President Donald Trump’s ever-shifting trade war could cost the U.S. technology, media, and telecommunications (TMT) industry billions of dollars annually, according to a new PwC report analyzing the impact of ongoing tariffs. With heightened duties — particularly on imports from China — companies are scrambling to…

Read more...

“This is an awesome decision by Trump.”

What did Donald Trump just do, and who is this happy about it? Is this a Republican politician supporting the president’s plans for a tax cut, or perhaps a MAGA cheerleader applauding deportations? Perhaps it’s some right-wing pundit foot-stomping his approval for an executive order about trans athletes?

No. The “awesome decision” was to shut down the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the umbrella organization that provides support not only to Voice of America but also to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Martí, and Radio Free Asia, among other groups. And the clapping is coming not from Washington, but from Moscow. The pleased Trump fan is Margarita Simonyan, the head of RT and the media group that owns Russian-propaganda outlets such as Sputnik, and one of Russia’s most venomously anti-Western television commentators. (She once suggested that Russia should detonate a nuclear weapon over its own territory as a warning to the West about supporting Ukraine.)

Here’s her full comment (made on Russian television on Sunday night) regarding Trump’s order: “Today is a celebration for my colleagues at RT, Sputnik, and other outlets, because Trump unexpectedly announced that he’s closing down Radio Liberty and Voice of America, and now they’re closed. This is an awesome decision by Trump.”

Organizations such as the Voice of America and “the radios,” as they have been called collectively over the years, are among America’s best instruments of soft power. (VOA was created to counter Nazi propaganda during World War II.) During the Cold War, people behind the Iron Curtain relied on these institutions, and especially on RFE/RL, not because they wanted to hear an American point of view—they already knew all about that—but because they wanted news, real information that they could trust.  These are not independent news organizations: They receive support from the U.S. government and other sources. But the journalists at VOA and the radios are not mouthpieces for any government. They are professionals who report and broadcast news and interviews in multiple languages around the world—much to the ire of authoritarian states that wish to control what their citizens read and hear.

Turning off these sources was not some slapdash DOGE move. Trump personally signed an executive order on Friday, shutting down what a White House statement absurdly called “the Voice of Radical America.” And if the order stands—USAGM is chartered by Congress as an independent agency, and Trump likely does not have the authority to close it down by fiat—he will have succeeded in gutting crucial sources of information relied on by millions of people living under repressive governments. As Max Boot wrote in The Washington Post on Sunday, “All of this amounts to a stunning and self-defeating repudiation of America’s legacy as a beacon of freedom around the world.”

[Read: Paranoia is winning]

Trump has long had a grudge against Voice of America in particular; he has accused VOA of skewing its coverage to the left, and of supporting President Joe Biden in the 2024 campaign. He also recently bristled at what he thought was an impertinent question from a VOA reporter regarding Gaza. (“Who are you with?” the president asked the reporter. When she answered that she was from VOA, Trump said, “Oh, no wonder.”)

But this is more than just a spat with VOA. By killing off USAGM and the organizations that depend on it, Trump is pulling a thorn from the paws of the world’s worst regimes, the people he seems to believe are his natural political allies and co-religionists. (The news about VOA and Radio Free Asia was happily received in Beijing, for example, where a state-run media outlet cheered the end of America’s “lie factory” and its “demonizing narratives” about China.)

RFE/RL also monitors the press and events in other nations, and provides in-depth analysis of events there that mainstream Western media do not have the time or space to explore. I know this because I wrote some of these reports as a guest analyst for Radio Liberty’s research arm back in the 1980s, during the Cold War. (My first article for RL was a discussion of developments in Soviet civil-military relations.) Throughout my career as a Soviet and Russian expert, I counted on RFE/RL for information from Eurasia. I knew that its reporters overseas faced significant risks from the governments they covered and hostility from autocracies—as well as various terrorist groups—that wanted to silence them. Before the Soviet Union’s downfall, RFE/RL was based in Munich; later, it moved to a campus in the Czech Republic with security rivaling that of a military base.

Trump, who regards any media he cannot control as a political enemy, is anxious to shut down these vessels of news and information. Once closed, they will no longer annoy him, and he will get a pat on the back from people such as Simonyan. But the new director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, seems eager to see it all burn as well. Indeed, she’s so enthused that yesterday, she shared an X post from Ian Miles Cheong, a Malaysia-based right-wing podcaster and journalist manqué. (He has written for RT and is still listed on its website.) His post claimed that these organizations “produced and disseminated far-left propaganda” and “perpetuated a pro-war narratives against Russia.”

It’s one thing for the DNI to say that she supports the president’s decision; it’s another to see her reposting material from an online provocateur who came to prominence fighting on Reddit over “Gamergate” a decade ago. (I contacted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to ask if Gabbard agrees with Cheong and believes he is a reliable source of information. ODNI has not responded.)

