology. On personality assessment, he scored low in neuroticism and his focus was predominantly on the individual needs of people.[25] While other European countries adopted an aggressive approach, Roosevelt’s ability in calming fear and anger was one of his important achievements which can be viewed as an existential approach.[26] We see Roosevelt’s delay indirectly involving in the war during the crisis until Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan which can be attributed to his low neuroticism as it is negatively associated with aggression.
Post-WW 2 gave rise to a bipolar world with a conflict between America and the Soviet Union commonly referred to as the Cold War, where psychological warfare had a prominent role which was again shaped by the personalities of concerned leaders along with their ideological differences. This was followed by the fall of the Soviet Union and rise of American hegemony and the creation of a unipolar world.[27,28] The fight for predominant polarity has continued since then, and the personalities of the world leaders and ideological differences shape the foreign policies of individual countries. Hence, multilateral diplomacy and major conflicts in the recent past between nations need to be examined on a psychosocial basis.
Although there were various economic and political causes which might have resulted in WW2, we argue that there were obvious psychological factors behind WW2. As war is an act of aggression and violence and aggression is a psychological phenomenon which is influenced by personality. Although it will be unwise to determine the personality of anyone without personally meeting them, most of the leaders had deficits in some or other domains of personality functioning. We see how personality functioning can influence interpersonal dynamics and mass psychology. We also highlight Kohut’s theories on self-psychology and narcissistic rage in aggression and Erikson’s views on self-identity. Early-life anxieties and conflicts can lead to dysfunctional personality and aggressive behavior which is important to be identified.[29] WW2 may have been the outcome of these complex dynamics within them and between them, on one side a want to conquer and on the other side a psychological threat from the opponent to protect their state.[22] The contemporary situation in Europe and interpersonal dynamics has been a catalyst in setting the cascade of events in WW2 and hence personality functioning becomes an important aspect of an individual’s life and can have both positive and negative consequences.
Nil.
There are no conflicts of interest.
Interpersonal dynamics; mass psychology; personality; World War 2
© 2021 World Social Psychiatry | Published by Wolters Kluwer – Medknow
Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Chip Somodevilla / Getty.
What I saw inside the government’s response to COVID-19
This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here.
On New Year’s Day 2020, I was zipping up my fleece to head outside when the phone in the kitchen rang. I picked it up to find a reporter on the line. “Dr. Fauci,” he said, “there’s something strange going on in Central China. I’m hearing that a bunch of people have some kind of pneumonia. I’m wondering, have you heard anything?” I thought he was probably referring to influenza, or maybe a return of SARS, which in 2002 and 2003 had infected about 8,000 people and killed more than 750. SARS had been bad, particularly in Hong Kong, but it could have been much, much worse.
A reporter calling me at home on a holiday about a possible disease outbreak was concerning, but not that unusual. The press sometimes had better, or at least faster, ground-level sources than I did as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and reporters were often the first to pick up on a new disease or situation. I told the reporter that I hadn’t heard anything, but that we would monitor the situation.
Monitoring, however, was not easy. For one thing, we had a hard time finding out what was really going on in China because doctors and scientists there appeared to be afraid to speak openly, for fear of retribution by the Chinese government.
In the first few days of 2020, the word coming out of Wuhan—a city of more than 11 million—suggested that the virus did not spread easily from human to human. Bob Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was already in contact with George Gao, his counterpart in China. During an early-January phone call, Bob reported that Gao had assured him that the situation was under control. A subsequent phone call was very different. Gao was clearly upset, Bob said, and told him that it was bad—much, much worse than people imagined.
“We don’t know what’s going on with this virus coming out of China right now,” I told the group assembled in a conference room at the National Institutes of Health. This was January 3, just 48 hours after the reporter had called me at home. The scientists sitting around the table, led by Vaccine Research Center Director John Mascola, knew what I was going to say next: “We are going to need a vaccine for whatever this new virus turns out to be.”
Among those present was Barney Graham, a gentle giant of a man at 6 feet 5 inches tall, and one of the world’s foremost vaccinologists. For years, Barney had been leading a group of scientists trying to develop the optimal immunogens for vaccines injected into the body. (An immunogen refers to the crucial part of any vaccine that generates the immune response.) They had been working with Moderna on a vaccine platform called mRNA, the result of groundbreaking research conducted over many years by Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman, who would win the Nobel Prize in 2023. “Get me the viral genomic sequence,” Barney said, “and we’ll get working on a vaccine in days.”
At this point, an FDA-approved vaccine had never before been made using mRNA technology, and although a lot of skepticism remained, my colleagues and I were very optimistic about it. Compared with other vaccines, the mRNA process is faster and more precise. The team needed the coronavirus’s genomic sequence so that it could pick out the part that codes for the spike protein (the immunogen) and, together with Moderna, use it to make the correct mRNA.
From the January/February 2021 issue: How science beat the virus
Only a week later, on January 10, I received an excited phone call from Barney: Scientists had just uploaded the SARS-CoV-2 sequence to a public database. Barney then immediately contacted a company that produces artificial strings of genetic code. He placed an order for the nucleotide sequence, and this lifesaving product was delivered in a small test tube packaged in a FedEx envelope. The modest charge was put on a credit card.
But soon after, Barney made a sobering point: A full-blown vaccine effort, including clinical trials, was going to cost a lot of money, far beyond what was in the Vaccine Research Center’s budget. I told him not to worry. “If this thing really explodes, I promise you, I will get us more money. You just go and make your vaccine.”
About an hour into a meeting in the White House Situation Room on January 29, concerning how to evacuate U.S. citizens from Wuhan, President Donald Trump walked in. The first thing he did, to my great surprise, was look right at me.
“Anthony,” he said, “you are really a famous guy. My good friend Lou Dobbs told me that you are one of the smartest, knowledgeable, and outstanding persons he knows.” I gulped. Thus began my first extended conversation with the 45th president of the United States. A big, imposing man, Trump had a New York swagger that I instantly recognized—a self-confident, backslapping charisma that reminded me of my own days in New York. For the next 20 minutes, as we discussed the new virus, the president directed many of his questions my way. I had met Trump only once before. In September 2019, I had been part of a group invited to the Oval Office for the signing of an executive order to manufacture and distribute flu vaccines. Prior to that, I had sometimes wondered what it would be like to interact with him. He had shocked me on day one of his presidency with his disregard of facts, such as the size of the crowd at his inauguration. His apocalyptic inaugural address also had taken me aback, as had his aggressive disrespect for the press. But at that brief signing ceremony, I had found him far more personable than I’d expected. Of course, I had no idea in January 2020 what the months and years ahead would be like.
I had confronted other terrible outbreaks over the course of my career—HIV in the 1980s, SARS in 2002 and 2003, Ebola in 2014, Zika in 2015—but none of them prepared me for the environment I would find myself in during the coronavirus pandemic. The nation was and is extremely polarized, with a large portion of Americans reflexively distrustful of expertise. On social media, anyone can pretend to be an expert, and malicious information is easily amplified. Soon I would come to learn just how dangerous these conditions can be.
I had confronted terrible outbreaks, but none of them prepared me for the environment I would find myself in during the coronavirus pandemic.
A code red went off in my mind during the week of January 23, when I saw photos in a newspaper showing that the Chinese government was quickly erecting a 1,000-bed prefabricated hospital. At that point, the virus had reportedly killed just 25 people and infected about 800, according to data the Chinese had released. Time out, I thought. Why would you need that many hospital beds when fewer than 1,000 people are infected? That was the moment I suspected we could be facing an unprecedented challenge, and my anxiety took a sharp turn upward.