No one should really be surprised that Gabbard is amplifying such nonsense. As I wrote last November, her views are so pro-Russian that allowing her to serve as DNI constitutes a national-security threat. But you don’t have to take my word for it: The journalist Julia Davis, who monitors Russian media, has kept track of the affection with which Gabbard is regarded in Russia. In December, the Russian state-television host Evgeny Popov surveyed Trump’s prospective Cabinet nominees and declared that none of them were “friends of Russia, except for Tulsi Gabbard.” And Vladimir Solovyov, a talk-show host whose rants are depraved even by the low standards of Russian television, referred to Gabbard as “our girlfriend Tulsi.” (“Is she some sort of a Russian agent?” another guest asked. “Yes,” Solovyov snapped.)

Now, some of this gloating in the Russian media is likely just an attempt to pull on American pigtails. The Russians are very good at this game, and they know that referring to the DNI as Russia’s “girlfriend” will throw some Americans into a swivet. But if Gabbard isn’t a Vladimir Putin supporter, she’s doing a good imitation of one: Any sensible American politician would dread a public association with Cheong—today he referred to Russia’s horrendous 2022 massacre of civilians in the town of Bucha as a “hoax”—but Gabbard thought highly enough of his comments to send them out under her official X account.

The courts may yet stop Trump’s assault on USAGM, although if the agency survives, it will be headed by Kari Lake, who has her own irresponsible plans for VOA. (If there is one bright spot in all of this, it is that Trump’s executive order may have put Lake out of a job.) But regardless of the eventual legal outcome, the president is proudly showing America and the alliance of democracies it once led that he is on the side of the world’s dictators. The Kremlin and other autocracies have long ached to see Voice of America and Radio Liberty destroyed, but even in their most fevered dreams, they could never have imagined that the Americans would do the dirty work themselves.

Editor’s note: This analysis is part of The Atlantic’s investigation into the Library Genesis data set. You can access the search tool directly here. Find The Atlantic’s search tool for movie and television writing used to train AI here.

When employees at Meta started developing their flagship AI model, Llama 3, they faced a simple ethical question. The program would need to be trained on a huge amount of high-quality writing to be competitive with products such as ChatGPT, and acquiring all of that text legally could take time. Should they just pirate it instead?

Meta employees spoke with multiple companies about licensing books and research papers, but they weren’t thrilled with their options. This “seems unreasonably expensive,” wrote one research scientist on an internal company chat, in reference to one potential deal, according to court records. A Llama-team senior manager added that this would also be an “incredibly slow” process: “They take like 4+ weeks to deliver data.” In a message found in another legal filing, a director of engineering noted another downside to this approach: “The problem is that people don’t realize that if we license one single book, we won’t be able to lean into fair use strategy,” a reference to a possible legal defense for using copyrighted books to train AI.

Court documents released last night show that the senior manager felt it was “really important for [Meta] to get books ASAP,” as “books are actually more important than web data.” Meta employees turned their attention to Library Genesis, or LibGen, one of the largest of the pirated libraries that circulate online. It currently contains more than 7.5 million books and 81 million research papers. Eventually, the team at Meta got permission from “MZ”—an apparent reference to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—to download and use the data set.

This act, along with other information outlined and quoted here, recently became a matter of public record when some of Meta’s internal communications were unsealed as part of a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought against the company by Sarah Silverman, Junot Díaz, and other authors of books in LibGen. Also revealed recently, in another lawsuit brought by a similar group of authors, is that OpenAI has used LibGen in the past. (A spokesperson for Meta declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation against the company. OpenAI did not return a request for comment.)

Until now, most people have had no window into the contents of this library, even though they have likely been exposed to generative-AI products that use it; according to Zuckerberg, the “Meta AI” assistant has been used by hundreds of millions of people (it’s embedded in Meta products such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram). To show the kind of work that has been used by Meta and OpenAI, I accessed a snapshot of LibGen’s metadata—revealing the contents of the library without downloading or distributing the books or research papers themselves—and used it to create an interactive database that you can search here:

There are some important caveats to keep in mind. Knowing exactly which parts of LibGen that Meta and OpenAI used to train their models, and which parts they might have decided to exclude, is impossible. Also, the database is constantly growing. My snapshot of LibGen was taken in January 2025, more than a year after it was accessed by Meta, according to the lawsuit, so some titles here wouldn’t have been available to download at that point.  

LibGen’s metadata are quite disorganized. There are errors throughout. Although I have cleaned up the data in various ways, LibGen is too large and error-strewn to easily fix everything. Nevertheless, the database offers a sense of the sheer scale of pirated material available to models trained on LibGen. Cujo, The Gulag Archipelago, multiple works by Joan Didion translated into several languages, an academic paper named “Surviving a Cyberapocalypse”—it’s all in here, along with millions of other works that AI companies could feed into their models.