By the very end of January, we were hearing that the cases in China were increasing by about 25 percent a day. Reportedly, more than 9,000 people were infected, and 213 people were dead. The number of infections in a single month had surpassed the 2002–03 SARS outbreak. The United States had discovered its first known case of this novel coronavirus on January 20; a 35-year-old man had returned home to Washington State from Wuhan with a severe cough and a fever. The CDC had already begun screening passengers at several U.S. airports, taking their temperature and asking them about symptoms such as a sore throat and a cough. We began to wonder: Should we recommend closing the United States to travelers from China? On January 31, seated in front of the Resolute desk, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, the CDC’s Bob Redfield, and I explained the details of a proposed travel ban to the president. He posed several questions specifically to me about whether I was fully on board with the ban. “It is an imperfect process with some downsides, Mr. President, but I believe it’s the best choice we have right now,” I told him. Later that day, the Trump administration announced that travel restrictions would go into effect.
The White House communications team began arranging for me to appear on news shows. The entire world was transfixed by this rapidly evolving outbreak, and I became the public face of the country’s battle with the disease. This was useful, in that I could both try to calm the country’s anxieties and provide factual information. But it also led to the gross misperception, which grew exponentially over time, that I was in charge of most or even all of the federal government’s response to the coronavirus. This would eventually make me the target of many people’s frustration and anger.
On February 11, the World Health Organization officially designated the disease caused by the novel coronavirus as COVID-19, which was now spreading relentlessly around the world. And in the midst of this, the CDC, the country’s premier public-health agency, was stumbling badly.
From the September 2020 issue: How the pandemic defeated America
The agency traditionally had a go-it-alone attitude, excluding input from outside sources. Its personnel were talented and deeply committed professionals. I respected them, and many were friends. But the CDC’s approach, which is based on tracking symptoms, was poorly suited to dealing with a swiftly spreading disease in which, it would later turn out, more than a substantial portion of the transmissions come from people who are asymptomatic. The CDC was slow to recognize and act on that.
Another vulnerability was the way the CDC was set up to collect data. Rather than obtaining data firsthand, the agency depended on public-health departments around the country—but those departments did not consistently provide complete, up-to-date data. Some provided information reflecting what had occurred weeks earlier, not the day before. As the disease kept spreading, what was actually happening was always far worse than what the CDC’s data were telling us at the time. Public-health officials had to constantly play catch-up.
The CDC had an outstanding track record for quickly creating tests for diseases like Zika. With COVID, however, instead of immediately partnering with the diagnostic industry, it started from scratch with a test that turned out to be defective. The agency then failed to fix the defect, and wasted even more time in developing adequate testing. February was a lost month as a result.
Although the CDC struggled, there was no mistaking the message delivered on February 25 by its director of immunization and respiratory diseases, Nancy Messonnier. She told reporters that a pandemic in the United States was no longer a matter of if but when, and that we should prepare to close schools and work remotely. “Disruption to everyday life may be severe,” she announced. Nancy did the right thing: She told Americans the truth. But not surprisingly, her statement caused a firestorm. The media erupted, and the stock market plummeted nearly 1,000 points. Trump was furious.
The next day, he announced that Vice President Mike Pence would take over for Alex Azar as the head of the White House coronavirus task force. I met Pence the day he ran his first task-force meeting. He was soft-spoken and always solicited the medical opinions of the physicians on the task force. He listened carefully to our answers, often asking astute follow-up questions and never pretending to understand something if he did not. But I also picked up on little things that indicated how differently this administration operated from previous ones. Vice presidents are always publicly loyal to the president; that is part of the job. But Pence sometimes overdid it. During task-force meetings, he often said some version of “There are a lot of smart people around here, but we all know that the smartest person in the building is upstairs.”
Others joined Pence in heaping praise on Trump. When the task force held teleconferences with governors, most of the Republicans started by saying, “Tell the president what a great job he is doing.” But a couple of days after Nancy’s bombshell announcement, when I got a surprise phone call from Trump at 10:35 p.m., I did not flatter him. What I did do during our 20-minute conversation was lay out the facts. I encouraged him not to underplay the seriousness of the situation. “That almost always comes back to bite you, Mr. President,” I said. “If you are totally honest about what is happening with COVID, the country will respect you for it.” He was courteous to me, and as we hung up, I felt satisfied that he had heard what I’d said.
I was worried about community spread, and I was particularly focused on Seattle. A longtime colleague called me from the city on March 3 and told me that 380 people with flu-like symptoms had been screened in four emergency rooms. Four had tested positive for COVID, a roughly 1 percent infection rate—that may not sound like much, but it was a clear signal that the virus was spreading among those unaware that they had been exposed. That meant the 1 percent was only a tiny fraction of what was actually already happening. When I brought this information to the task-force meeting, neither Pence nor Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin seemed to fully appreciate the seriousness of what I was telling them. While I was warning them of the impending disaster, the president was declaring outright to the press that the situation was under control. Without deliberately contradicting him, I kept repeating that things would get worse, and indeed they did.
During task-force meetings, Pence often said some version of “There are a lot of smart people around here, but we all know that the smartest person in the building is upstairs.”
Then, in one Oval Office meeting, I mentioned to Trump that we were in the early stages of developing a COVID vaccine. This got his attention, and he quickly arranged a trip to the NIH. During his visit, Barney Graham told the president that within a couple of weeks, a Phase 1 trial would likely begin. The president asked, “Why can’t we just use the flu vaccine for this virus?” It was not the first or the last time that he seemed to conflate COVID with influenza.
People associate science with immutable absolutes, when in fact science is a process that continually uncovers new information. As new information is uncovered, the process of science allows for self-correction. The biological and health sciences are different from the physical sciences and mathematics. With mathematics, two plus two equals four today, and two plus two will equal four 1,000 years from now. Not so with the biological sciences, where what we know evolves and uncertainty is common.
On March 8, I appeared on a 60 Minutes broadcast in a segment about COVID. At one point, I told the interviewer, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.” I was expressing not just a personal opinion, but the consensus at the time—a view shared by the surgeon general and the CDC.
The supply of masks was already low. One fear was that there would be a stampede, and we would create an even greater shortage of masks needed by the health-care workers taking care of very ill COVID patients. Although there was accumulating evidence that the virus was spread by aerosol, this was not widely accepted, certainly not by the WHO. When additional information became available—including that the virus was readily spread by infected people who had no symptoms—we advised the public to wear masks. But this was how I became the public-health official who, very early in the pandemic, instructed people not to wear a mask. Later, my words would be twisted by extreme elements in an attempt to show that I and other scientists had misled the public, that we could not be trusted, and that we were flip-floppers.
What I came to realize is that our country is more profoundly divided than I’d ever understood. I remember a time when people expected diverse political opinions. You didn’t have to agree, but you respected one another enough to listen. Now the partisanship is so intense that people refuse to even try. They ignore facts in favor of tribal politics. That’s how you wind up with dangerous conspiracy theories. The controversy over masks illustrates a fundamental misperception of how science works. In reality, our understanding of COVID continually evolved, and our medical advice had to change to reflect this.
March 2020 was when COVID became frighteningly real to Americans. This was also around the time I started waking up with a jolt at 4 a.m. to stare at the ceiling with worry. I believe Trump thought that COVID would be temporary: A little time goes by, the outbreak is over, everyone goes back to work, and the election cycle can begin. He could not have imagined that the pandemic would go on for such a long time. I think this explains why he repeatedly asked me and others whether COVID resembled the flu. He desperately wanted the pandemic to disappear, just as flu does at the end of the flu season. Tragically, COVID was not the flu, and it did not vanish. Just the opposite. And so, with the ghastly reality setting in, Trump began to grab for an elixir that would cure this disease. Along came hydroxychloroquine.