Meta and OpenAI have both argued in court that it’s “fair use” to train their generative-AI models on copyrighted work without a license, because LLMs “transform” the original material into new work. The defense raises thorny questions and is likely a long way from resolution. But the use of LibGen raises another issue. Bulk downloading is often done with BitTorrent, the file-sharing protocol popular with pirates for its anonymity, and downloading with BitTorrent typically involves uploading to other users simultaneously. Internal communications show employees saying that Meta did indeed torrent LibGen, which means that Meta could have not only accessed pirated material but also distributed it to others—well established as illegal under copyright law, regardless of what the courts determine about the use of copyrighted material to train generative AI. (Meta has claimed that it “took precautions not to ‘seed’ any downloaded files” and that there are “no facts to show” that it distributed the books to others.) OpenAI’s download method is not yet known.

Meta employees acknowledged in their internal communications that training Llama on LibGen presented a “medium-high legal risk,” and discussed a variety of “mitigations” to mask their activity. One employee recommended that developers “remove data clearly marked as pirated/stolen” and “do not externally cite the use of any training data including LibGen.” Another discussed removing any line containing ISBN, Copyright, ©, All rights reserved. A Llama-team senior manager suggested fine-tuning Llama to “refuse to answer queries like: ‘reproduce the first three pages of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.”’” One employee remarked that “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right.”

It is easy to see why LibGen appeals to generative-AI companies, whose products require huge quantities of text. LibGen is enormous, many times larger than Books3, another pirated book collection whose contents I revealed in 2023. Other works in LibGen include recent literature and nonfiction by prominent authors such as Sally Rooney, Percival Everett, Hua Hsu, Jonathan Haidt, and Rachel Khong, and articles from top academic journals such as Nature, Science, and The Lancet. It includes many millions of articles from top academic-journal publishers such as Elsevier and Sage Publications.

[Read: These 183,000 books are fueling the biggest fight in publishing and tech]

LibGen was created around 2008 by scientists in Russia. As one LibGen administrator has written, the collection exists to serve people in “Africa, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, China, Russia and post-USSR etc., and on a separate note, people who do not belong to academia.” Over the years, the collection has ballooned as contributors piled in more and more pirated work. Initially, most of LibGen was in Russian, but English-language work quickly came to dominate the collection. LibGen has grown so quickly and avoided being shut down by authorities thanks in part to its method of dissemination. Whereas some other libraries are hosted in a single location and require a password to access, LibGen is shared in different versions by different people via peer-to-peer networks.

Many in the academic world have argued that publishers have brought this type of piracy on themselves, by making it unnecessarily difficult and expensive to access research. Sci-Hub, a sibling of LibGen, was launched independently in 2011 by a Kazakhstani neuroscience student named Alexandra Elbakyan, whose university didn’t provide access to the big academic databases. In that same year, the hacktivist Aaron Swartz was arrested after taking millions of articles from JSTOR in an attempt to build a similar kind of library.

Publishers have tried to stop the spread of pirated material. In 2015, the academic publisher Elsevier filed a complaint against LibGen, Sci-Hub, other sites, and Elbakyan personally. The court granted an injunction, directed the sites to shut down, and ordered Sci-Hub to pay Elsevier $15 million in damages. Yet the sites remained up, and the fines went unpaid. A similar story played out in 2023, when a group of educational and professional publishers, including Macmillan Learning and McGraw Hill, sued LibGen. This time the court ordered LibGen to pay $30 million in damages, in what TorrentFreak called “one of the broadest anti-piracy injunctions we’ve seen from a U.S. court.” But that fine also went unpaid, and so far authorities have been largely unable to constrain the spread of these libraries online. Seventeen years after its creation, LibGen continues to grow.

[Read: There’s no longer any doubt that Hollywood writing is powering AI]

All of this certainly makes knowledge and literature more accessible, but it relies entirely on the people who create that knowledge and literature in the first place—that labor that takes time, expertise, and often money. Worse, generative-AI chatbots are presented as oracles that have “learned” from their training data and often don’t cite sources (or cite imaginary sources). This decontextualizes knowledge, prevents humans from collaborating, and makes it harder for writers and researchers to build a reputation and engage in healthy intellectual debate. Generative-AI companies say that their chatbots will themselves make scientific advancements, but those claims are purely hypothetical.

One of the biggest questions of the digital age is how to manage the flow of knowledge and creative work in a way that benefits society the most. LibGen and other such pirated libraries make information more accessible, allowing people to read original work without paying for it. Yet generative-AI companies such as Meta have gone a step further: Their goal is to absorb the work into profitable technology products that compete with the originals. Will these be better for society than the human dialogue they are already starting to replace?

China's embassy in Ottawa has confirmed executions of four dual Canadian-Chinese citizens for drug offences.

The Chinese embassy in Canada said evidence for the Canadians' crimes was "solid and sufficient".