Trump began hearing from the Fox News star Laura Ingraham and others who were promoting the drug as a COVID treatment. People have long taken hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat malaria. It is also used to treat inflammatory and autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Soon Trump began touting it to millions of worried Americans at our now-daily press briefings. But there were no clinical studies proving that this antimalarial drug would alleviate COVID. And it might even hurt people. The president seemed unable to grasp that anecdotes of how hydroxychloroquine might have helped some people with COVID did not translate into solid medical advice. This is when I realized that eventually, I would have to refute him publicly. This was not the White House I had known, and I’d been advising presidents since the Reagan administration. The differences were going to dramatically affect the way I could do my job. “Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work,” I told reporters. After that, they would inevitably ask me if I agreed with something Trump had said, such as the idea that COVID would disappear “like a miracle.” I would then have to respond with the truth: “Well, that’s not going to happen.”
I took no pleasure in contradicting the president of the United States. I have always had a great deal of respect for the Office of the President, and to publicly disagree with the president was unnerving at best and painful at worst. But it needed to be done. I take very seriously a statement in the first chapter of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, of which I have been an editor for 40 years: “The patient is no mere collection of symptoms, signs, disordered functions, damaged organs, and disturbed emotions. [The patient] is human, fearful, and hopeful, seeking relief, help, and reassurance.” This compels me to always be honest; to be unafraid of saying that I do not know something; to never overpromise; to be comforting, yet realistic. Admitting uncertainty is not fashionable in politics these days, but it is essential in my work. That’s the beauty of science. You make a factual observation. If the facts change, the scientific process self-corrects. You gather new information and data that sometimes require you to change your opinion. This is how we better care for people over time. But too few people understand the self-corrective nature of science. In our daily press conferences, I tried to act as if the American public were my patient, and the principles that guided me through my medical career applied.
There is a widely circulated photo of me from a White House press briefing on March 20, in which I put my hand to my forehead in response to a comment the president had made. That day, Trump was especially flippant. He was standing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, making one provocative statement after another. Then he said, “Secretary of State Pompeo is extremely busy, so if you have any questions for him right now could you do that because … I’d like him to go back to the State Department or, as they call it, the ‘Deep State’ Department.” I had a moment of despair mixed with amusement. I put my hand to my forehead to hide my expression. This is when things began to get difficult for my family and me.
In late March, officials monitoring the dark web started to see a considerable amount of hostility and threats directed toward me. The problem was that a hard-core group saw me as a naysaying bureaucrat who was deliberately, even maliciously, undermining Trump. They loved and supported the president and regarded me as the enemy. To them, my hand-to-forehead moment validated what they already believed about me.
As a result, I was assigned a security detail. For years, AIDS had made me a target, but that was largely before social media. Back then, I used to get one or two insulting letters a month, mostly homophobic rants, sent to my office at the NIH. Now my family and I were barraged by emails, texts, and phone calls. I was outraged that my wife, Christine, and our daughters were harassed with foul language and sexually explicit messages, and threatened with violence and even death. I was angry and wanted to lash out. But these direct expressions of hatred did not distract or frighten me. I did not have time for fear. I had a job to do.
My training as a physician in a busy New York City hospital had taught me to push through crises and fatigue, to not feel sorry for myself. During the pandemic, Christine also insisted that I balance the demands of work with taking care of myself. (“You are going to bed at a decent hour, you are going to eat regular meals, and you are going to carry a water bottle,” she said in a way that left no room for argument.) Her advice helped me get through everything that followed.
But in the ensuing years, I also came to realize that addressing the root cause of our country’s division is beyond my capabilities as a scientist, physician, and public servant. That doesn’t mean I’ve given up hope that the country can be healed. I believe scientific education is more crucial now than it has ever been in American history. Children should learn what the scientific process is, how it works, and that it self-corrects. Most of all, I believe we need to reclaim civility. To do so, we need to understand that we’re all more alike than we are different—that we share common goals for ourselves and for our communities. We need to learn to talk to one another again. And we need to figure that out before the next pandemic hits.
This article was adapted from Anthony Fauci’s book On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service. It appears in the July/August 2024 print edition with the headline “The First Three Months.”
When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.